My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by
10-08-21 v1 CD
Your comment has been added to the map.
2020 Census PL 94.171 Data
John Michael Elsen
This is another horrible map. We need to be associated with Midland county. We have too much at stake not to be. We have a traditional legacy with Saginaw and Bay City and none with Flint. We need to consider our responsibility with ESG and future development.
InLiked this configuration until I actually saw that DISTRICT 11 could be drawn without Tuscola County. Maps 237 and 233 are much better. Please include their rendition for Cd11.
I strongly disapprove of any of the map versions that place Battle Creek with southern, rural counties. It has nothing in common with them and has stronger ties with Kalamazoo along the I-94 corridor, which includes economic, health, social, environmental, and educational interests.
Please do not split Lyndon Township into two districts. We moved here precisely because we identify with Chelsea and the rest of Washtenaw County as our communities of interest. We shop, worship, recreate, and have all of our healthcare centered in Washtenaw County, despite having a Gregory mailing address which is based on the location of the nearest post office. We don't even go there; we use the post office in Chelsea. Our public library is also in Chelsea. We moved here precisely because we were appalled by the politics of Livingston County. We do no business there at all. It makes no sense to take a small township of approximately 3000 residents and split it in half. It not only creates an undue financial burden on the township; it also destroys any sense of community. ALL of Lyndon Township belongs in District 7.
David Peter Pentescu
I can not tell from this map which of the new proposed districts I would be in
David Peter Pentescu
Please be so kind as to explain the reasoning for splitting Lyndon township between 5 & 7? My previous comment mistakenly said 6 & 6, but I guess that is becuase this is rather confusing.
This map, which groups Flint and Genesee County with Saginaw and Bay City, is a good map that makes much more sense than previous drafts. This map groups communities together with shared needs and similar experiences. Please keep Genesee, Saginaw, and Bay grouped together in future maps!
I am not in favor of ANY map that puts Battle Creek in a gerrymandered Republican District with the southern tier counties. Battle Creek has nothing in common with these counties and this completely ignores the strong ties to our economic, social, health, education, and environmental interests that follow the I-94 corridor.
Clarkston & Independence Township belong in 3, not district 10. If you have to move a community out, keep Lake Orion with Oxford, Brandon and Leonard. Swap South Lyon and Northville. Northville should be in 7, it is not even part of Oakland County.
Please keep ALL of Lyndon Township in Washtenaw County. It makes no sense to split it. It is very small. I do basically everything in Washtenaw county. Yes, USPS uses the Pinckney post office to deliver my mail, but that is because of how their routes run. Our building department, sewer department, recycling department, health department, etc. are ALL in Washtenaw county. Please, please put us with our friends in Lyndon Township and our other main relationships in Washtenaw county.
Gratiot County and Isabella Counties share an RESD. Thanks for not splitting them across 2 different Congressional Districts.
Katlyn C Mehne
Am excellent map of the 5 currently proposed. I'm glad you split Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids (I grew up there). A good balance on this side of the state as well. I like the way Novi is handled
This district should really keep more of Macomb intact and not go way over to Oakland county. COI's are important
The separation of Midland city from Midland county looks to be gerrymandering to me. I believe you need to redraw your maps. Midland city belongs in district 13 with the rest of Midland county. Also Bay county and Saginaw counties are cut up into different districts and look to be gerrymandered also.
Unnecessary. Single-township is carved-out of its county, and Western Wayne/Washtenaw neighbors where it shares County-wide issues not of interest to folks in Lake Orion and Central/NE Oakland County. People here work in Ann Arbor, Detroit, Dearborn. This town was part of a poster-child of gerrymandering (MI11). Keep Northville with representation south of 96/696 corridor. Juniper map does that. Please incorporate some of the ideas from the Juniper map for this NW Wayne County region on the final maps.
I live in Lyndon Township but my mailing address is Chelsea. Looking at this map makes no sense to me unless you are trying to divide the little township of Lyndon for political reasons which I thought was the whole idea for this committee not to be doing! I and my family are connected to Washtenaw County. I work here (Deputy Clerk of Lyndon Township). My son works in Washtenaw and attends Washtenaw Community College. It makes more sense to have the entire township represented by one person. The cost of running elections will go up with that burden put on the residents. Even looking at a Census map it makes no sense to split up this little township the way it is on this map. Please put all of Lyndon Township together and back in CD 7.
The proposal to split Lyndon Township into two districts does not make any sense. It is a community that has a small tax base due to the State of Michigan owning approximately 52% of the land for parks. This split would put an unfair tax burden on the Lyndon Township residents. The Township should be kept in its entirety in Washtenaw County. Please reconsider your proposal.
Gregg A Hartsuff
I am dismayed at how a bipartisan commission has come up with something that completely favors Republicans. Districts 5, 8,9,10,11,12,13 will be red. 4 will be a toss-up, 1,2,3,&7 will be overwhelmingly blue. This is gerrymandered. You should take a wagon-wheel or sliced pie approach where the center of the wheel is in the major blue cities like Detroit, Ann Arbor, etc and extend them out into rural areas so it contains roughly 50% each. I'm disappointed in whomever the democrats were on this commission that they didn't recognize this extreme flaw as it was being drawn up. Scrap this, start over.
I can't see anything about this map that is better than the others, and it appears to be the most politically biased. Given that most other comments so far appear to be Dislike, I hope the Commission will not choose this map.
As Lyndon Township Clerk, I am highly opposed to the split that is being proposed that will basically split Lyndon Township in half. The State of Michigan owns over 52% of the property in our rural township, which results in a much lower tax base. The proposed change will result in having more ballot styles, thus greatly increasing the cost to administer elections and the revenue to support it. Splits should be reserved for larger cities. Please make Lyndon Township whole again and follow county lines.
As the Lyndon Township Clerk, I am highly opposed to having Lyndon Township Split in half. The State of Michigan owns over 52% of the property in Lyndon Township, which results in a much lower tax base. This proposed change will result in having even more ballot styles, thus greatly increasing the cost to administer elections and not the revenue to support it. Splits should be reserved for larger cities. Please make Lyndon Township whole again and follow county lines.
C. Michelle Balhorn
Please place my home with the rest of Lyndon Township in CD 7. Our main source of recreation is .8 miles away but in CD 7. Our neighbors to the west across M52 are now in CD 7 while we are in CD 5. Our kids are attending Chelsea schools. All our commerce takes place in Chelsea or Ann Arbor. I would like to be grouped with CD 7 which services the rest of Lyndon Township and Chelsea.
My friends and I have looked forward to the results of the MyDistricting committee in hopes that here in Lyndon Township we would be connected to Ann Arbor voters who we identify with in most respects here in Washtenaw County. Our Lyndon Township elected officials are the greatest! I would hate to see them unfairly burdened by a decision to divide our township in half. Please consider your decision carefully in this regard. Marijo Grogan
Susan S. Morse
I am objecting to dividing Lyndon township into two districts and taking my part of the township away from Chelsea and Washtenaw, our communities of interest where we shop, get medical services and recreate. This would put an additional economic burden on our small Lyndon population and tax base in terms of elections and grants etc. There would have to be a very compelling reason for such a carve out and that does not exist here. This is not a theoretical issue for me. These are the reasons for the whole reapportionment process. Please return us to CD7 so we can feel represented and not endure additional tax burdens for our services. Thank you. Susan Morse
Susan Fegley McKee
Please re-think dividing our tiny (3,000 people) Lyndon township into two different congressional districts. I am an election worker and this would create a lot of problems for our township clerk and add a lot of expense to our taxpayers. Overall, I think these maps look to be an improvement from the gerrymandered districts of the past. My hope is that the districts will be more competitive so that highly partisan campaigns will not be an advantage to a candidate. I hope there will be more moderate candidates that are interested in working across the aisle in Washington DC AND in the state government.
Please do not take a sliver of northwest Washtenaw out of CD 7. I am an elected Trustee of Lyndon Township. This would split our township into 2 CD's. This would greatly increase costs for our township's elections and would make it difficult to achieve fair representation for our township. Please keep us all in one CD with the rest of Washtenaw county
See w6436 for a good explanation
Niles must remain with the rest of Berrien County. I join others that have questioned the carve outs of small sections of more rural counties for no readily apparent reason. For us in Niles, Berrien County is THE community of interest. Second of importance is the opportunity to remain in the larger part of the old 6th District, which this map proposes. I've found no re-districting map dating back to 1973 that divides Berrien County.
This map matches more voter preferences for district shapes.
Robert H Mester
A township, Lyndon, split in half? Two different polling sites with attendant cost, and two different representatives? This seems counterproductive. Lyndon Township is closely linked to washtenw County in terms of its recreational activities, most supported by the County, and its economics. Please rethink this division.
We request the maps to be fair.
Many good aspects of this map. Although Oakland Co is split up at least Rochester and Troy stay with Royal Oak and Ferndale. However, Hazel Park and Madison Heights belong with them as well. Also Warren still belongs with Macomb in 6
I like the way this map looks. The county divisions have been minimal. Also appreciate district 8 not being part of Kalamazoo. We have much more in common community-based with the mapped part of the state.
Carole J Chi
Congressional District 6 should include ALL of Warren and Sterling Heights for they are sister cities. Warren should not be split up and connected to a CD that includes Detroit, which is in another county, for then Detroit's interests would be the focus. Also consider removing Oakland County communities from District 6; and instead move the map boundary eastward to include Fraser, Eastpointe and Roseville, even St. Clair Shores, for we all have more in common.
I agree with Daniel Harris.
Jessica M Swartz
Battle Creek should be with Kalamazoo.
That is a very strange carve-out for Midland What is the purpose? Why would a community be entirely separated from the rest of their county? Seems very odd (and I am not an affected resident).
This map seems to have more partisan fairness than many of the others. I think grouping the communities the way they did makes more sense than on the other maps.
I agree with Daniel. Also, apparently many in Midland do not feel that they should be in a district with Saginaw and Bay City anyway. Fix the map!
If there is nowhere to put the Thumb, it seems it would make more sense to keep it connected to Bay City, Saginaw, Flint, etc. It seems like the rationale is that the Tri-Cities want to be kept together. That's a poor rationale for drawing the Thumb into Metro-Detroit. It's very possible to draw the map differently. There isn't enough African American population in Flint for the VRA to apply to a congressional district so what happens in that portion of the map should not be dictated by Flint. The commission should present maps with different options, including one with the Thumb not drawn into Metro Detroit.
Please do not make Michigan a one party state! This is coming from someone who has voted for democrats, republicans and third party before. We need a balance of power. This redistricting not only takes COI out of consideration, but also ensures MI will be a one party system with NO balance of power. Indians, Asians, Middle Easterners voices are being diluted here and disregarded! Please Use this map 10-05-21 v1 CD.
changing the composition of the district to get the result one wants is contrary to what this commission was created to do. Also, the supreme court has invalidated maps that stray from traditional redistricting principles. It should be noted, that in Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp.2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2004), aff’d 542 U.S. 947 (June 30, 2004), the United States Supreme Court affirmed without opinion a three-judge court decision holding unconstitutional a legislative plan within tolerable statistical limits (overall range less than 10%) when the legislature had departed from traditional redistricting principles and had discriminated against Republican incumbents. In Larios, Plaintiffs challenged the 2001 congressional and House plans and the 2001 and 2002 Senate plans enacted by the Georgia General Assembly on various grounds. A three-judge federal district court upheld the congressional plan but struck down the legislative plans as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The order regarding the 2001 Senate plan was stayed pending preclearance of the plan. The overall range of both the 2001 House plan and the 2002 Senate plan was 9.98 percent, but the court found that the General Assembly had systematically underpopulated districts in rural South Georgia and inner-city Atlanta and overpopulated districts in the suburban areas north, east, and west of Atlanta in order to favor Democratic candidates and disfavor Republican candidates. The plans also systematically paired Republican incumbents while reducing the number of Democratic incumbents who were paired. The plans tended to ignore the traditional districting principles used in Georgia in previous decades, such as keeping districts compact, not allowing the use of point contiguity, keeping counties whole, and preserving the cores of prior districts.
Stop diluting Asian and Middle Easterners voices please in district 6! Take our COI into account and NOT political parties as some in the panel suggested we just give democrats more districts. Royal Oak and Ferndale belong to district 3. Please use this map 10-05-21 v1 CD! Let politician fight for our voices!
I agree with Daniel! District 6 should not be strongly democrat or strongly republican! I am very disappointed at this last map. It totally disenfranchises Asian and Middle Easterners voices! Please use 10-05-21 v1 CD or come up with a better map!
I have said before, that MICRC will know you they are doing a great nonpartisan job when they make BOTH political parties unhappy. Right now, they are making democrats ONLY very happy with these redistricting. Let both parties FIGHT for our voices! MAKE THEM BOTH UNHAPPY! This map, 10-05-21 v1 CD, is WAY more competitive! it makes both democrats and republicans have to fight for 1-2 seats to guarantee control. It gives democrats 6 seats and republicans 5 seats. 2 seats must be fought for! Use 10-05-21 v1 CD PLEASE!!! This one takes COI into account and NOT political parties!
I have heard some at the commission say we must give an advantage to democrats. NO! We must give COI voices in their respective district and NOT DILUTE our voices! The purpose for MICRC was too take into account COI and NOT political parties! Those people who say we must give democrats an advantage are on the record! LETS NOT MAKE MICHIGAN A ONE PARTY STATE! Let politicians FIGHT for our voices! Let us make districts more competitive!
The reason why we voted for having a nonpartisan redistricting commission is so the maps are fairer and both parties work for our votes. I see these maps give a huge partisan advantage to democrats only. Why would democrats or republicans fight for our votes now? Whoever runs in districts 3 and 6 have NO REASON to fight for the people. They are guaranteed to win based on their political affiliation.
District 6 and 3 DO NOT make sense. You are diluting Asian and Middle Easterners voices by including Royal Oak and Ferndale into District 6 when they obviously belong to district 3! STOP DILUTING ASIAN AND MIDDLE EASTERNERS VOICES!!!
This map is an example of gerrymandering. Pack all democrats and all republicans in one region and give an advantage to democrats. So we went from republican gerrymandering to democrat gerrymandering. Not taking into account ANY COI! Packing is what is happening here.
As I said, the plan I just created on Dave's, might have a flaw or two. I just noticed one my self. I just made some minor changes to 11, 12, 13 by switching out Wyandotte for Romulus and moving few Detroit precincts. Now, there are 4 dem, 4 rep, 5 competitive, but still 6.42 likely Dem districts. https://davesredistricting.org/join/26901765-7806-42a3-b87c-e23285970955
There are a lot of things wrong with this map, and the other two you uploaded on the 8th. Previously, I have expressed support for map #188 with a few tweaks. I still support that map as a clear alternative to this one. However, I was messing around on Dave's Redistricting this morning and came up with another one. While no plan is perfect, this new plan (see link below) is fairly simple and I think it addresses several concerns that I've read. The tri cities are together, Arenac is part of the aforementioned district as well. Ottawa County remains whole, instead of split into 3 parts, as part of a lakeshore district that goes from Mason to Berrien. Therefore, Kalamazoo and Battle Creek are no longer in part of a district with Ottawa. Muskegon and Kent remain whole as well. There has been some concern expressed about the placement of Barry County. While there is no perfect solution to that, in this plan it remains part of the 3rd, along with most of Ionia, and out county Kent just like it has been for a long time, which means there is some historical precedent and some commonality with Ionia and Southern and Eastern Kent. Macomb has it's own district. The thumb is all in one district. There are two majority minority districts. In addition, according to Dave's redistricting, this plan has 6.44 Democratic districts out of 13, and there are four competitive districts. It seems to me, that it doesn't get much fairer than that. While I'm sure, some might find a flaw or two in this plan, the only significant flaw I can think of is that one city other than Detroit is split. I recommend that you give it, or something close to it, some serious consideration. https://davesredistricting.org/join/26901765-7806-42a3-b87c-e23285970955
Detroit obviously must be split but this is not a true representation of East-West divide. Neither this collaborative nor Eid's "variant" have much distinction, as they virtually only switch-out Warren for Taylor.
The commission needs to completely redraw Oakland districts 3,6,10. At this point it is a partisan gerrymander to benefit the Democrats in District 6. Chair Szatela redrew district 6 to be 55% Democrat...even when Commissioners Orton and Clarke noted it was a departure from what the commission had been doing. District 10 intentionally packs Republican votes. The 3 districts can be re-drawn in a way that make sense to the eye, and in terms of COI and partisan fairness. 3 districts that would be neither strongly Republican or strongly Democratic.
This could be improved by keeping District 6 in Macomb, not across into Oakland. The communities are very different. More importantly, Warren should absolutely be combined with Sterling Heights. In this map, their concerns will be completely bi-passed because the focus will be on Detroit.
Warren is the heart of Macomb. Taking it out of a Macomb Congressional and placing it with Detroit is a gross abuse of power. Warren is the home of the GM Tech Center and Army Tacomb, both of which have employees who live throughout Macomb. Both of which have suppliers in Sterling Heights. Warren should be in with the rest of Macomb.
Troy being with Eastpointe doesn't make much sense.
Thank you for keeping the city of Midland with the Tri-Cities and Flint for a congressional district. I would suggest placing Tuscola County with the Thumb as it more closely aligns with those counties. I lived in Huron County for 11 years and I know that with schools, agriculture and rural areas it was more like the Thumb. That would allow you to place more of Midland County in the district with the city of Midland, especially those areas around the city like Larkin, Mills, and Homer that more closely align with the city. It is clear that many commenters do not understand the intricate work it takes to adhere to all of the criteria required of these maps, so let me just say that I appreciate all the hard work you are doing. You have tried maps taking into consideration the differing requirements from compactness to COI's to partisan fairness. Please make these maps as close to zero political bias as possible, even if it means splitting up COI's or counties. The people of Michigan voted for this independent commission because we were tired of the gerrymandered maps that placed most of the power in a voting minority of the population. These maps can rectify that wrong, giving all the voters of Michigan a better legislature that will represent everyone's needs, not just a radical few. How the map looks is less important than how it functions.
I recently moved from Midland but lived there almost 30 years, and I believe that including the City of Midland with the Tri-Cities and the Flint area rather than the rest of Midland County is best. The key word is "city". While Midland is a small city, it is not a small town, which all the other towns in Midland County are. In many ways Midland resembles Traverse City or some Detroit suburbs that are too far away to be districted with Midland, so the best the commission can do is group it with other cities that have some commonalities. Nowhere else in Midland County will you find any of the following, but you would find all of them in/near Bay City, Saginaw, and/or Flint: Large manufacturing site, performing arts center, a large medical facility, several sports venues (some of which host national/multi-national events), a (dying) mall, multiple hotels, apartment complexes with multiple buildings, a large number of professional workers mixed with blue collar workers, colleges (one of which also has campuses in Bay City and Saginaw), and a blend of cultures caused by the presence of a multi-national corporation. The rest of Midland County is more rural with agriculture. Those saying that it's wrong to break up a county are not considering either the nature of the city, and other counties outside of the Detroit area including Bay County have also been split. There is nothing inherently wrong with carving out one part of a county or "funny shapes" if it makes sense. It's only wrong if it is done to political gerrymander, and I don't believe this is gerrymandering. As for those who asked that the city be kept with the northern part of the county affected by the 2020 floods, further downstream into Saginaw County was also affected. Flood recovery will hopefully be complete long before districts are redrawn, so it is wrong to draw lines based on a relatively short term issue. I believe you have appropriately met the request to keep the four lakes area together by placing Sanford extending into Gladwin County. Thanks for your hard work!
I have been critical of the draft maps in many other areas but I want to commend you for the improvements to District 4. It is compact, reasonable as a community of interest, and relatively competitive. Thank you for eliminating the ugly gerrymander that stretched Grand Rapids to Kalamazoo.
District 6 needs to be entirely in Macomb County and not double crossed into Oakland. Macomb County is a distant community of interest apart from Oakland. The two counties have separate Community College Districts, separate sheriff offices, and generally compete in separate high school athletic conferences. Breaking the county line like this also makes district 6 less competitive and I thought the commission was supposed both draw clean lines and err on the side of competitiveness. This map does the opposite of both of these goals.
While I like that the 5th District keeps Livingston whole, is a 50/50 district, and doesn't have Ann Arbor area (although Lyndon Twp should be in 7), I don't like the changes to the 6th turning it from a 50/50 district to a 55% Dem. That's a gerrymandering change that removes one of the few competitive districts in Michigan. Fair districts are districts that can be competitive.
Sonja Marie Patrick
I'm in favor of this map
The way this map splits Oakland County is much better than the previous maps, but northern Oakland is still an issue. Independence Township, which rests along the I-75 corridor and is an exurb of Detroit, should be in District 3 with the rest of central/west Oakland County. Trading Orion Township, which does not lie along that corridor, into District 10 would keep population even, but you could also remove Rose Township, Northville, and Northville Township (which aren't even in Oakland County), to keep both Independence and Orion Townships in 3. Either way, Clarkston deserves to be represented along with its fellow exurban communities rather than a region it has no connections to.
Here again is an oddly shaped sub-section that is being removed from its county lines and added to a different district. The only area that this should occur is the very populated city of Detroit and its suburbs. I see no justification for this to occur with smaller towns/cities. Please keep county lines clean to avoid the appearance of special interests that breach public trust.
All efforts should be made to align districts with county lines except for the most populated area of Detroit. Carving out small sections, cities and neighborhoods will breed skepticism and distrust in this process. This map is starting to again carve out small sections and group them in a variety of districts. Please keep lines simpler and clean.
Why is this section added to district 5? In fact, why is the entire west portion of Ionia county separated from the other half of Ionia county, given its distance from Grand Rapids? Why can't county lines be better preserved in creating districts when they involve less populated areas?
Why is Ottawa County divided into THREE districts that stretch half way across Michigan? Does it make any sense to group these portions of the county away from the more proximal district 4 that is centered around Grand Rapids? Preserving the area around Grand Rapids into one district seems more logical. Why not draw district 4 to cover both Ottawa and Kent counties and then group Ionia county into district 5? Following county lines in less populated areas best preserves the appearance of fairness.
District 8 spreads too far across the state to be reflective to regional differences. This would break up the current District 6 that includes Allegan, Berrien, Cass, St Jospeh, Van Buren and Kalamazoo. One of the tasks assigned to the commission is to create compact districts. District 8, as drawn, seems to contradict this edict. The eastern, central and western portions of District 8 should be divided and grouped in closer geographical proximity to neighboring counties.
Cassandra M Foley
Thank you for keeping the Tri-Cities and Flint together in this map. This map creates a competitive district for District 11. It serves the Tri-Cities and Flint very well by insuring that we will have a voice representing the urban, suburban, and rural interests that all these counties share.
Why does the commission want to carve up a single county into being represented by 5 different congressional districts. The commission can do better than that!!! These carve out areas need to be minimized in several areas across this map.
Please leave county lines intact when dealing with less populated areas. As previously stated, why not leave the entire county of Jackson as part of district 8? Stop looking so much at numbers to make certain statistical goals and use more common sense in maintaining county lines, to avoid the appearance of gerrymandering or special interests.
Born and raised in Berrien County. Why carve out this part of Berrien County and attach it District 8 that spreads across the entire base of Michigan. Leave county lines intact whenever dealing with less populated areas where there is already shared history, government and economic interests. Likewise, the east part of Jackson county is carved out of District 8 and attached to District 7, when it should remain as an intact county and left in District 8. Why are there so many odd carves out on this map???
Carving out small portions of one county and lumping them into another district is questionable in less populated areas. This compromises the commission's integrity against special interests and gerrymandering. The only locations that should be divided outside of county lines are large city locations. This has been repeatedly mentioned.
An unnecessary carveout that should be redrawn. Please keep county lines together in less populated areas.
Why is this corner of Ogemaw County being placed with District 13, instead of being preserved with the rest of the county to District 12? Carving out small portions like this makes no sense in less populated areas. There are several areas on this map which does so and is compromising the commission's integrity against special interest.
I like this proposal for District 8 as it uses current District 7 as a base and adds or subtracts from that for the most part to maintain reasonable Communities of Interest however I dont understand the reasons to add the small slice of Berrien County and removing the small slice of Jackson County. It makes more sense to maintain county lines especially with these relatively minor geographic additions and subtractions
Clarkston should be with Oakland County, remove Northville and place in with the Ann Arbor district.
Even though I don't like how Oakland county is split its the best map so far
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?