This is a terrible district. Midland county has little in common with the other counties in this district. Midland is not a rural/farming county. Manufacturing, technology and education has always been the base of Midland county's economy. I'd wager that most people in Midland could not even name the other counties in the proposed district. Midland belongs with the Bay City, Saginaw and Flint.

The City of Midland is not rural, and should be included in a Congressional district along with Bay City, Saginaw, and Flint. These cities are the core of Mid-Michigan and a community of interest. The City of Midland needs be included in an area that makes economic and geographic sense! I see a lot of comments stating Midland is rural? The City of Midland is NOT rural. Please do not consider this map. Also, please continue to look at partisan bias when tweaking maps.

The City of Midland should be in a congressional district with the tri-Cities and Flint as they are all urban/suburban areas that need appropriate representation. If Tuscola County were placed in the Thumb district and the portion of Gratiot that is carved out for the 11th is put back with the 13th and then place the city of Midland as much of Midland County as will fit in the 11th this would be a better district and more representative of the communities and would make a map closer to zero political bias. You can then remove some of Oakland and Macomb counties from the Thumb district. Partisan fairness is far more important for the overall map and this map does not achieve this.

Don't like this map. The city of Midland should be with the tri-Cities and Flint in a congressional district and the map as a whole needs to reflect partisan fairness.

Looking at West Michigan, it seems as if you are unfairly packing the Democratic cities of Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo into a single district at the expense of having each of those cities be included within their respective counties. And I've never understood the idea of a "Lakeshore community of interest" as being a priority. For starters, small resort towns such as my hometown of Saugatuck has little to do with more major cities such as Benton Harbor and Muskegon and virtually zero in common with the rural inland communities which you found necessary to include. Overall, it seems the Commission is making a conscious effort to maximize Republican districts at the expense of Democratic voters across Michigan. Simply unfair.

This is what a district looks like when partisan fairness is all of a sudden the top consideration instead of the fourth. Trash this map.

How do I know if this is a balanced map? Does party vote translate equally to seats? I can't tell. What metric, like efficiency gap, was used to determine whether the maps are fair?

We have nothing in common with the counties as drawn. It really seems to shift our suburban needs and drive them towards northern counties with a very different constituency.

Excuse me? Madison Heights belongs with the other communities of SE Oakland County, we have different communities of interest that are more in common with District 3.

I do not like the way the 10th is set up here. The major reasoning for this commission is to create districts that are evenly split between Dems and Republicans. Your mapping does not show this information but I am guessing it has not changed from what it is currently

Midland is urban just like Bay City, Saginaw and Flint and is a key part of MidMichigan. Midland is home to 3 Fortune 500 companies, a large cultural center, and a large hospital center. Midland is not rural and should be represented with other urban areas.

This map (#187) places the City of Midland in a rural group of counties. The City of Midland is NOT rural—it forms a community of interest with Bay City and Saginaw. It shares a strong industrial base with those cities and shares so many interests with them. I see comments from folks who call Midland rural but they must not live in the City of Midland because no resident would consider it to be rural. I also see comments that are in support of keeping Midland County as a whole for governance, but frankly the City of Midland has its own governance and there is no good reason to separate City of Midland from Bay City & Saginaw. I am sure there will need to be split counties and I am fine with splitting Midland County, especially if it keeps the City of Midland from being lumped in with rural counties whose residents have very different interests than us urban/suburban residents of the City of Midland.

This map does not provide the city of Midland with a COI. We are a city not a part of rural communities. We have not had a representative that truly represents the city because Midland has been lumped in with rural communites for the past 10 years. Our current rep does not have to listen to about half the residents of Midland because he is in a safe seat. City people need reps that fight for urban agendas and rural people need reps that will fight nor rural agendas.

Midland is not a rural community so this map is terrible. We are home to 3 Fortune 500 companies and function as an urban community just like Saginaw, Bay City and Flint.

Redistricting Commission notes 9.30.21 My name is Phillip Reid and I live in the Clarkston area of North Oakland County. Referring to Congressional District Map 187 of 9.29.21: In regard to the districts as proposed North Oakland County which is mainly "bedroom" communities has strong associations with Flint and Genesee counties, and has little in common with the Northeastern part of the state. I believe Tuscola County has much more in common with the Thumb Area than North Oakland County has and I would recommend you revise the CD maps with this in mind.

If the commission insists on drawing districts apparently exclusively to include two urban areas (one can only see this as a partisan gerrymander) why maintain any pretense of geographical continuity? Cut out the rural 'bridge' and just make a district out of urban islands.

Midland should be part of the Tri-Cities to keep our communities of interest together. As many have stated, they want to keep Midland County whole. So here is an idea, instead of carving out the townships in Midland County, why not take out some of the western townships in Saginaw County. It keeps the Midland whole, and puts some rural areas of Saginaw with other rural areas.

This 4th district is very odd, with the attempt to link the GR and Kazoo urban areas along the 131 corridor. It looks like you're trying to get one, and maybe two, possible Democratic districts out of this, something I would expect from a Democratic-run redistricting process in the legislature, if it was so controlled. But you can do better with 4, 9, and 13. Most people don't think partisan--they think job, home, local school, local shopping, etc., all arguing for geographically compact districts, as much as possible even in rural and small town areas. The lack on the commission of deep familiarity with western Michigan is so apparent, and so disappointing.

What a strange set of districts for Western MI! I understand what you're going for with a lakeshore district but it seems like avoiding county-splitting is being prioritized over communities of interest (maybe due to the Ottawa comments pushed by the county Republicans). The result is this odd district where Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo are cut out of their respective counties and connect through a very rural part of Barry because that's what you're left with. This doesn't make much sense. The configurations with Grand Rapids-Muskegon and Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-lakeshore in Eid's maps just make a lot more sense from a community of interest standpoint. I think you should go in that direction instead of sticking with this. Alternatively, you can draw a district that extends along the lakeshore from St. Joseph to Muskegon and extends west to Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. Then Grand Rapids/Kent is linked with eastern Ottawa.

District 9 can be better drawn to unite the Detroit exurbs in northern and western Oakland County rather than combining them with the thumb. 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, Clinton Township, etc. to 10 and Troy to 11. The new District 9 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.