My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
10-09-21 v1 HD DJC
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
Joel Arnold
I do like that this map does not group the entirety of the City of Flint into a single district, however it does not guarantee minority representation as the City currently has with the 34th District. Please continue to work on this, and reference submitted map P7273 as a good model of a map that allows for representation of minority communities without drawing all of Flint into a single district.
Theresa Mungioli
So far a better map than the others. Please minimize going splitting Oakland County into so many House districts as it is not going with other communities of interest.
Margaret Schankler
Please move the prison population to an overpopulated district to address prison gerrymandering.
Margaret Schankler
Please move the prison population to an overpopulated district to address prison gerrymandering.
Kevin Dolin
Many of these maps of SE Michigan disregard city and county boundaries which are "Communities of Interest". Why? my own city is divided into thirds.
katrhleen curell
This map ranks high on the efficiency gap. Im not surprised because it places the city of Midland with rural areas instead of our urban neighbor Bay City. Please keep the state house maps that combine Midland and Bay City at the top of the list as "favored Maps". Thank You
Dr. Hurley Coleman
As member of Saginaw African American Pastors and Ezekiel, I am challenged by the district because of the exclusion of portions of Bridgeport and Buena Vista, who share school districts in Saginaw and Bridgeport. In addition, this map excludes the critical transportation resource of MBS that serves our community and is funded through our local tax base. It also excludes SVSU and Delta College, which are critical resources to the community. This map should be redrawn to include the critical infrastructure elements.
Why after many, many displeased comments on all the previous maps, have you not corrected these egregious districts that serve to dilute the voices of Pontiac voters and other communities as well? The residents of these communities will not accept the "it's too much work" answer. Commenters from Lake Orion, Oxford, Clarkston, Independence Township, Waterford, Auburn Hills, Bloomfield and Pontiac have all stated that these districts do not preserve COIs and do not represent the communities involved in any way. Fix this!
Linda Tengman
This cannot possibly benefit the residents of the township of Waterloo. The Representative can’t do a fair job for all.
Sharon Buttry
Please see the link to the map the Detroit Hamtramck Coalition for Advancing Healthy Environments created
Sharon Buttry
County boundaries should not be crossed. AlsoThe Detroit Hamtramck Coalition for Advancing Healthy Environments gave you a map clearly indicating we need a united voice for Hamtramck and East side of Detroit to address environmental justice concerns. District 2 needs to go all the way to Gratiot at the very least.
Anne Wallin
I dislike splitting the towns of Midland and Bay City into different districts. Many people live in one city and work in a different one. As municipalities with a industrial bases, we have many similar interests from public policy. I am unconvinced that the floods and watershed make a significant COI. There is more logic to urban versus rural interests when creating a COI. I also urge you to keep districts competitive from a political party perspective if feasible. Thank you for your work.
Dan Holowicki
Totally dislike this plan as far as the Downriver communities go. They are split into 5 different districts. Bad idea.
B Anness
I am resubmitting my comment because it showed up on the map incorrectly: I DISLIKE the proposed map as drawn. My rationale is below. The Clark State House Plan for proposed HD 37 and all of the other proposed draft maps from the Commission for my community are all identically drawn and no different from House District 45. All of the proposed Commission maps flip the carve-out from the west to the east side of Oakland Twp. Essentially making it an unchanged district and still maintaining a Republican advantage. To honor township boundaries, all of Oakland Twp. should stay in the same House district. Lastly, with the House requirement for district populations to be within 77,000 to 91,000 residents, both Rochester and Rochester Hills combined meet this requirement with a population of 89,335, making it unnecessary to carve out any other community with Rochester and Rochester Hills.   Statewide, the maps proposed by the Commission unfairly benefit Republicans. Your job isn't done until you fix that. The party that wins the most votes statewide should win the most seats. The proposed maps don't do that, which indicates that the Commission needs to continue working toward an accurate representation of ALL citizens throughout Michigan. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Douglas Floto
District 33 is a problem because it ignores the community of interest for this section of commerce twp and is not fairly balanced between the parties. I would like to see it shaped along the lines of the EID senate map. Regardless, the Republican advantage needs to be eliminated.
Rebecca Younk
It makes no sense to stick the city of Bay City with rural communities like Linwood and Almeda Beach. Urban voters will be drowned out. Especially including Freeland in with Bay City is extremely odd, and makes me suspicious of this map and its partisan bent.
Michelle Mormul
It makes no sense for the city of St. Clair Shores to be in 3 separate districts.
Scott Weston Rose
There is no reason to have so many county boundaries crossed by districts of this size. Please consider my map which minimized county and city cross overs and also has a very low population deviation of 1.37% max.
Joel Rutherford
This again chops up Warren and is a terrible district that will do nothing to keep communities of interest together or give everyone in it a fair voice or fair representation.. We just need FAIR MAPS!
Sharon Trumpy
Novi has a diverse population with a large AAPI community. Splitting our city into separate districts disempowers these voices. We need to be in one district so our representation can speak for our community interests.
Marian MAhoney
Please do not split up the city of Novi. We have a growing Asian American community and our northern precincts are quite diverse. By splitting up our community into separate districts, these voices are diluted.
elizabeth mae beaudoin
Keep Novi together. Chopping off a couple of precincts from our city makes no sense. This map dilutes the voices of the AAPI community. Please try again.
Joe Fresard
I think the one COI I saw more than any other was keeping the Grosse Pointes and harper woods together. Why ignore it?
Joe Fresard
This ignores the constitutionally mandated criteria of preserving communities of interest and considering municipal boundaries
Heather Hunnell
Thank you for listening to comments about I-94 communities, but I would like this map more if there was a better balance between Jackson and Washtenaw population. I know that it won't be even, but it would feel more fair if it was at least a little bit closer.
Why are you taking chunks out of every Township only to replace them with a check of another Township? Why not leave communities whole?
Catherine Upton
This is obvious Gerrymandering and an attempt to benefit the Democrat party. The advertised reason for creating the Commission was to STOP GERRYMANDERING AND SPLITTING UP COMMUNITIES. From PBS, 9/25/21: "In a gerrymandered state, it's not unusual to see towns carved in half and shared school districts split into different political districts. This is by no means accidental — the redistricting process has long been conducted behind closed doors, under the watchful eye of the very politicians hoping to tip voting lines in their favor. But Michigan may have found a way to break this pattern — and take the politics out of the process." REALLY!? So how is the resulting map from this Commission any different? Districts 66, 68, and 69 are clearly attempting to split the heavily democratic voting population of Ann Arbor into rural areas to move these districts all into a Democratic majority and create 2 MORE DEMOCRAT SEATS. This needs to be undone. How can one Representative adequately represent the interests of residents in the inner city of Ann Arbor and also represent the interests of citizens in heavily rural areas. Please undo this obvious Gerrymandering. In 2018 the slogan was "Voters not Politicians". WHAT REALLY CHANGED?
One of the reasons this Commission was created was to stop the gerrymandering and the splitting up of communities. Keep Waterford together; there is no reason to split us. Waterford needs to be whole in order to efficiently and effectively represent the residents. KEEP WATERFORD TOGETHER!
Waterford is a township that is a member of the Lakes community. Our communities of interest include Independence Township, White Lake Township, West Bloomfield Township and Highland Township among others. By splitting our community, you have broken 2 core tenets of the redistricting plan, you have split a community unnecessarily and you have not included all of Waterford in its community of interest. Keep Waterford together.
Merlin Steffes
If one studies the representative districts in Kent County, one will notice that the 75th, 76th, 78th, and 86th lean democrat while the 79th, 96th, and 98th lean republican. That is 4 to 3 advantage for the democrats in a county that leans republican. Kent County residents must accept this disfranchisement for the sake of equality.
Bill Richardson
Proposed districts 66, 68, and 69 are clearly attempting to split the heavily democratic voting population of Ann Arbor into rural areas to move these districts all into a Democratic majority. This is obvious Gerrymandering attempting to benefit the Democrat party and needs to be undone. How can one Representative adequately represent the interests of residents in the inner city of Ann Arbor and also represent the interests of citizens in heavily rural areas. Please undo this obvious Gerrymandering.
Carl Weckerle
Districts 10 and 12 should not cut across so many different communities. If a representative for district 10 lived in the northwest portion of Warren, they would have very little in common with those near Eastern Market in the way of neighborhood history, local economy, school districts, city/county government representation, etc. I live in Warren and would not want to take away representation from Detroiters or vice versa.
Charles D Teeter
The proposed State House District No. 6 really makes no sense to me; it is truly combining areas with no shared interests, from Mack to 12 Mile. We requested to at least keep our neighborhoods of Morningside, East English Village and Cornerstone together in 1 district. Morningside appears to be broken up into 3 districts. Once again, these districts appear to be clearly drawn to dilute the shared interests and voting power of Detroit residents.
Susan Ann Lawrence
The proposed map, as it stands, blatantly ignores input you have requested and received from the members of the East English Village, Cornerstone Village, and Morningside communities. Our commonalities have been diluted in the past by the district divisions (4/6). Throughout this process of reviewing and redrawing district lines, we have been vocal in requesting that our three neighborhoods be contained in a single district. We also spend time, effort, and money, as well as sharing social concerns with the Grosse Pointe and Jefferson Chalmers communities to the south. Our tri-community efforts to improve the East Warren Business/Commercial Corridor is likely to take a hit as a result of your current proposed redistricting. Please consider the boundaries you have established for District 6 to include all of Morningside, and include our neighbors to the south. Thank you.
Scott Stewart
As others have said, the comments regarding Waterford and Pontiac are not true. As a resident of Pontiac, there are a variety of common bonds between Pontiac and Auburn Hills that solicit them to stay together - as Lisa mentioned, including the schools, tax base, etc. Auburn Hills used to be Pontiac Township itself! To include Pontiac with this random area of Waterford is not right for this community. Please stop ignoring these comments - it has been on multiple of these maps.
Cynthia L Zorn
You need to rethink your ideas. Where is the commonality in any of the cities, towns, villages, twps. in the new districting. NO one could effectively be a positive representative to such a district. Get real and honest and non-partisan
Cynthia L Zorn
Try making this district line so that the townships, cities, villages etc are more like in personalities. NO one could possible be effective in serving a district split this way. GEt real!
David Bricker
What is going on with Byron Township here? It's being split between 3 separate districts. This is the first map I've seen that put Byron in more than 2 districts. Byron Center is an actual community. To just divide it up piecemeal and lump some in with Grandville/Wyoming, some in with Caledonia/Cascade, and some in with Jamestown/Zeeland isn't really fair to the people who live here. I realize that at some point you have to just pick a line and the districts won't be perfect. But these lines aren't even square. There are significantly better draft maps that the committee has presented. Not sure what happened with this one.
Tom Heck
This proposed district is completely void of a community of interest priority as the northern portion of Monroe county with Carleton and Steiner and Ash Township have absolutely nothing in common with the City of Taylor - this proposed district makes NO SENSE!!
Joshua Davis
Keep Me With other Muskegon County Voters Please?
Jack Bengtsson
Prefer map 193 with a few tweaks.
Dominic Coletti
Belleville/Van Buren/Willow Run have to go somewhere, I guess, but putting them in a district with Milan makes little sense. Milan is a rural community while the other three communities are suburban in nature. Further, Milan, to the extent it feeds anywhere, feeds north to Ann Arbor while Belleville/Van Buren split about evenly between Detroit & suburbs and Ann Arbor, leaning towards Detroit/Dearborn/Romulus/Canton. Those economic ties are fundamentally different than those of the Milan/York area with which they are lumped
Dominic Coletti
Also chiming in on Chelsea. It is far more tied to Ann Arbor than it is to Jackson. If you want to carve something out, Manchester would be better, though still not great, for keeping tied communities together
Jeremy Fisher
The southern section of Warren does not deserve to be chopped up like this. As Michigan's third largest city, we are being treated as the spoils that go to the victor. Divided amoung Detroit and others, our voices are being silenced. This is wrong. Please merge the Detroit seats. Then merge the two south Warren sections. Give south Warren the voice in Lansing it has never had.
Jennifer Austin
Geographically this house seat for Midland makes sense, but if the overall map isn't achieving zero political bias I say go to the one with Midland and Bay City in a house district. I know it looks weird, but political fairness is far more important than how the map looks. We have lived under minority rule for 3 decades because the GOP gerrymandered the map so they could stay in power. There are more Democrats and Independents in this state and we should have a fair map that allows us to elect reps that work for our vote. Keep working until the partisan fairness matches the electorate of the state.
Alexander McKay
While I disagreed with Jennifer F on Manchester, I largely do agree with her on Chelsea. In my experience Chelsea residents are far more likely to interact with Ann Arbor than Jackson. That being said, I believe it is often unwise to split up cities, except for when it is absolutely necessary. It often means the surrounding, more rural townships are grouped with a larger population center that does not understand their challenges and priorities.
Alexander McKay
A quick counterpoint to Jennifer F's comment: looking at the census data (and assuming I'm doing it right - I'm not an expert) for the 48158 area code, commuters to "any principle city" make up less than a quarter of the workforce. Given I did the area code instead of Manchester, but I would argue that the greater Manchester area is at most loosely tied to Ann Arbor and it's challenges and concerns often very different.
Robert Wolfer
The 10-percent discrepancy threshold allows this district to simply consist of Branch and Hillsdale counties. This extra bite out of Lenawee is unnecessary and only complicates matters.
Robert Wolfer
House Districts encompass approximately 91,000 people and can be within a 10-percent margin. Given these guide rails, there should NEVER be a reason that any district in southern Michigan stretches into four separate counties!
Robert Wolfer
Lapeer County has enough population where it can wholly be encompassed by one House District. Here, it has been split into three separate districts. This is incredibly unnecessary.
Jennifer F
While I think you are on the right path for unpacking Ann Arbor so as not to waste votes in one district there, the Chelsea area should not be carved out of Washtenaw County. Most of the economic activity from Chelsea residents is into the Ann Arbor area - work, shopping, recreation, health care, etc. Their interests would best be served by a representative who understands that.
Jennifer F
I disagree with Alexander McKay. Many, many of us in the Manchester area commute to Ann Arbor for work, shopping, health care, recreation, etc. Not all of us have easy access to I-94, so use other roads to get there, such as Pleasant Lake Rd, Scio Church Rd, Austin Rd.
Alexander McKay
For district 66, I think it's hard to justify grouping rural townships and small towns like Manchester or Brooklyn in with Ann Arbor. They share relatively little in common, especially since this seems to carve away from I-94, meaning a lot of the people in this district do no commute to work, shop, worship, or recreate within it.
Ruth Helwig
Only time will tell, but I think separating Midland from Isabella County will be a positive. Regarding the map in general, I don't have enough information to knowledgably critique all of the districts. However, multiple newspaper articles have indicated that the current maps favor one political party. As a citizen of Michigan, my hope was that the maps would result in a legislature that more accurately reflects the voters of this state, would result in more competitive districts, would lead to more collaboration in Lansing, and would result in elected officials who are responsive to the citizens of this state. Too often, I receive responses from elected officials that tell me they will not be taking my opinion into consideration if they bother to respond at all. Too often they appear in public only for photo ops and skip any opportunity to engage with their constituents. Let's make maps that work for everyone.
Dana Fortier
Why in the WORLD are you putting Farmington/Farmington Hills into 3 separate districts? Farmington/Farmington Hills (old District 37) is PERFECT as it is now. You should keep that one in tact, then work out from there.
Soh Suzuki
I'm disappointed in this proposed map. The districts, particularly in the ones in Detroit appear to have it split up into every which way. I would like the commission to respect the municipal boundaries, especially county boundaries, as well as neighborhood boundaries. I was informed that the commission may be interested in limiting racial/ethnic representations in each district, which appears to against the idea of maintaining communities of interests. Detroit is a city with appx 85% African Americans, and as such I would expect my district to reflect close proporational representation. I would also add stretching out districts over multiple municipalities will only creates challenges to those who represent us, and will be a disservice to the communities as we will not be represented adequately on issues pertaining to our direct communities.
Maureen Dritsan
Very, very disappointed in the proposed map for District 6. This entire process feels like an exercise in futility. Why ask voters for input and then blatantly ignore the many comments that have emphasized the importance of keeping our East English Village, Morningside and Cornerstone Village neighborhoods united in one district and not split up (as historically this has been the case). We are a strong voting bloc - we turn out for elections and make our voices heard. Splitting Morningside does a disservice to all of our three eastside communities. We work together on countless issues and projects (which I have enumerated in prior submissions ). In this proposed plan, we are also split off from Jefferson Chalmers as well as the Grosse Pointe communities with whom we share many activities, interests, businesses and social concerns. I'm attaching my letter from June 16, 2021 for your further review. Please reconsider the boundaries you've established for District 6 to retain all of Morningside and include our neighbors to the south. Thank you.
Barbara J Kramer
Moving the 110th District to the NOVI area is capricious and poorly thought out. It calls into question your motives, actions and abilities to make sound decisions.
I have a problem with this district. As originally drawn, the district was complaint w/VRA requirements and included Auburn Hills, Pontiac and Bloomfield Hills. These communities are all connected via school districts, business districts (Bloomfield and Pontiac annex area on Telegraph, which includes Pontiac Schools for any residents there) and other infrastructure. These communities were removed and an unrelated portion of the Waterford Lakes District was added because a commissioner thought it looked funny. He also stated that Waterford was a better fit. The argument was that the socio-economic, housing and jobs, etc were more similar between Waterford than between Pontiac, AH or Bloomfield. This is patently untrue, per the IRS website that area of Waterford is much less likely to relate to Pontiac than AH, and does not have the tax, school and infrastructure ties that Bloomfield, Sylvan lake or Lake Angelus has to Pontiac. I have nothing against Pontiac, but to separate this area of Waterford from the rest of their community and tie it to an area that is does not have the community, socio-economic, school, religious or other ties is wrong. I will also note that the AFL-CIO and Promote the Vote maps (completed by professional map makers, include COIs and VRA compliant) DO NOT have Waterford in this district. Fix it, this is unfair to all involved.