I did a similar diary to this one about what Minnesota will look like after the courts get to draw the maps. Judges have long been the cartographers of Minnesota. In fact, no one other than judges have drawn the congressional districts in Minnesota in my parents' lifetime. So this year is no different, and is par for the courts.
Almost without exception, the courts produce maps that are compact, fair, respect county/city lines almost to a fault, and communities of interest. This year, the cheif justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, Lorie Gildea (R) has appointed 5 judges to draw the maps. The partisan breakdown of the judges is 1D-2R-2I(Independence Party of Minnesota, not a true independent in the way a lot of people here would associate with the term). Don't panic, because the 5 judges will almost certainly pick a map unanimously (strong precedent for this), and the judges in Minnesota tend to be less bitingly partisan, regardless of party affiliation. Anyways, Republicans will moan, and the DFL will grumble, because neither side will get what they really want.
Here is what I honestly feel the courts will draw.
Here is a zoomed in version of the metro area
1st district (Blue) This is Tim Walz district, that is essentially Rochester+Mankato+cornfields. Walz is from Mankato. The district changes very very little (which stands to reason, as the old district was drawn by a similar court). In fact, the only real change is adding part of Wabasha county, which is very marginal. The district retains it's PVI around EVEN, and Walz is safe here for the foreseeable future. One thing of note, Rochester used to be a Republican bastion, and the base of Walz' predecessor, Republican Gil Geutknect. Times have changed, and Rochester is now center-left, and is a grown percentage of the population of this district as the farm land empties population.
2nd district: This is the home of one of the more sneaky politicians no one ever pays attention to: John Kline. He is as conservative as Michele Bachmann in the neighboring 6th, but nowhere near as vocal, and nowhere near the electoral liability. He is the chairman of the education committee (Show of hands, who honestly knew that John Kline was the Education Chairman). His current district is R+4, and will stay approximately R+4. He loses population in blood-red Carver County, but also loses population in moderate Wabasha County. This district is safe for him, and ancestrally Republican enough to send a potential another Republican to congress if he were to retire.
3rd: This is a district that I really thinks makes a LOT of sense, and it does not do 2 things that it doesn't have to: 1) crack Minneapolis. 2) leave Hennepin County. Paulsen is safe here, and this is ancestrally Republican, and reflexively so at the congressional level. I know this isn't all that popular at Daily Kos, but Paulsen isn't going anywhere. Yes, he is a conservative in an Obama district, yes he faced a weak opponent in 2010, but he won't lose. His predecessor didn't lose either, so Paulsen will be around until he wants another promotion.
4th: Betty McCollum/Michele Bachmann. Bachmann would never run here, and she will likely not run for reelection, so I didn't care where I put her house (the courts won't care about houses either). McCallum and her St. Paul-based seat are safe. It is all of Ramsey County, and about 50% of Washington County. Not much to see here other than not splitting any unnecessary counties. Safe D
5th. This district contains all of Minneapolis, the remainder of Hennepin County not in the 3rd, and the remaining population comes from the bluer portions of Anoka County (The southern part). Keith Ellison represents this district (I have been told to refrain from making comments about him directly, from David, so I won't). This has the effect of a a DFL vote sink, but it makes geographic and CoI sense. Safe D for anyone, including a dead girl/live boy situation.
6th. Chip Cravaack's district*. This comes with an asterisk, as the only overlap between his current district, and this one are 2 small-ish, and very conservative counties, Isanti and Chisago. Cravaack or Bachmann would be safe here, and this is the most Republican seat in the state. The 6th needed to shed an absolute ton of population due to exurban sprawl. It loses half of marginal suburban Washington County, and the St. Cloud portion (marginal) of Stearns County (very conservative). It probably sits at R+8 in this configuration, and Republicans are hard pressed to try and lose this part of the state. Bachmann has tried to lose it, and failed twice, albeit narrowly both times.
7th. Everyone on the liberal blogosphere's least favorite midwestern Democrat, Colin Peterson lives here. This district is massive in size (Somewhere just slightly smaller than Kentucky). There is a lot of farmland, and Peterson is very popular with the more-populist-than-normal farmers. The district sits at about R+6 or R+7 at the presidential level, but it is a lot more DFL-friendly locally (The "F" is for farmer, FWIW). Peterson wins here as long as he wants the seat. It will be a tough hold once he retires, but there are other DFLers cut from his same cloth in the area, so it could be a potential hold, but a Lean/Likely R seat if he hangs it up.
8th. Home sweet home. This is where I was born, and where the bulk of my family still lives. The Iron Range and Duluth are at its core. It loses exurban counties in the south, and picks up St. Cloud in exchange, as the population deviance is very small. It is D+3 or D+4 at the presidential level, but exceedingly DFL-friendly at the local level. Oberstar screwed the pooch at a debate, and it cost him an election to Chip Cravaack. This issue will not resurface, as the Republican "base" in the district has been removed, as the northern frince suburbs don't belong in a northwoods district, and a court would agree with me there.
That is Minnesota in a nutshell. The courts take it from here, but I believe that they will take the map they drew 10 years ago, shift population to match the census, and that will be the only real changes made.