My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
10-05-21 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
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
Catherine A Macomber
I support this map with reservations. The Saginaw Bay Watershed is an important consideration for Bay county as a community of interest. I believe splitting the county in this way does a disservice to this COI.
These odd and disparate districts do not respect COIs and is not nececssary under VRAs. Fix them.
Joshua Schriver
All of Oxford Twp & Addision Twp should remain in District 46 because they share a non-partisan community of interest with their single Oxford-Community School System.
Casey Adams
I like putting Alma and Mt. Pleasant in the same district. This is a good community of interest.
Linda Adams
I don't get the benefit of putting Emmet County in with the Upper Peninsula. Emmet has a tourism based economy.
Cheryl Rottmann - Madison Heights City Clerk
This carve out of Madison Heights will remove one of our most populous precincts and dilute the City's representation in both districts. For a small community, there is a need to keep the City whole in it's representation and create unnecessary and costly splits for conducting elections. Please consider revisiting this issue and keeping Madison Heights in one district.
Christopher Khorey
One more partisan fairness improvement: Pontiac area. Rochester and Rochester Hills together are only slightly under the population threshold, and that area is growing. I'd recommend simply making that the district rather than cutting up another community (in this map, Oakland Township). Then have the Pontiac district go south to Bloomfield Hills instead of west (this is better for COIs, as well). Then do an Auburn Hills/Lake Angelus/Waterford district, which I know is a funny shape, but then again so is District 29 on the current draft.
Christopher Khorey
Another partisan fairness improvement: re-align the boundaries of 51 and 52 to give 51 Genesee Township, Thetford Township and the Vienna Township/Clio area and move Davison and Goodrich to 52.
Christopher Khorey
Another partisan fairness option is here in the Lansing area. I'd suggest creating a "Western Suburbs" district with Delta Twp, Grand Ledge, Watertown, etc, then linking DeWitt and maybe Bath with the northern half of Lansing. Then re-align districts 93 and 97 to take in the left over rural areas.
Christopher Khorey
The second partisan fairness improvement would be to review Commissioner Eid's proposed lakefront district in the Benton Harbor/St. Joseph area.
Christopher Khorey
Given the partisan fairness metrics reviewed at the end of the last meeting, the Commission needs to create 4-6 more districts that lean Democratic (the metrics showed 60 R-leaning districts and 50 D-leaning districts on this map despite a 52-48 D statewide vote). I am going to place several comments to suggest places where the commission could revise the map to meet the partisan fairness criteria. The first is to adopt Commissioner Rothhorn's proposed District 85 that is on Map 206.
Merlin Steffes
I meant to write I do envy your your job. All this people who keep blowing the sound bite " I don't envy your job" is stuck on my mind.
Merlin Steffes
The City of Grand Rapids is 200,000. It should be split to create roughly two rep. seats. You are using parts of Grand Rapids to create three districts. You democrats on the "Independent Commission" are trying hard to create democrat leaning districts in the Kent/Muskegon area for the congressional, state senate and state rep. I don't envy your job, I could do this redistricting fairly and on time easily!