This map does not represent Midland commitment to ESG. We are developing a future to the North and West. We have a legacy with Bay City and Saginaw, but none with Flint.

Madison Heights was once part of Royal Oak Township. It's schooling, housing stock, education levels, racial diversity--especially significant East Asian and Chaldean communities--tie the city politically, culturally, historically to Royal Oak and its other SE Oakland County neighbors. This design makes it appear that Madison Heights was considered a marginal community that could be allocated to a neighboring district based on convenience of borders and population size without consideration to history or present reality.

Going to Agree with Christopher on this one, if any parts of Southern Macomb should be included with Eastern Detroit it makes more sense for it to be the Jefferson, Mack, and Gatroit corridors. Saint Clair Shore, Harrison, Fraser, Roseville, and Eastpoint all are tied much closer to the rest of the 1st districts then Warren is.

Sure, but it completely cuts up the working-class population of Southern and Middle Macomb. Look the Bangladeshi and Yemeni Communities deserver representation, but they are a large enough COI to warrant cracking southern Macomb at the Congressional Level. They would be better represented at the State House and Senate level have maps drawn around that COI.

Including this district with the random community in Wayne County doesn't make much sense. I also still strongly believe that Auburn Hills and Pontiac should be together. Additionally, Lake Angelus votes in Pontiac schools.

The democrats are gerrymandering with the 11th.

My name is Gaye Terwillegar. My community of interest is Midland County. I live in Ingersoll Township, which is in the southeast corner of Midland County. And I am a 4th generation resident of Midland County. My great Grandfather, Edward Ostrander moved to Midland in 1870. We are a community sustained long ago by the logging industry, utilizing our famous river system. With myself as a County Commissioner, as well as other Midland and Gladwin County Commissioners, we are diligently working toward our priority, to guide rebuilding of Sanford and Wixom Lake communities. The Commission needs to recognize the significant devastation to Midland and Gladwin counties by May 2020 flood. Both Counties are currently working as a team and are in strategic planning stages of Sanford and Wixsom Dam financing and reconstruction, as well as future flood mitigation. It is essential for our residents in Midland County to stay on our current course of action with our current leadership, that is very familiar with present and future needs of our community. For these reasons, is imperative for Midland to remain as part of District 4.

I see comments from people from Midland saying we are similar to Saginaw and Flint. This can't be farther from the truth. We have no similarities with these two cities. Their big issues are poor schools and high crime rates. Midland has some of the best schools and a very low crime rate. People in Midland do not typically go shopping in Flint or Saginaw. This is just not accurate at all. We have much more in common with the rural counties of Gladwin, Isabella and Arenac counties especially because of the ongoing issues with the dams and flooding.

What exactly is the driving force behind this "redistricting" ? It appears to me that the issue is being propagated by tactics that are other than "for we the people".

I would appreciate it if the commission would include a simple, bullet point PRO/CON of the redistricting options. What is driving you to redistrict Midland?

This district should exclude the portions of Allegan County and include the City of Portland in Ionia County. The Greater Lansing Area and much of Ingham County are better associated with the I-95 corridor than the rural sections of Barry County. They are also more closely related in economic, social and racial demographics to Oakland County than Barry County. I strongly oppose this drawing of CD8 and would recommend it clip to the east rather than the west.

Washtenaw County, particularly Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and their suburbs have more in commons with Wayne County communities such as Romulus and Taylor than they do with Jackson County communities such as Grass Lake. It would be wrong to place Grass Lake with Ann Arbor. Aside from demographic differences, the areas have vastly different political differences which could make the district difficult for a representative to represent. The section of Jackson county in 5 should be given to 7 and a section of 2 should be shifted into 5 OR just not replaced, given the population of the district should meet legal standards.

Northville Township needs to stay in Wayne County. EZ switch, put South Lyon with Oakland like it should be, and move Northville with Wayne County. Wayne RESA schools, Western Wayne Water, too many to list! Most of all, our neighborhood streets are WAYNE COUNTY roads, and we need representation to keep them fixed properly!!!!! Northville is linked to Dearborn via Hines Drive live and work in Wayne Cnty. Need a rep that lives in Wayne and will be connected to other elected official here. Beyond absurd! Move Northville City if you must - they cross 8 mile - the township does not. Why the specific carve out in ALL 3 of the map types. Absurd.

Why is part of Detroit included in this district? I cannot think of a single reason for this. The fact that there are zero plurality-black districts on the map is a direct result of this and not including Southfield, Oak Park, and Royal Oak Township (not the city) in the 2nd.

Thank you for keeping Midland County all together in this version. However; I do not understand why one would consider putting Midland County in with Saginaw and Flint as we are largely an agriculture base in central Michigan. It would dilute our needs and voice to combine us with urban areas such as Flint and Saginaw and also would obscure the communities of Midland and Gladwin for flood recovery and watershed management.

Fracturing communities. This is awful and does not represent my community by lumping other's from different counties into district 4. I object!

Communities to the north of Grand Rapids, such as Rockford and Cedar Springs, have far more in common with Grand Rapids and its suburbs than they do with the lakeshore and Muskegon. This looks like a gerrrymandered district--keep Kent County together in one district, don't strectch the district to the lakeshore.

I am getting very fed-up with all the strangely shaped districts in all these maps that seem to merely be attempting to insert small portions of suburban and exurban communities into multiple urban districts with which they have no COIs, school, landmark, economic, social or other interests. Please explain what COI or economic and social interests there are between Highland Park and Union Lake or Eastpointe and Romeo. This is absurd and quite frankly, offensive.

Thanks for doing this work. It's not your fault that West Michigan isn't represented on this commission but that fact surely contributed to the disservice this map does to Muskegon and Ottawa County populations. I can't speak for other communities (there seems to be a debate about Midland) because I'm not familiar with those communities. I am, however, very familiar with Muskegon and Ottawa Counties and can tell you that these need to be redone. Numerous communities of interest are needlessly broken up, even into 3 districts. Best wishes in fixing this.

I added a comment that was pinned to 11, it should be district 12

The Committee should be aware that the Midland culture is very different than the Bay City, Saginaw, and Flint culture. Proper representation is vital for each community.

The City of Rockford is a strong partner with Plainfield, Cannon, Courland and Algoma Townships. This proposed map separates us from our partners ( including our membership in our shared wastewater plant) and aligns us with rural townships we have no shared issues with. The City of Rockford needs to be with Plainfield Township, Grand Rapids ( where most of our citizens work) and Kent County! This alignment assures us that we will never have representation that meets our Community profile and needs. Reconsider this and add us with district 11

Talking Points—Congressional Districts—Plan P5715 By Mark Putnam 1. The Putnam Plan is the best Congressional Districts Plan—Plan P5715: a. In the Plan P5715, whole counties are utilized to form Michigan’s 13 Congressional Districts except in the three dense Detroit Area counties. b. In this plan, districts are contiguous and compact. c. Districts created are regular and have a look that is traditional or familiar. 2. First: In Plan P5715, small parts of many broken counties are not used to form larger, new, and unusual districts. a. The borders of each district outside of and even in the Detroit Area are based on historical boundaries, our counties, that are easily viewed, clearly explained, and instinctively appreciated. b. Districts are made without political goal but use recognizable—governmental—but most importantly our current geographical county boundaries. c. Only, in the Detroit Area are districts delineated or shaped differently and use townships, cities, or well-known major roads. 3. Second: In Plan P5715, districts are composed of whole counties and are relatively small, contiguous, and compact. a. The expanse or length of districts is reduced in contrast to other plans. b. In this Plan, in the Detroit Area, there are four full or whole districts in Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties. c. Wayne contains 2 whole districts, Oakland 1, and Macomb 1. d. In the plan, the district formed by the Upper Peninsula and Upper Lower Michigan is larger than other districts in Michigan, but it is smaller and more condensed than in many other plans. e. The shorelines of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are managed or represented by 5 districts. 4. Third: In Plan P5715, the districts have silhouettes that are regular and familiar. a. Districts are not narrow and long but tend to be square or rectangular. b. Borders do not have long, uneven, or serrated, edges. c. The districts are clearly distinct and have straight—or right angled—edges. 5. Finally: In Plan P5715, Michigan is displayed as a state whose districts are carefully planned and at the same time are uncomplicated. a. This plan is coordinated and uses symmetry and balance. b. No political party is backed or favored. c. In Plan P5715, the reasoning for the district arrangements is that Michigan’s historical and widely visible organizational boundaries, its counties, that depend upon the demography and geography of Michigan are the best outlines or shapes in creating election districts and that counties best designate who should serve in the judicial, legislative, and executive branches in our governance.

Sadly, it appears that this was NOT really done by an Independent NON Biased group. You really think these are fair and equal and representative of all communities? As Joe says "Come on Man!" why would you so blatantly put some Conservative communities in with large highly liberal ones. There voices are NOT be represented when 100,000 liberal voters drown out 10,000 conservative ones. Shame on you! Whatever has been done to others by you, will be done to you. Whether by man or by God. Please make this redistricting map fair for everyone!

Definition of gerrymander. Looks like Mickey Mouse's ears on either side, North & South

I oppose the configuration of this map, especially the separation of Midland county from Gladwin county, Isabella county and Gratiot county!!

Dear Commissioners, Thank you for submitting another map for our consideration, but you don't seem to be listening to us. It appears that you are ignoring the constitution which requires that you use ‘communities of interest’ to draw fair maps. Please let me remind you what the constitution says: The commission shall abide by the following criteria in proposing and adopting each plan, in order of Priority. Then skip to: Article IV Sec. 6, line item (c) (c) Districts shall reflect the state's diverse population and communities of interest. Communities of interest may include, but shall not be limited to, populations that share cultural or historical characteristics or economic interests. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates. Instead, it appears that you are trying to dilute the voices of the Midland community by adding them into larger urban centers like Saginaw and Flint. Map 191 ignores the communities of interest of Midland and Gladwin for flood recovery and watershed management; as well as the agricultural community of interest that benefits from representation that understands the importance of agriculture here in Midland and Central Michigan. Midland County is home to more than 500 farms covering 88,000 acres. The City of Midland is only 7% of our county therefore the rest of the county is represented by rural subdivisions and rural larger land owners, such as our family. The City of Midland must not be separated from the county as proposed in previous mapping suggestions because the City of Midland is important to its rural community whether it be farmers or land owners as it is the hub of meeting our many needs. Thank you for considering my comments. Please keep Midland County in tack and joined with other Central Michigan counties. Our family does not like this map.

City of Midland’s need more closely align with the counties and cities to our west. This map does not address that we are part of the flooding district.

I understand the need for District 1 to extend north of 8 Mile. don't understand the Commission's repeated desire to insert Warren into that district rather than the SE Macomb communities that are much more aligned with Grosse Pointe, Harper Woods, and the east side of Detroit.

Not sure what happened here? Why split the Muskegon area into three parts?

Hello, Thanks for submitting another map for our consideration. Unfortunately, this map does not meet the needs of Midland county. It does keep us whole but we are not an urban area and are considered more rural. Also, we need to be included with the counties to the N and W for ease of working on our watershed flooding issues. Thanks for considering our request.

I really prefer the Version 187, which coupled Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo, and had a "taller" Lake Michigan CD. Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo are both mid-sized cities, college towns and have similar community interests than their surrounding rural townships. The Lake Michigan District is all similar lakeshore communities, focused on recreation, tourism and clean water, much more similar to the rural areas East of the Lake. Good work in SW MI, do better in SE Mi.

This map is terrible - all the strangely shaped and split communities (especially bad district 4). What COI is there between Eastpointe and Rochester, what are their shared schools/infrastructure and social/economic needs? This is just an obvious attempt to split up districts to get the result you want. Don't the people who live in these communities deserve a voice as well? Worse than what we had before.

Splitting Oakland county into 7 districts is absurd. There would only be 6 districts across the entire state that don't include part of Oakland county in this map.

WOW . I would think the commissioners would be questioning this NEW map and also who exactly came up with it. Honestly this map looks like someones attempt to appease the concern from Midland in the separation of the city of Midland and Midland county.... BUT A CLOSER LOOK,... REVEALS they have tried to attempt to dilute Midland by adding us with Saginaw and Flint. NOT GOOD. We have no shared community of interest at all with them, and I do not believe that anyone has commented that they believe we do. I worked in healthcare for over 40 years. MidMichigan Health has it's flagship hospital in Midland, and other hospitals in our system are in Clare, Gladwin, Alma, and a few other areas. They are not connected in any way to the hospitals in Saginaw or Flint. We do not even refer patients to them. We refer patients to the U of M, which by the way reached out to us as their first choice for other systems to become affiliated with. The reasoning was that we shared a community of interest in caring for both Midland and all the other rural communities around us as previously mentioned. We are also a strong agricultural community as compared to none or little in Saginaw and Flint. I respectively oppose this map. Please see this map for what interests it serves whomever submitted it. Thank you.

The Great Lakes Bay Region includes Arenac, Gladwin, Clare, Bay, Midland, Isabella, Saginaw and Gratiot. These are the communities that make up the Great Lakes Bay Regional Alliance. This economic alliance come together after careful study of the interconnectedness of these communities. We share a labor force, talent pool, business resources, civic groups, social groups, and economic groups. The rural and the urban work together and strengthen each other. This map slices off Bay City, City of Saginaw, and City of Midland from the rural regions they interact with and puts them with Flint and Genesee county, which they do not share many civic, social, or economic ties with at all. Please do not use.

This map looks like a huge step backwards compared to many of the others. Lots of gerrymandered squiggly lines, odd shapes, and strange pieces of counties and communities cut off or stuck together. This is not what the people voted for. Please use a different map that does a better job of keeping counties and communities whole while keeping communities of interest together.

This may be the worst representation of a map for the city of Midland. We would be seperated from Midland County, then put in with metropolatan area such as Saginaw and Flint. This is in direct conflict with our community of interest. My husband's cousins own over 1000 acres of land less than 5 miles north of me on the same road that i get on to to leave my neighborhood. We are a rural community and should not be separated from Midland county north of us as well as Isabella and Gratiot counties. We share nothing in common with Saginaw and Flint,, nor do they share anything in common with us.

I don't think Flint will adequately address the needs of the Midland community.

This map ignores the communities of interest of Midland and Gladwin for flood recovery and watershed management; as well as the agricultural community of interest that benefits from representation that understands the importance of agriculture here in Midland and Central Michigan.

This map does not keep Midland County with our other watershed counties/communities. Midland is a highly agricultural community and should remain with our rural neighbors. We have little in common with Saginaw and Flint so this map makes no sense and will only hurt Midland and Saginaw and Flint.

Anyone who lives in this area can tell you that Midland does NOT belong in the same district as Saginaw and Flint. They are completely different communities and deserve different representation. Just as an example - Midland County has almost 90,000 acres of farmland! Midland is not a big city like Saginaw and Flint. Please don't carve up the map this way - keep Midland county whole and include it in a district representative of its rural agricultural base.

The Commission appears to be ignoring the constitution which requires that they use ‘communities of interest’ to draw fair maps. Instead it appears that the Commission is trying to dilute the voices of the Midland community by adding them into larger urban centers with Flint and Saginaw. This map ignores the communities of interest of Midland and Gladwin for flood recovery and watershed management; as well as the agricultural community of interest that benefits from representation that understands the importance of agriculture here in Midland and Central Michigan. Midland County is home to more than 500 farms covering 88,000 acres. The needs of our community are different from those of big cities like Saginaw and Flint. Midland County should be kept whole in this process and be included in a district that is representative of the innately rural agriculture base that makes up Central Michigan.

This map focuses so heavily on getting the population distribution correct that it ignores keeping communities together. It also punishes metro areas like Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo, which have one oblong district, rather than bifurcating the metro area to provide a larger voice to the population of those cities in Congress.

This map is terrible. Why does every map carve u communities and contain oddly shaped districts with communities who share no interests in them? Do better.

Having lived in the upper peninsula most of my life it would be nice if the U.P. was split form the travers area we have little in common and different need and wants. The upper peninsula needs to have it own representation

I really appreciate the work of the commission and the amount of options we get to look at. This one feels like it misses the mark, like communities are being chopped district by district to get a certain political result

I have the utmost respect for this commission and the difficult job you are taking on, but map is atrocious. This sort of obviously contrived tentacle reaching out to grab a certain demographic is exactly the reason we took this responsibility away from politicians. Please don't carve up Muskegon like a turkey and use our parts to engineer certain outcomes in other districts. I can't imagine this would pass VRA muster and certain doesn't pass the smell test. Muskegon County is a single community of interest with a common shared identity. Please keep our entire county in one district, connect us with other lakeshore communities, not with a giant inland metropolis like GR who would dominate us and with whom we have little or nothing in common. Thank you.