My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
9-27-21 v1 HD
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
District 14
District 15
District 16
District 17
District 18
District 19
District 20
District 21
District 22
District 23
District 24
District 25
District 26
District 27
District 28
District 29
District 30
District 31
District 32
District 33
District 34
District 35
District 36
District 37
District 38
District 39
District 40
District 41
District 42
District 43
District 44
District 45
District 46
District 47
District 48
District 49
District 50
District 51
District 52
District 53
District 54
District 55
District 56
District 57
District 58
District 59
District 60
District 61
District 62
District 63
District 64
District 65
District 66
District 67
District 68
District 69
District 70
District 71
District 72
District 73
District 74
District 75
District 76
District 77
District 78
District 79
District 80
District 81
District 82
District 83
District 84
District 85
District 86
District 87
District 88
District 89
District 90
District 91
District 92
District 93
Comment Toggle
All Comments
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
Number of Comments Displayed (Zoom in to show less): 0
Zvonko Blazevski
We are writing to express my concerns over the various proposed versions of the State House map that have been presented for public feedback. As residents of the City of Roseville, we are especially troubled with the prospect of splitting of the city into multiple districts. In each of the proposed maps, Roseville, a city with just over 47,000 residents, is divided into two districts; which to our knowledge has never occurred previously. Generally, the proposed maps have several of our most northern precincts in a district that goes all the way to Anchor Bay, creating a significant socioeconomic and geographic disparities while the rest of Roseville in a district that encompasses Eastpointe and portions of northeastern Detroit. The division of Roseville as proposed in these maps would present a significant weakening of our representation in the Michigan Legislature. A district that divides Roseville would not be able to properly address the unique economic challenges, infrastructure needs and interests of our residents. Each proposed map dilutes and minimizes the importance Roseville has, as each district would be anchored in different municipalities with significantly different needs and interests. Roseville should be kept whole in any iteration of a State House map because it has a strong historical foundation and a strong working-class background that deserves fair representation by its state house member. Roseville is a city that is around 5 square miles and is a major transit area that is serviced by interstates, I-94 and I-696, and two major state highways (M-1 Gratiot/M-97 Grosebeck). It is a community that has a significant population of older residents, as well as similar demographical and socioeconomic characteristics with a strong sense of togetherness and community. These proposed maps do a disservice to the community by dividing our voice and placing us in districts where Roseville’s needs will not be addressed or be an afterthought. Roseville is connected closely to its neighbors in Macomb County. We share common school districts (for example, Fraser Public Schools and Roseville Community Schools) and shared common government services such as Parks and Recreation (Roseville and Eastpointe) and emergency dispatch services (Roseville, St. Clair Shores and Fraser). In addition, Roseville and Fraser both share the same District Court (and elect the judges), and shares the current county commission lines. Previous iterations of the state house district have had the entire city of Roseville as its anchor and has include parts of Fraser, St. Clair Shores, Warren and Eastpointe in Macomb County in various forms. The seat has always been in Macomb County. Each city shares common economic, social and political interests as inner ring suburban communities looking to continue their rebirth. To cross county lines into Wayne County would be a disservice to both counties as the needs are much different. As an older, built out suburban community to a major Midwestern city, we also have unique needs that can not be adequately met by dividing our city into multiple districts that will have very few common interests. Our water infrastructure is dated. Public safety is paramount and with a heavy older adult population, adequate housing and services for that population are required. The Groesbeck (M-97) corridor is an industrial hub that the City of Roseville (and surrounding communities) have worked hard to reinvigorate with the assistance of legislative representation that is based from the community who addresses the needs of our community. This industrial hub also extends through the cities of Warren, Fraser and Clinton Township. In addition, the Gratiot (M-1) coordinator is a thriving commercial center that the city is trying to continuously update and improve upon. The City of Roseville also boasts a successfully redeveloped Macomb Mall that is booming when so many shopping centers are not. It is imperative that these economic hubs also continue to be represented by a single representative to help further its redevelopment. Despite great strides, similar surrounding communities that contain Gratiot Avenue (including Eastpointe and Clinton Township), share the need for continued redevelopment of this commercial center that would be best served by a representative who understands these needs and can work in conjunction with the communities along that corridor. One of the major concerns is that in the current proposed maps, it will be very difficult for the City of Roseville to have the Representation it needs in Lansing to allow it to continue to thrive. We all understand the need for fairness in the new map, and it is compounded by population shifts with the need to comply with state and federal statutory requirements. However, if the commission decides to finalize the maps in which the City of Roseville is split in two; we believe that the commission not only fails in its requirement to keep communities of interest together, but that it deliberately breaks one apart. As such, it is critical that any legislative map includes Roseville as a community interest and maintains the entire city within one legislative district; as has been done for decades previously. Sincerely, Zvonko and Lisa Blazevski Roseville MI 48066
This district dilutes both the voices of Pontiac voters and voters from Waterford. This is not necessary; the district was set and met VRA, population and COI standards when it was in a district with the Bloomfield/Auburn Hills area with whom Pontiac has COIs. Fix this! Pontiac and Waterford residents deserve better from this Commission.
Timothy K Howse
Oxford Precinct 3 and 5 should be in District 47 with the rest of Oxford and Addison because they share one single school district as a non-partisan community of interest.
Garrett Brown
1. Albion has a significant percentage of African-American residents. I do not believe Albion should be disconnected from Battle Creek. 2. Marshall, like Albion, has much more significant times to Battle Creek than to all these Calhoun and Jackson County townships.
Lisa M Jevens
The Macatawa peninsula on Lake Michigan should be with the district to the south which puts it with other beach communities on our continuous stretch of beach and dune along the lakefront. I have given written and oral testimony 3 TIMES on this and submitted a map. DO NOT FOLLOW THE COUNTY LINE--IT CUTS OUR COMMUNITY IN HALF.
Michael Hoadley
Would make more sense to keep Gladwin county complete and include Alcona county and southern (south of city of Alpena) Alpena county opposed to Ogemaw county and more of northern Bay county to just south of Linwood as opposed to any of Clare county.
Renee Kirby
How about putting Davision and Goodrich in the Lapeer?
Thaddeus Hackworth
This splits the lakeshore communities from New Buffalo up to South Haven into THREE pieces. At the very least, the area spanning from St. Joseph to South Haven should be joined into on community of interest.
This is not the right way to split Greater Lansing. You can easily do a core Lansing district, core East Lansing/Okemos district, South Lansing/Holt and out-county district, and a district based on Lansing's western suburbs and environs. With this map I've attached below, you get a unified Clinton County save for the small portions of Lansing & East Lansing which project into it, and you added in the neighboring Shiawassee Co. communities most similar to it and connected to the Lansing area. You only get one municipal split: Lansing. And that's because it's too large for a single district. You get very compact districts. The Eaton County district remains a swing district. Any state map that doesn't keep 3 Dem-leaning Ingham Co. seats and a swing district in Eaton County just doesn't work.