My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
9-29-21 RAS v2 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
District 94
District 95
District 96
District 97
District 98
District 99
District 100
District 101
District 102
District 103
District 104
District 105
District 106
District 107
District 108
District 109
District 110
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
Claudia Bravo-Sanchez
I am commenting towards the District 1, It is not fair how you have it portrayed. Respect the community of interest which should be balanced. Why separate in 3 pieces and have them in one piece. Why is the COA not complete? It is not fair for my Hispanic/latino people.
Oscar Chapa
While this map is better than before, we urge you to unify communities of interest further. By law, communities of color should be respected and kept together. Another concern of mine is the low number of people of color in Detroit districts. Representation matters. The bare minimum is not enough.
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
I concur with the other commenters, Districts 30 & 39 are grossly gerrymandered. Pontiac should be in a district with its COIs of Auburn Hills, Lake Angelus, Sylvan Lake and Bloomfield. Oxford and Orion belong with the Brandon/Ortonville, Leonard area. Waterford, Clarkston and Independence Township are a COI. This is a disgrace; fix this!
Renee Richer
The split of Dickinson county is especially worrying. Dickinson county has been voting increasing blue over the last years. To place Iron Mountain in the 110 dilutes the democratic vote of Dickinson county and adding the rest of Dickinson to the 109 dilutes the democratic vote of the 109. Please consider communities of interest such as lake shore communities, inland communities.
I'm confused. Are you trying to split up Dickinson County? This makes no sense whatsoever. Leave us Tiny Counties alone!
Vanessa Wentzloff
I find that the through Auburn Hills (cutting it in half) to link Bloomfield Hills and Lake Orion/Oakland Township is grossly and obviously gerrymandered. Auburn Hills is a very different demographic than Lake Orion/Oakland Township and the needs of the community are different. It is very clear this is intentional to link more "red" areas. All of Auburn Hills should be together with more similar communities in Rochester Hills, Bloomfield Hills and Pontiac. This is a disgrace that this was drawn this way and textbook gerrymandering. As a citizen of Auburn Hills and a proud supporter of my community it is shameful the community drew it this way.
Sharon Baseman
I agree with the earlier comments. Huntington Woods and Oak Park should not be separated from our neighboring communities of Ferndale, Pleasant Ridge, Berkley and Royal Oak Township. We have much in common and have always, in my memory, shared a state House district. Adding such a large portion of Detroit with Huntington Woods and Oak Park dilutes a number of our communities of interest.
Marie Fielder
The present map as shown displays little-zero community of interest. Alpena, Presque Isle and Alcona counties (Lake Huron coastal counties) have little to nothing in common w/Montmorency (Ogemaw) and Oscoda counties (non coastal) in terms of Communities of Interest. Furthermore, it favors Republicans! Please continue to re-work the HD maps.
Reed Anderson
Splitting the city of Manistee from Manistee county doesn't align with industry and transportation. Manistee and Filer Township have common interests with Onekama and Frankfort in the growing tourism industry (i.e., establishment of major beach front hotels and Little River convention center). Manistee also differs from Mason county and others southward because it is not connected to a four lane highway that facilitates different kinds of economic growth.
Josh Vermaas
I'm going to say the same thing on each map. I have no way of evaluating if the map is fair, since it can't be imported into districtr. I liked playing with that tool, since I could evaluate for myself if the recent vote shares are representative of the votes for the whole state.
Jeff Ridsdale
Ferndale belongs with the other communities of southeast Oakland County
Steve Sioma
Oxford and Lake Orion are distinct communities that have little to nothing to do with Auburn hills, this is a very odd shape that makes little sense. Please keep Oxford, Orion separate from Auburn Hills.
Drew Disbrow
Chesterfield and New Baltimore are more connected to the towns and cities to the north/northwest than they are to the east. Towns like Lenox, Richmond, Armada, and Ray. It would make sense to keep Chesterfield township together in one district, Harrison and Chesterfield are completely disconnected due to Selfridge.
Devon Sioma
Do not split up Oxford, we are a non-partison community of interest and doing so would be agains the very rules used to devlope the new zones.
Scott Stewart
It would make sense for Auburn Hills to be engaged with Pontiac instead of included in this weird map. There is a lot of connection here, including with the school district.
Donni Steele
District 30 is disjointed. The community or Orion is more aligned with Oxford, Oakland, Independence, and maybe the north part of Auburn Hills- but not a small piece of Oxford, Auburn hills and the Bloomfield's. The roads, pathways, local governments, school districts, economy, community of interests, rural verses city setting are all different
Chris Andrews
It's impossible to comment on the whole map because there is no data regarding whether you have eliminated disproportionate partisan advantage that has been in every map so far. The Lansing region is poorly drawn. By packing heavily Democratic Delta Township in with Ingham County, you add to the disproportionate partisan advantage of the GOP by turning the purple Eaton County District red. Better approach would be to add southern ingham County to District 92 and put Delta Township and Grand Ledge into 94.
Julie Ann Racine
Nothing you can do for us here. You can't even find a Dem on the ballot. This district will always be Republican endorsed by Right to Life, the NRA blah blah blah. Dems are just outnumbered here.
Mary Ann Fontana
The inner ring suburbs of Ferndale, Pleasant Ridge, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, Berkley, and Royal Oak Township all share 3 school districts and this is my community of interest. Besides the fact that this House District 18 map is split between Oakland and Wayne County, it is also splitting our school districts. Our communities also share the 9 Mile business district, and the 11 Mile business district. The Jewish communities in Oak Park and Huntington Woods have synagogues on 10 Mile, on Lincoln, and on Woodward. These are all Communities of Interest. The way your map is drawn you would be splitting our cities between 3 different districts and I fear our common interests would be diluted.
This map is terrible. Why is the area from North of Dearborn to Lake Orion carved up like a jigsaw puzzle? The oddly shaped districts are ridiculous. Pontiac should be with Lake Angelus and Auburn Hills. Waterford should be kept together. Southfield and Oak Park should be together. Royal Oak, Ferndale and Berkley should be in 1 district.
Lori Craddick Lynch
This district seems odd. Why split Auburn Hills? Lake Angelus with Pontiac would seem more logical, to keep all of AH in one district.
The Grosse Pointes were split 10 year ago in the state house and there is unanimous, bipartisan and non-partisan opposition to any districts that would split us again. I was concerned to hear a commissioner suggest splitting up the Grosse Pointes today. That would be counter-productive because this District 4 as drawn is ALREADY IN THE VRA SWEET SPOT. According to the commission's consultants, you should look to create districts that are 40-45% African American VAP. This is one of the only districts that actually satisfies that goal. Although the Grosse Pointes would prefer to be with Harper Woods (a majority black city that shares a school system with us) and St. Clair Shores (another non-industrial, lakeshore suburb), we want to stay together as the Grosse Pointe COI most of all. Given that District 4 is right in the VRA sweet spot already (according to commission consultants), why would the commission make any changes here?