My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
9-20-21 v4 CD
Loading geometries...
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
District 8
District 9
District 10
District 11
District 12
District 13
Census Legend
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: 8
2020 Census PL 94.171 Data
Isabelle Reynolds
Do not combine part of Muskegon County with Kent County. They are separate counties with different needs.
Isabelle Reynolds
No, I do not agree on combining part of Muskegon County with Kent County.
Kris Rieger
Do not add Muskegon to Kent county. We are completely different and should remain separate.
Susan Sidock
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!
Mark Bliss
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.
Kathleen Thorrez
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.
Joseph Feinberg
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.
Rachel Nienhouse
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!
Brenden Boudreau
This district is nonsensical. Under no circumstance does this actually make sense.
Susan Peterson
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.
Melissa Brower
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.
Kimberly Lowe
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.
Julie Reynolds
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!!!
Laurence Funk
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.
Sumanth Makunur
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.
Alexander Gavulic
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.
Garrett Brown
The demographics of Albion and Battle Creek do not sync with the municipalities of the southern boarder counties.
Benjamin Spencer
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.
james anton
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
Luke Dornon
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.
Ted Dyson
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.
Christopher Khorey
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.
David Neubauer
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.
Joey Segal
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
Jan Baumgras
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.
Jan Baumgras
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.
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.
Anthony Scannell
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.
Benjamin Greene
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.
Benjamin Greene
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.
Nick Yee
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.
Lynn Pottenger
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.
Christopher Khorey
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.
Elizabeth Deerdrik
Battle Creek belongs with Kalamazoo in District 9.
Robert Wolfer
Grouping in Muskegon and Grand Rapids likely represents a fairly serious "packing" problem, as the term is commonly used, related to the VRA.
Mary Warkowski
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.
Jennifer Austin
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.
Angelo D Guarnieri
What the heck is this gerrymandered nonsense?!?!
Jennifer Austin
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.
John Caron
I dont believe this map can pass a Voting Rights Act legal challenge.