Constitutional amendment changing the composition apportionment of legislative districts
Summary
SF696 proposes a constitutional amendment that would change how Minnesota legislative districts are drawn and how many legislators serve in each chamber. Under the proposed amendment, the Minnesota Senate would be apportioned by county, with one senate district for each county territory, while the House of Representatives would continue to be apportioned by population across the state. The bill also revises the constitutional language to reflect this structure and submits the question to voters at the 2026 general election.
In addition to the constitutional change, the bill makes conforming statutory amendments to Minnesota Statutes sections 2.021 and 2.031. Those statutes would be updated to set the Senate at 87 members and the House at 134 members, with one senator elected from each of 87 senate districts and one representative from each of 134 house districts. The statutory changes would take effect only if voters approve the constitutional amendment.
Impact
If adopted, the bill would substantially alter Minnesota’s legislative apportionment framework by moving the Senate from population-based districting to county-based representation, while leaving the House tied to population equality. It would amend the state constitution and update related statutes governing the number of legislators and the structure of legislative districts. The practical effect would be to change redistricting rules, representation patterns, and the balance of political power among counties and regions of the state.
Sentiment
The available record shows introduction and referral to the Senate Elections Committee, but no committee transcript, recorded debate, or vote history. As a result, there is no documented legislative sentiment in the provided materials beyond the bill’s formal proposal. The bill’s subject matter suggests it is a significant structural change to legislative representation, which typically draws strong views, but the provided record does not show support or opposition from specific lawmakers or groups.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the shift to county-based Senate representation, because it departs from the usual population-based apportionment principle and could give smaller counties relatively greater influence than more populous areas. Supporters would likely frame the change as improving geographic balance and county representation, while opponents would likely argue it weakens equal-population representation and could distort voter equality. The bill also raises questions about whether the proposed Senate structure would comply with broader constitutional redistricting norms, but no formal objections are recorded in the provided materials.