My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by
9-20-21 v4 CD
Your comment has been added to the map.
Labels visible at zoom level 10.
Labels visible at zoom level 13.
Labels visible at zoom level 15.
Labels visible at zoom level 17.
Current Map Zoom:
2020 Census PL 94.171 Data
Do not combine part of Muskegon County with Kent County. They are separate counties with different needs.
No, I do not agree on combining part of Muskegon County with Kent County.
John Michael Elsen
This is another good make and keeps Midlands focus on ESG. We will have a greater impact on improving the environment, social, and governance of the area. Midlands future is to the North and South.
Do not add Muskegon to Kent county. We are completely different and should remain separate.
Do not add Muskegon to Grand Rapids. We are entirely different than Grand Rapids and deserve to remain as we are. It seems like a grab for blue votes to me!
Madison Heights fits better with Oakland County communities like Troy or Royal Oak than Wayne County. Also, why have a district that is split between 3 different counties? Seems like 1 should be the goal, and 2 should be the max as every county is different. At only 30k and 16k respectively there's no reason why Madison Heights and Hazel Park couldn't fit into district 6.
If this is your final map without changes on Redistricting Congressional 8, I’m pleased that this map does not divide communities. However I’m now hearing that divisions of Counties are happening? Please don’t fall to the gerrymandering and unite our communities as we voted upon on this proposal. Sadly, Last hour changes to your plan will draw great suspicion and unsettle your hard work.
Keep the District Areas by County. It has been like this for years. Do not 'take' from one area and 'add' it to another. People make their decisions where to live for economic reasons. What you are trying to do is 'Stack the Deck' in your favor by selecting areas based upon political preferences.
This absolutely makes no sense to combine Grand Rapids, Kent County and Muskegon together. Muskegon County has different requirements, desires and community goals. These current proposed districts appear to be politically motivated and that should not be the case because that is gerrymandering! Each community has its different values and community needs and goals and us on the lakeshore have different governing needs than elsewhere. We need our community and individual voices to be heard equally but these proposed boundaries will not give us a greater voice but suppress it. This is a bad idea and I vote NO!
This district is nonsensical. Under no circumstance does this actually make sense.
This map is better than the other later maps - Grosse Ile has more in common with Wyandotte, Southgate, Trenton, etc and more in common with Ann Arbor and Ypsi than it does the very, very rural areas in the later maps.
Why would part of Muskegon County be grouped with Grand Rapids? This makes no sense until one zooms in on the map and sees that it is the heaviest density of businesses in the county that is being included with Grand Rapids! Shame on you. This looks like an obvious tactic to use part of our county for someone else's agenda. Muskegon County deserves to be represented in its entirety with all the other lake shore counties. Please do not lump us in with Kent County - they have much different issues than we do. Keep Muskegon County whole! Thank you.
The democrats are gerrymandering with the 4th.
This is a great map. Keeps Midland County whole. We are grouped with rural areas around Midland. Many of the workers at my business are coming to Midland from the Gladwin and Isabella counties. This map keeps the City of Midland together with the areas that have experienced the issues with the dams failing and flooding. We have very little in common with Flint and Saginaw. We have very different school systems and the crime rates are very different. The issues that require significant work in Flint and Saginaw are much different than those in the City of Midland. This is a great map.
I truly appreciate this district as mapped. It has connected communities of similar population, industry, and activities. It gives a voice to communities that have shared ideals & outlook that may not be heard otherwise. Thank you for your hard work, dedication, & commitment to our state.
This proposed map shows an unexplainable stretch to group part of Muskegon county with Grand Rapids/Kent County. There is no good reason I can think of to group Muskegon with the landlocked Kent county. Muskegon County in its entirety should be grouped with the lakeshore, with whom it shares a greater amount of common interests. This is an obvious play of gerrymandering, and I hope it will be soundly rejected.
Thank you! I appreciate our rural areas being kept together in District 8 and our communities of interest being considered, i.e., Raisin River, farming communities and lakes communities, schools, hospitals.
Muskegon is a unique area and deserves its own unique representation rather than being lumped in with Kent County/Grand Rapids. They are distinctly different populations with different concerns. Muskegon would effectively loose representation as all focus would be on Grand Rapids.
This map is good as it keeps Midland County together and with our watershed partner Gladwin county. Midland does not have the urban issues facing Saginaw and Flint and we should be separate in our representation.
Muskegon County should absolutely NOT be combined with Kent County. Kent County always tries to consider themselves the Lakeshore, and they are not. We live here and DO NOT want it combined! This is redrawing lines for strategic political purposes. Muskegon County has different needs than Grand Rapids and is an hour away. DO NOT DO THIS!!!
In any southwestern Michigan district, Berrien County needs to be kept whole and Niles should definitely be included. I also think Berrien, Van Buren and Kalamazoo counties form a solid district along the I-94 corridor, much like the old 6th district.
I am concerned that the proposal moves Canton in to another district and clubbing it with cities in the Washtenaw county. I urge to keep Novi and Canton together in the same District. Thanks in advance for the consideration.
Mark Preston Mathias
If I have clicked on the correct button for my district which includes the City of Jackson in which I live, I wish to thank you for what I believe to be a fair representation of my community. I cannot speak for those several outlying areas that got included which are not in Jackson county, but I do believe that we in Jackson county benefit from working together and being represented together. Thank you.
I like that my community stays in tact. I was worried the lines wouldn't be fair but this looks pretty good and I feel we would be represented in a fair way. Thank you
District 3 can be better drawn to unite the Detroit exurbs in northern and western Oakland County rather than combining them with the thumb in District 10. As someone from Independence Township, I do not have any mutual interests (economic, political, or otherwise) with communities in the thumb, but rather those in Oakland County like Rochester Hills, Novi, Wixom, West Bloomfield, and Pontiac. The population loss in District 10 can be offset by adding Utica, Washington Township, Clinton Township, etc. to 10 and uniting the rest of Warren in 6. The new District 3 would unite the Oakland County exurban areas of metro Detroit and would be highly competitive on a partisan level, while still allowing a VRA district to unite Southfield and Detroit. An image of such a proposed district is attached.
Thank you for listening to our opinions and concerns. I own properties and have several clients in different rural counties. It helps when these areas share common government regulations and concerns. I appreciate your hard work in all of this! Thank you!
I appreciate that you have kept Lenawee County included with other border counties in the proposed Congressional District 8 map. These counties all have similar demographics, being largely rural and small town communities. As such they share many of the same challenges. Including them in the same district is important in helping their common needs to be efficiently met. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
I think District 3 mostly makes sense for the City of Pontiac. Including it in a district with Southfield and the southern parts of Oakland County make sense. I do agree that Madison Heights should continue to stick with its Oakland County communities as it has been similar to the changes occurring at the southern part of the county and fits with communities of interest there. This is NOT partisan, my family grew up in Madison Heights and lives in Troy and there's a lot of connection there.
I appreciate the effort you have made in keeping communities of interest intact. I am a board member of the Jackson District Library and spoke at the initial districting meeting stressing the importance in keeping all 13 branches of the Jackson County library community in the same district as we offer many important services to our community. This current map keeps 12 of the branches together, but excludes the Grass Lake Branch located at 130 W. Michigan Ave. in Grasslake, MI 49240. I suggest possibly swapping the small portion of Berrien County with Grasslake (keeping Jackson County whole) to keep the Jackson District Library community of interest whole. Thank you for your consideration!
Deborah Lynn Baker
I like this map. It keeps Calhoun County complete, and doesn't lump us in with Kalamazoo. I feel that my voice would be lost by lumping us in with Kalamazoo and Portage. This map does a wonderful job of keeping my Community of Interest intact. Great job!
Thank you commissioners for your time on this project. I like that you have kept the rural border counties intact (district 8). I think this is important for our communities.
James MacWilliam Aidala
I believe the commission is on the right track here - Including Muskegon with the GR area is probably the fairest outcome in any scenario. The population of the 3rd district without it would have to expand either into rural areas - favoring the GOP - or grab voters from Kzoo and Battle Creek - favoring Dems - to make up for the shortfall. The current layout is rated to have a partisan lean of R +1, which I believe is much closer to the reality of the population in the area trying to be represented. While Muskegon may be on the lakeshore and is certainly distinct in ways from GR, I can only imagine how different Muskegon would be from Mt. Pleasant or any of the rural areas that comprise most of the 13th. Even a short trip up to Sparta or to Newaygo county shows the already stark differences in population, despite their proximity relative to GR. The fine details and compaction can be sorted out with time, but please keep this idea intact. Thank you.
The demographics of Albion and Battle Creek do not sync with the municipalities of the southern boarder counties.
I like this layout.
Why are we including Muskegon in district 4, yet north Ottawa with 13. This is obvious gerrymandering. Also, District 9 needs more people. Please Add North Ottawa to Dist 4, and Add Muskegon to District 13.
Muskegon and Norton Shores should not be part of the GR area. Plus you have holland and grand haven in a diff area. Muskegon, GH and Holland should be in the same area and GR should have the same also
I really like this map. Lenawee county has a lot of connections and similar interests to the areas you put in District 8. I hope you keep this.
This is quite a stretch of the goal of geographically compact districts. There is no reason for GR to be in the same district as lakeshore communities except to 'pack' voters. Put Muskegon county in District 13 and add more of Kent county to District 4.
Thank you for all the hard work drawing the congressional district maps. The 8th district does represent our communities of interests with the other rural/border counties. Thank you for keeping rural counties together. Please keep this map as drawn.
I want to thank you for listening to our voices in the more rural counties, by uniting us so that our voices don't get lost, mixing us with more metropolitan areas. Our livelihoods, school districts, and community concerns are similar in these areas, as opposed to those of more urban areas. Also, the counties you have left together share funds, resources, and often collaborate educationally.
Don't divide Muskegon County. Our whole county considers City of Muskegon our downtown. This map would divide our inner city from our suburbs and instead connect have our community with Grand Rapids, which we have nothing in common with. Please keep our whole county together. The lakeshore is very different than Kent County.
Good job keeping the rural aspects of the district intact.
Responding to Jennifer Austin's comment - I really like the map she linked. It takes the general idea of this map, but fixes some of the issues. The only thing I disagree with in her comment is the idea that 4 D, 4 R, 5 Competitive is a bad thing - I think that's inevitable with our states' political geography. And 5 competitive districts is a lot compared to many states. Texas and Oregon are both poised to pass partisan maps that would only include one competitive district in each state, for instance.
Barry County should not be lumped in Kalamazoo, Holland, St Joseph or Benton Harbor in District 9. Our County is rural compared to those cities. We will have no voice in matters as they will be over shadowed by issues in high population areas. We should be with other areas that have similar population types. How about adding the southeast corner of Berrien county to District 9 and adding Barry County to District 8.
Thank you for your hard work commissioners! Those negative comments in district 6 and 1 are partisan. Warren and Madison Heights fit better with District 1. Troy, Rochester Hills, Sterling Heights belong together. This also represent the Chaldean community! Hopefully we will have a bigger voice and a representative who would care about our values! Please Keep this map as is! Thank you commissioners! :)
This map makes the most sense as it gives those of us in rural communities representation For too many years we were lumped in with big cities and our voices were not valued Our needs are not the same as people who live in bigger cities
Battle Creek needs to be kept with Kalamazoo. The two cities are so intertwined. We share an airport, watershed council, and several economic development initiatives. It's absurd to split them up
I agree with other comments that the City of Midland is better grouped with Bay City and Saginaw. I'd include Mt Pleasant too if possible. Many people live in one of these cities and work in another along the M-20 and I-75 corridors. Much of northern Midland, Bay, and Isabella counties is rural farming country, but half the population of Midland County is in the city which is home to a large regional hospital and the Dow Chemical headquarters and manufacturing which is decidedly not rural. There are also several colleges and mid-sized to large universities located in Mt Pleasant, Midland, Saginaw, and Bay City including Delta which has campuses in two of these three cities. If Flint is also in the same district, it is also a manufacturing city with a large university.
I agree that the northeast portion of the Lower Peninsula fits well (mostly rural and small towns) with most of the Upper Peninsula, but the northwest portion is demographically and culturally quite different. It would make more sense to extend district 12 further south into Roscommon, Gladwin, Clare and northern Bay County. The northwest part of the Lower Peninsula could then be extended from the Straits to include Ludington, which is again more like the other coastal towns. I have lived all over the Lower Peninsula and don't believe residents of these areas would agree with this map.
This CD is perfect, many shared similarities between the communities. Good job.
Douglas Kyle Nelson
Niles needs to be with the rest of Berrien County. As a former resident I feel that Niles and eastern Berrien County reflect with all of Berrien County and Van Buren.
I believe keeping Washtenaw whole is important and the Plymouth-Canton community is the most natural partner. Thank you!
I don't understand why group cities like Melvindale, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Rouge & Ecorse with . . . . the Grosse Pointes, Harper Woods, Madison Heights, and parts of Warren. .. There is not much affiliation between those far-flung areas nor COI that I can conceive.
Correcting my last comment, it seems that this part of Ottawa was intended to be placed in District 9 but was put in 13 by error. District 9 is about 26k underpopulated and 13 is 26k overpopulated.
District 13 is not contiguous the way it is drawn here. No way is that legally acceptable. I'm honestly shocked the MICRC would draw something that way.
I agree this needs to be modified to be a more reasonable shape. That being said, it is absolutely essential that a district like this be drawn. I live in Norton Shores and work in Muskegon public schools. Our school district is a majority students of color including one third Black and 10% Latinx. Nearly 90% of our students receive free or reduced lunch and 25% don't have internet at home. This is the reality of living in a community faced with historical racism and disinvestment. Our kids face real challenges that students in white, more affluent schools generally do not. It is essential that we be grouped with other diverse communities facing similar challenges so that we will have a representative who is fighting for our kids and making sure we have the funding we need to give them the same opportunities their white peers have. #BlackKidsMatter
This is a fair map for the Livingston County area. It's a 50/50 map for partisan purposes. It also respects the wishes of the majority of commenters to keep Livingston County whole and not put us with Washtenaw County.
I believe district 6 should include the entire city of Warren, such a highly populated community shouldn't be split in half. Can take off some of the most northern portions to make an easy fix.
I am focused on Midland, placed in proposed District 13 of this proposed map for US Congressional Districts (#181). This map is NOT good, as it ignores completely the long-time association of the Tri-Cities: Midland, Bay City, and Saginaw, that fits best with Flint. The Tri-Cities, known more recently as the Great Lakes Bay Region, forms a clear community of interest that should be maintained in Congressional representation. This map places Midland, a suburban/urban community, with rural communities that stretch all the way across the state to the shore of Lake Michigan. There would be no representation of Midland's common interests with our sister cities--economic, cultural, educational, etc.--with this map. Midland has an industrial economic base, not a rural/agricultural one. There are other maps that combine Midland with our sister cities of Bay City and Saginaw, and with Flint, which more closely align with our common interests (for example map #141). Please do NOT use this #181 map. It does not adequately represent Midland.
Sonja Marie Patrick
Battle Creek does not belong with Kalamazoo. I live in Emmett Township, I was injured in Iraq in 2003 from a mortar round. I am unable to move because my home had to be adapted to my limitations. If you put me with Kalamazoo, I will never have a voice. The University students will overshadow me. There are more Veterans here in similar situations. Please don't take away any chance we have left to have a representative who will work on behalf of Veterans. Thank you
Not sure if it's possible to see the map I attached, so I'll describe my suggestion in words: District 4 should include the Muskegon area (Laketon, N. Muskegon, City, RP, Norton Shores, Heights, Musk Twp, Eggleston, Fruitport), the Grand Haven area (GH, Spring Lake, GH Twp, Spring Lake Twp), and the Kent County Grand Rapids Metro (Core 6 plus the first ring of Townships without going into Ottawa County). They should be linked by the portion of Ottawa County that is north of the Grand River (Coopersville, Marne, etc). Then District 9 should get the rest of Ottawa County. To make up for the extra population, District 13 should get Barry County and Richland and Ross Townships in Kalamazoo County.
Putting my dot next to Shannon Moore to piggy back on her comment. Attached is a suggestion on how to draw Districts 4, ,9 and 13 to create a Muskegon-Grand Rapids district that unites communities of interest, rather than just linking townships in a straight line. The entire Muskegon area, entire Grand Haven area, and the entire Kent County Grand Rapid metro area are included, linked together by I-96 and the Grand River. District 9 then includes all of southern Ottawa County - Holland, Zeeland, Hudsonville, Jenison, Allendale. District 13 gets Barry County and a couple townships in Kalamazoo County, which makes it huge and sprawling, but that's what happens when we lose a district and, at the same time, the population consolidates into metro areas like GR, KZoo, and Holland. This suggestion would not change districts 5 or 7.
Muskegon belongs in a diverse district like this, not with a 90% White district where we can't be heard. Please make a more compact version of this.
I don't understand why Warren and Madison Heights were included in District 1 instead of District 6. They fit with Troy and Sterling Heights as a community of interest. Meanwhile, the southeast Macomb communities (St. Clair Shores, Eastpointe, etc) fit more with the Grosse Pointes and the east side of Detroit, and should be in District 1 instead. Please flip Warren and SE Macomb.
Carl L Hamann
This map works for the midland county residences
This is a much better placement for Muskegon than the 90% White, very rural district in other drafts. It clearly needs to be fixed up though. Take out Jamestown and Georgetown and add townships in north Ottawa county. Caledonia and Cannon can also be removed if necessary. This will be a much better shape.
Robert Wolfer is incorrect about the VRA. A Muskegon-Grand Rapids district would be about 30% minority, which certainly does not constitute packing from a VRA perspective. In fact splitting these areas could be considered a "crack" under the VRA. Cracking is a bigger concern than packing when you have smaller clusters of concentrated minority population as opposed to very large concentrated minority population like in Detroit.
Battle Creek belongs with Kalamazoo in District 9.
Grouping in Muskegon and Grand Rapids likely represents a fairly serious "packing" problem, as the term is commonly used, related to the VRA.
I live in Hastings, the county seat of Barry. Barry is a very rural county and I don't think its a good fit for district 9 which includes Kalamazoo, Holland, St. Joseph, and other urban and suburban areas. I think it would make a lot more sense for us to be moved to district 13 or district 8 which are rural in nature. We would be better represented that way.
Like this map
I think it is a good idea to include Muskegon with Grand Rapids because Muskegon has a large Black population. However, this plan was haphazardly drawn and does not do a very good job executing this goal. I'm afraid the public will shoot it down because it's poorly drawn, not because putting Muskegon with Grand Rapids is a bad idea. Many people on the portal have provided ways to make a more compact version of District 4. I think the commission has an obligation to put forward a more reasonable and compact version of this plan for consideration given the public comment regarding disenfranchising Muskegon and western communities of color. What I recommend is extending 4 into Northern Ottawa and removing more exurban parts of Kent and placing them in 13. Then put Southern Ottawa into 9. Move Barry county into 13. Move Southern Berrien (south of St. Joseph) to 8. And extend 9 to Battle Creek. Then adjust from there for population This will create compact and more diverse districts in Western Michigan where voters of color are not being diluted and so heavily split across 4 districts. It also has the added benefit of extending 8 across the entire southern border.
There are some problems with this map as drawn. The population deviation is at 6.2% which is far outside the allowable deviation of .75%. Districts 4 and 13 don't appear to be contiguous. This map has 4 Dem and 4 Rep and 5 competitive districts. I would prefer to see more districts closer to zero bias. Below I have provided a link to a map I drew that alters your map somewhat. It puts Midland with the Tri-Cities and Flint for a congressional district, moves Tuscola to the Thumb, fixes the area around Grand Rapids and Muskegon that is not contiguous, uses more of the city of Detroit for District 1 and alters some of the other corresponding districts to make it all work. I'm still not happy with it because it has 4 D and 4 R and 5 competitive districts, but it meets the population standard and fixes a few problems. https://davesredistricting.org/join/5162f474-42d6-4303-9327-7f0806a7f9fc
Angelo D Guarnieri
What the heck is this gerrymandered nonsense?!?!
The City of Midland should be with the Tri-Cities and Flint because they are the only urban/suburban places in Mid-Michigan and urban areas need representation that will focus on issues that concern them while rural areas deserve to have representat5ion that will fit their needs as well. I have lived in both urban and rural parts of Midland County and the concerns of the citizens of each area would be better met by representation that would focus on their individual needs. Please put Midland in with the Tri-Citites and Flint for a congressional district. I suggest moving Tuscola County in with the Thumb congressional district as they are more closely aligned. I have also lived in Harbor Beach in the Thumb and I can tell you that Tuscola is more closely aligned with Huron, Sanilac, and St. Clair Counties.
This stretches the definition of "contiguous", but I really do like adding grand rapids and Muskegon together.
I dont believe this map can pass a Voting Rights Act legal challenge.
Please fill in the following details to submit your Comments. You can also attached a document if you want to provide more detials.
Do you wish to be contacted?