My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by
10-05-21 v1 HD
Your comment has been added to the map.
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:
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.
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.
I like putting Alma and Mt. Pleasant in the same district. This is a good community of interest.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The second partisan fairness improvement would be to review Commissioner Eid's proposed lakefront district in the Benton Harbor/St. Joseph area.
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.
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.
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!
Please fill in the following details to submit your Comments. You can also attached a document if you want to provide more detials.
Do you wish to be contacted?