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
Comment Toggle
All Comments
Red
Yellow
Green
Comment Added
Your comment has been added to the map.
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
Loading...
Number of Comments Displayed (Zoom in to show less): 0
Lisa
I agree with the other commenters. Pontiac should be in a district with its COIs of Auburn Hills, Lake Angelus, Sylvan Lake and Bloomfield. Lake Orion should be in a district with its COIs of Oxford, Brandon and Leonard. Waterford belongs with its COIs Independence Township and Clarkston. This is unfair to all communities involved and does nothing to ensure that they will have adequate and effective representation.
Joel A Sheltrown
This map (60) is excellent. Represents the best for the communities. The communities have much in common with this map. Good job.
Catherine L Mitzel
On this map #193, district #32 appears considerably more efficient and has a better chance of reflecting common experiences in the electorate, than our preexisting district. As to the equitable distribution of voters within the new district, please reference Fair Maps -- AFL-CIO maps with 0% Efficiency Gap. We deeply appreciate your concerted efforts to produce competitive districts. If this can be accomplished without undue partisanship that would be deeply respected!
Catherine A Macomber
I support this map. I agree that the inclusion of the majority of Bay County with southern Bay County keeps this community of interest together.
Scott Stewart
Strongly believe that Auburn Hills and Pontiac have strong connections that would make sense to be together (including voting on schools) rather than using AH as a way to split the districts currently. It would make sense to add AH with Pontiac rather than include the random sliver of Waterford.
kathleen curell
the map for House District #32 makes good sense to me as these communities are connected by a watershed. Also, Gladwin residents greatly rely on Midland for work, healthcare, and shopping.
Lynn Pottenger
This Michigan House District map (#193) does a good job, keeping Midland County as a single entity, along with some of Gladwin County to provide adequate numbers. This map also keeps Alma & Mt Pleasant, both college towns, together, as district #51. As drafted, this district #32 can address upper Tittabawassee watershed issues, which have been frequently mentioned in others’ comments on different maps. Although City of Midland is not rural, like northern & western Midland County, we do function as an entity already, so this could work well to share Michigan House representation. Thank-you for your hard work on this very difficult and extremely important effort.
Jack Bengtsson
I'll limit my comments to the western half of the lower peninsula. First of all, I get it that you're trying to create some political balance across the state, and some competitive districts where you can, and I'm okay with that for the most part. That said, here are my comments. perfect - 80. Maybe perfect - 78, 83, 84, 86. Okay - 79, 87, 84, 86, 98, 99, 100, K-zoo/BC/Jackson. Kind of okay - 97, Lansing area, 76/77 GR (needs tweaking, in terms of commonality Eastown, East Hills, other hoods along Wealthy make more sense as part of the 76th, as do some hoods N of 196 just E of the river being part of the 77th. Splitting Plainfield may not be too popular with some, but I get it, it's probably the only option if you're going to split GR like that), also some inland districts seem okay. Questionable/Not okay - 65, 82, 88 St Joe/Cass/Berrien (you can make three slightly undersized districts out of those three counties without including part of VanBuren), 89, 96 Van Buren/Allegan (needs tweaking, I would keep VanBuren whole combined with parts of S. Allegan. Whatever is left of Allegan should be in the 96th), 85 Muskegon (okay, but I would remove Dalton in favor of some lakeshore townships.) 101 (Wexford to N Kent? I think you can do better), 102 (You might consider some rearranging to this one in conjunction with 101. Oceana in the same district as Newaygo and N Muskegon County, and perhaps part of N. Kent, seems to make more sense to me) 103/104 (I think I know what you're trying to do here, but I'm not sure it's the right thing. Leaving Grand Traverse, and the existing N. Lakeshore district might make more sense. The latter is still competitive as it currently exists, albeit with a slightly more Rep lean probably, but still better. In addition, a district that stretches from Antrim to part of Manistee and Benzie??? Something about that doesn't seem right) There you have it kids, tweak away.
Kenneth E Crider
So, in order to be fair and unbiased you took the 19th State house seat which was a 6 mile by 6 mile square where the rep for all of Livonia lived in Livonia and divided it into thee parts. The proposed 17th district runs from the middle of Livonia to McNichols and Ardmore in Detroit. This district is the true definition of gerrymandering. How does a Representative who Lives in Livonia Understand the struggles of Living in Brightmore? I would Hope that a Representative elected to represent an area would live in the area of the people they are fighting for. This map is shameful.
Lisa
Why is a razor thin slice of Waterford and Union Lake (from Elizabeth Lake Road to Cass Elizabeth) inserted into a district (39) with Pontiac with whom it shares no COI, economic and social interests, nor any schools, etc. Why is this small portion of the township separated from their neighbors and the rest of the community? Why the big backward "C" shape carve-out for the District (30) containing Auburn Hills, which is much more closely tied to Pontiac in COI, social and economic interests? It appears that you are trying to dilute the conservative vote in proposed District 30 and entirely suppress the conservative voters in Union Lake/Waterford in District 39. This is also true in Districts 21 and 22. Completely unacceptable.
Casey Lewis
I Like that you split Ann Arbor into a northern district and a southern district rather than East-West.
cheryl scales
Keep all of Plainfield township in one district. It should be in 99. The City of Rockford, Courtland twp, Plainfield Twp, Cannon and Algoma twps have common planning and infrastructure projects, we should all be together in district 99.
Dan Wholihan
I know some adjustments will be made in the next couple of days overall, but I think the Livingston County area was mapped well. The Brighton COI and Howell/Fowlerville COI were kept together. Livingston County was kept as whole as possible. The part outside of a full Livingston district (Tyrone Twp) does have an alignment with Fenton/Linden so it will have representation. These are good, and should stay the same. Thank you.
Renée Rapanotti
Thank you for your work & efforts. I do not think the current lines including the Township of Orion/Lake Orion represent communities of interest at all. We share school districts, churches, businesses & neighborhoods with our 'sister city' of Oxford (which should also have the entire Twp. in one district) as well as Oakland Twp. We should also be in the same district with our other urban neighbors of Oxford, Oakland, Brandon & Leonard. NORTH Auburn Hills could be called at best a borderline similar community but in NO WAY is Bloomfield or Bloomfield township similar to Orion or North Oakland County. We would do better to have the district go West into Village of Clarkston than south to these other communities. I urge you to take another look at these areas & re-draw these lines to better identify with these communities of interest who live, work, worship, and educate together.
Jeff Ridsdale
I appreciate that these are attempts to satisfy VRA compliance, but the way northern Detroit and Southeast Oakland county are chopped up doesn't make sense as communities of interest. Ferndale, Pleasant Ridge, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, Berkley, and Royal Oak Township belong together
Jill Haver-Crissman
First , this is an extremely difficult job and applaud your warm and respectful treatment of each other in these very contentious times. You are a model for all of us! Thank you!
I strongly approve of the districts you have drawn for #32 and #51 for House Districts! For once #32 as drawn would keep Midland County complete in a House District and the Gladwin townships are a good fit as they are in the same watershed affected by the flooding. Also, Gladwin residents shop in Midland and have several direct routes to Midland. #51 Keeps Mt. Pleasant and Alma, are both college towns with lots of connections as well.
Please consider taking a hard look at the Fair Maps -- AFL-CIO maps with 0% Efficiency Gap -- they may help you address the pleas of Michiganders for non-partisan districts and time is short!
Christopher Khorey
I'm starting to think that it may not be possible to be VRA-compliant AND have fair partisanship AND unite communities of interest AND draw a map that looks nice. I commend the commission for trying to achieve all of those goals at once, though I agree that the in this version of the Detroit area, VRA compliance seems to have taken precedence and resulted in a weird bacon-mander.
Tom
This is atrocious. Look at districts 22, 30 and 39. This is an obvious attempt to shape a district to get the result you want. Exactly what we were supposed to be correcting.
Jake Putala
UP communities of interest are our counties. Please keep them together. Each county has its own sheriff, prosecutor, schools, hospital, and economic and historical identity. Moreover, given the already vast size of UP districts, unnecessarily splitting up counties to be in two separate house districts will decrease citizen access to their already overwhelmed representatives. The counties represented by two different reps will introduce confusion and lessen the ability of local officials to advocate for their citizens at the state level.
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.
Lisa
This map is horrific. What is going on that Oakland County is diced and sliced in every map you create? Districts from north of Dearborn through Lake Orion are especially bad. How is a very small section of Waterford, from Elizabeth Lake Road to Cass Elizabeth Lake Road from the eastern side of Waterford through Union Lake, in a district with Pontiac (instead of with the rest of the Waterford community), and Lake Orion is in a district with Bloomfield Hills? Why is Southfield in a district with Beverley Hills, but Oak Park is in a district with Berkley, while Royal Oak is in a district with Highland Park? This is ridiculous and worse than any map we have had in the past.
Josh Vermaas
I have no idea if this is a fair map or not, since I can't evaluate partisanship. It was trivial for me to make a map where vote share and seat shares are very well correlated together. https://districtr.org/plan/50744 From this representation of the data, I can't tell if this is a fair map or not, and that's dumb.