My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by
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
This is one of the most fair maps, although it still favors one party. I think it's possible to make this even better--just please try.
This map does not represent where my family works, attends school, or spends our time and money. We should be included in the Fenton district.
Cherry still favors one party, but it is one of the fairer maps. It's possible to do better and you should try. This map does pretty well by Communities of Interest.
Carolyn M Mayne
Keep Midland County whole
Christian & Jenee Velasquez
Makes no sense to split up Midland and Saginaw counties. This also goes against intent shared in original vote for redistricting.
Kathy A Swartz
Palm is the best option, this map is bad because the rural voices of Jackson county will not be fairly represented.
This is the best map for partisan fairness.
I am very disappointed in the State Senate maps presented. I have to agree with SOOO many people who stated the maps have been gerrymandered to falsely promote “political fairness” while at the same time dismissing “communities of interest”. This experiment in “redistricting” is proving to be a farce. I have to agree with the masses who believe your prioritizing process has been unconstitutional and I hope these maps are challenged in court.
Scott William Miller
Keep Midland County whole.
Keep Midland and Gladwin counties together and whole.
No to Cherry V2. It is a bad map as it slices up Midland County.
Anne Van Hulle
This map is not good. it slices up Midland county which dilutes midland county voices
Again a perfect example of true gerrymandering. This map is a great example of commissioners slicing up COI, contiguity, and slicing up Midland County for political reasons.
R& B Keenan
Keep Midland city and county with like communities. Representation voices the community’s needs and isn’t about political correctness or political advantage. Use common sense. This is not a map which represents like communities
Do not slice up Midland County- unacceptable
The City and County of Midland need to remain in place, together.
Please reject this map. It is not fair and does not represent my communities of interest.
There is no inherent value to keeping Midland together. Many municipalities are split up in every map. What is important is that this map comes close to partisan fairness while also addressing needs of COI. Good map. (Linden is still a little better.)
This is not quite as good as Linden, but is a very good option. This is one of the most fair maps. It still favors one party, but comes closer to partisan fairness. Maps that are less unfair, are still unfair. We want maps that are actually fair. • 6 Voting Rights Act districts • Does well with Communities of Interest
This map does not appear fair and it does not represent my communities of interest.
MARGARET M GILLEAN
Not working for us in MIdland and Gladwin
Not a good map because it is splitting up Midland County.
Midland county needs to stay whole.
Keep Midland city and county together! Stop splitting us up! Our city and county work hand in hand on many issues and the lines between us are virtually non-existent. We are one community!
Keep Midland and Midland county together. Separating it from Sanford which is so linked with the shared watershed. Looks like Gerrymandering to split up the county only to mix with Bay City and Saginaw. Totally different cities and issues.
This map cuts the County of Midland into separate districts and makes no sense. The County of Midland needs to remain whole and with counties to the north and west.
Mary Ann Allore
This map is terrible. It does not keep Jackson County together as a community of interest despite the comments made by so many citizens at the public hearings to do so. Please keep to the promises made to us back in 2018 – follow the Communities of Interest submitted by the people of Michigan.
Much as some of this I feel is too partisan, this map does come the closest overall--This is one of the most fair maps. It still favors one party, but comes closer to partisan fairness and I appreciate the work this took to do. Maps that are less unfair, are still unfair. We want maps that are actually fair....please keep working, with this map as a guide overall for what we need.
School districts should be kept within one mapped district. Walled Lake schools is broad but should not be split for us to have fair representation. This map is more fair than some, but still needs work. Thank you.
This map is more fair, but still unfair in ways that it is splitting communities.
Cherry and Linden appear to balance SW Michigan COI well.
Rebecca S Smith
Need to keep Midland with counties to the west and keep it WHOLE.
Kurt H Schindler
The map could do better (Linden), and it could be worse (Palm).
This map fractures Midland County and makes the least sense. Almost 55 years in Midland County and I would like to continue to share interests with friends and family to the north and west.
Makes no sense to separate the City of Midland from Midland County
James Cameron Hart
This map appears to go out its way to promotes large urban center and take away the voices of smaller rural areas. While maps will not be perfect they should at least attempt to be fair, and I don't believe this map promotes fairness.
NO! This map does NOT represent communities of interest. Scrap it.
This map has better partisan fairness than others. The Constitution requires that partisan fairness be prioritized.
Please listen to the many voices on this portal begging for fair representation! Midland county should not be sliced and diced up. Families in the city of Midland and Midland/Gladwin counties have so much more in common with education, the watershed, law enforcement, etc., than the city of Midland does with Saginaw or Bay City. Midlanders are asking you for fair representation, please. Thank you for your hard work and we are trusting you to do the right thing.
Karen lynn Lindholm
J Michael Dizer
Splitting Midland and Saginaw counties and putting parts of each into separate CD's does not support the Commissions stated goals and does not keep the Midland or Saginaw County COP's whole.
Dividing Midland County makes no sense
Mary Lou McEwan
The state senate map slices up Midland County. Keep Midland City connected to Midland County and Gladwin County. No Gerrymandering.
Francis A McEwan
This state senate map slicies up Midland County. Keep Midland City connected to Midland County and Gladwin County. No Gerrymandering.
This is a bad map because it splits up Midland County and combines Midland with Bay City, Saginaw, and Flint. As someone who lives in Midland, travels to Saginaw for work, visits Bay City often, and grew up in Genesee County, there is absolutely nothing in common with these communities and Midland. Midland county deserves a unified voice.
Again you are splitting up Midland County. Keep Midland City with it's county and North and Western Neighbors. This makes no sense as you don't need the added population to the already really big cities.
David E Kepler
A map that has a district that wraps around several counties, is unfair to Midland County and the communities around it
I disagree with this map.
As a Downriver Resident for 56 years of my life, I feel more effort should be made to group Downriver Communities together. Allen Park should be part of this map. Why are they set on making it part of Detroit? This map is better than some.
No, just no. Midland needs to be attached to the West.
Keep Midland County whole!
rural Calhoun and Jackson resident
We rural voters are too stupid to vote right. Thankem for our urban democrat elite masters in Ann Arbor to control us in the right path of Marxism.
This is crazy! What is with District 15? Why would you split Ann Arbor and give them voices alongside rural areas stretching half way across the state? it is a clear effort to drown out rural voices. I don't see how anyone can say they think this is a fair map. Please don't vote for this.
I Like what this map does with the coastal areas and the UP, places like Traverse City and Charlevoix should be connected. I'm not sure what's going on with the central and southern areas though, seems pretty chaotic.
Carole J Chi
This is much better than the Palm map, but is only second to the Linden map. And this one seems to have a lot of problems in District 5. So I'd recommend again that you stick to the Linden map for the most competitive Senate districts over all of the state of Michigan. Choose the LINDEN Senate Map please. thank you!
This map is well done.
The Linden map keeps East English Village together in District 10.
This map is gerrymandered. Look at district 15?????????
The Cherry version 2 map keeps our neighborhoods together in District 10.
Cherry as well as Linden offers the opportunity for more competitive elections
Did someone give a toddler hopped up on sugar some crayons? How could anyone capable of clear thought support Cherry V2?
This has better partisan fairness than other maps. Palm has the worst partisan fairness. Partisan fairness must be prioritized.
This map does not represent communities of interest.
The Linden is best for partisan fairness. Splitting some of the larger downriver cites apart doesn't make a good map.
Alex R. Weddon
No on Cherry v2 map. Tragic mix of rural Jackson co with densely populated areas.
This is a bad map as it divides Jackson County and combines the rural area of Jackson County with the City of Ann Arbor. This is not good.
Dee J Maybee
This map should be rejected. It is not fair and does not represent the communities of interest.
Roger M Harms
I think this is a good map. I like the way Washtenaw County is divided.
Seems like a good redistricting map to me.
While not perfect, this is fair and much more balanced than other maps.
This feels gerrymandered to me. There is no need to snatch away the top of Hillsdale County, when the needs of Moscow and Jerome are very similar to the rest of us.
This map does a good job of translating winning statewide vote totals into winning state senate proportions.
This map seems reasonably fair and respectful of communities of interest.
In the Cherry map, Webster Twp. is separated from its main COIs with Dexter, Dexter schools, and Washtenaw County services. The Linden map is much better and retains a Webster with northern Washtenaw County.
Troy should be kept with similar communities to the south, Clawson, Birmingham…
This map appears reasonably fair and is better than some of the alternatives.
Ronald Martin Lacher
This is an acceptable map with partisan fairness scores only slightly higher than Linden, and it has the Tri-Cities Senate district so many of us have asked for. Thank you for consistently listening to the citizens of Mid-Michigan in order to give the people of Michigan fair districts to ensure fair elections. I do prefer the Linden Senate Map because it has a lower lopsided margin than Cherry V2. Linden is the best map for the state of Michigan of the available 3 though none of them achieve proper partisan fairness scores.
Good, fair map. I live right by the split in Ann Arbor and appreciate that my vote is not rendered irrelevant by the gerrymandering technique of "packing".
This is an acceptable map with partisan fairness scores only slightly higher than Linden, and it has the Tri-Cities Senate district so many of us have asked for. Thank you for consistently listening to the citizens of Mid-Michigan in order to give the people of Michigan fair districts to ensure fair elections. I do prefer the Linden Senate Map because it has a lower lopsided margin than Cherry V2. Linden is the best map for the state of Michigan of the available 3 though none of them achieve proper partisan fairness scores.
While this map may be good for other areas, it is lacking in all of the attributes which were supposed to be included in the original redistricting process. That Oakland County, for instances, has seven (7) areas that cross county lines -- for no good apparent reason -- is inexplicable. Please redraw those areas that fail the political fairness, VRA and other requirements.
This map could use some more work to make it more balanced but better than Palm.
I do not like the CHERRY V2 map because it strings the Ann Arbor area way out into the "rural" areas! Those areas need a voice that reflects the "rural" area it is set in, not the "urban" Ann Arbor sound. Please don't adopt this map. The PALM map is much better. Thank you.
Allen R Wolf
This map has the least amount of partisan bias. It should result in fair representation.
This map again is splitting up Midland county and Midland city. Midland county should remain together in one district. Please stop gerrymandering Midland county
This is one of the most fair maps. It still favors one party, but comes closer to partisan fairness.
This map, as well as Linden, both look good to me, at least in W. Michigan.
This map is better than the other options. I'm glad that Livingston County shares the district with Washtenaw because we have many people who commute to work there and some school districts also overlap county lines. It makes sense.
I prefer Palm
Timothy J Quinn
Please do not use this map. It is not fair and does not represent the communities of interest.
Charlotte H Sommers
I like this map
This map does well with Communities of Interest. Even if it results in delay, work to improve this map.
This map for State Senate is the best map. But it could use improvement. Despite the delay it will cause, please go back and improve the Cherry map.
I support the Cherry map over the Palm.
ICE Faye ICE Menczer
I support this as the fairest map.
This is the best map so far.
Although this Cherry V2 map is an acceptable map for State Senate districts—with the Tri-Cities district so many of us have asked for, it does have partisan fairness scores slightly higher than the Linden map. Indeed, the Linden Senate Map has a lower efficiency gap and less lop-sided margin than Cherry V2. Out of the three proposed maps for State Senate districts, Linden is the best map for the state of Michigan, although none of them achieve proper partisan fairness scores. You should consider working on improving the partisan fairness scores; perhaps reducing Tuscola County and adding more of Midland County would help achieve this. Thank-you for your hard work.
I have watched the commission’s progress throughout the redistricting process and have testified numerous times. This map, although imperfect, is the best so far. Please move forward with this map. Thank you for your efforts on this.
It doesn't make sense to keep Kalamazoo and Battle Creek in separate districts.
Has some flaws but is fair
Palm is an unfair map. Cherry is better.
Much more fair than the Palm map.
Perfect example of a FAIR map. This was what our anti-gerrymandering vote on election day was supposed to produce
This map is much fairer than Palm, and either this one or Linden would be a fairer choice than Palm.
This is a decent map for Grand Rapids, west Michigan larger cities and Michigan but not as good as Linden. Grand Rapids city areas are represented by two districts as it should be due to the large city/suburb population in this area. There is a district with Kalamazoo at the center. Thanks for considering the communities of interest of these cities.
This one is way off to how our communities are really reflected.
Eric Kyle Schichl
this district is dumb.
I support Cherry V2
I support both Cherry and Linden as being the best configurations for fair elections in Michigan. The citizens voted to eliminate gerrymandering and the Palm configuration DOES NOT do that. Please do not adopt Palm.
This configuration promotes fair elections.
This configuration promotes fair elections.
This configuration promotes fair elections.
Mary Ann Margaret Idzikowski
I like the Cherry map. It is more fair. Please vote NO on Palm. Thank you for your hard work on the Commission
Mary Ann Margaret Idzikowski
This map is more fair than Palm. Ingham, Eaton and Clinton Counties are competitive.
A very fair map, much better than the Palm map.
This map is better than the Palm map, for sure. Although I don't understand why we can't have a map that doesn't have a Republican bias? I know what you are doing is hard work but please make a fair map.
Cherry is a fair map, as is Linden. Palm is truly unfair.
Thanks for your hard work. Cherry and Linden improve fairness, though they still appear to favor one party. Please go with Cherry.
ELLEN ANNE TEGHTMEYER
Cherry and Linden are fair maps. Palm is horribly biased and is no change from the current plan which is your purpose to correct!
Robert T King
This is a fair map. Thx for your work.
Kevin G Karpiak
If we've learned anything, it's that the complicated task of balancing all the legal requirements makes drawing these maps really hard and imperfect. This is a really good compromise
The Cherry map and the Linden map are both more fair than the very biased Palm map. Please select the Cherry or Linden maps for voting districts. Thank you.
Michael John Kidd
This is a fair map and should be a top consideration for approval.
Timothy Duane Early
The Magic Mirror tells me this is the "fairest of them all"
This map is not terrible… not great.
Cherry is the kind of map that should be adopted. Also Linden. Both are based on fairness, the idea that is supposed to drive this entire process. Palm on the other hand is the worst.
This map seems to be fairly drawn and should be voted in as a good choice. Thanks for the hard work.
The Cherry map is not a fair map. Please vote NO on Cherry.
This map doesn't appear fair or reflective of desired communities of interest
Peter A Bednekoff
I like the overall map, and especially the way districts fan out from the Detroit population center. Districts 15 and 16 are weird shapes, though the overall distance across them is not a problem.
Jon G. LaSalle
I like this map. Cherry V2 provides more partisan fairness than many choices.
John P. Lieto
This map shows a much fairer representation for both parties. Thank you for being impartial!
Cherry and Linden have better partisan fairness scores than the other options.
I support this map, it reflects the most partisan fairness.
This map is fair, represents my interests and keeps our community together as much as possible.
Lisa P LaGrou
I dislike this map. Please do not adopt this plan.
I dislike this map. I encourage you to keep Jackson and Washtenaw counties separate as they are very different in needs and interests.
Charles Tobin LaVoy
This is a lot better than what we've had. Thanks!
Please be aware that this map currently proposes to separate the City of Dexter's Cedars neighborhood (triangle formed by McCormick Pl & Katherine Way) from the rest of the City.
Gerald A Payment
this map is great
This map improves partisan fairness.
Ann Arbor does not belong with rural Hillsdale, rural Calhoun, and rural Jackson. The Commission has a responsibility to place communities of interest together and this map fails that clear Constitutional criteria.
This map is an improvement on the other maps. It achieves partisan fairness.
Ann Arbor is a community of interest and should be together in one district. Joining part of the city of Ann Arbor with Hillsdale, Calhoun and Jackson counties is the exact gerrymandering this commission was supposed to avoid.
This map improves on existing maps.
Appreciate that Grand Rapids is divided into two districts north and south on this map as well. Living on the north side, I can see the difference in the community commonalities compared to the south side district. The south side has an inner-city character that needs focused attention. This map would be second choice map for Michigan – Linden being the first.
This Map achieves partisan fairness.
This map is a textbook example of partisan gerrymandering. I am disappointed that this commission would split up so many communities of interest Jackson, washtenaw, Calhoun and Hilldale deserve better than this. Respectfully, Megan
Sarah Paige McNally
We dislike this map. This is gerrymandering. Don’t split up Ann Arbor.
This map does not reflect my community of interest, splitting up Ann Arbor is a partisan gerrymander. This was supposed to end gerrymandering.
Not the best map but a lot better than the rest of the choices. A lot more bipartisan Thanks to the commision.
This is a bad map that does but recognize our communities
Do not divide a small town area into two distinctly different districts.
David J Houck
Not a good map. Keep waterloo out of the same district as Ann Arbor.
Thanks for keeping 2 Senate districts in urban/suburban Grand Rapids. There is enough population that two districts are necessary. The districts have some common needs based on being urban areas. Dividing the city north and south is the best for segregating the unique needs of the districts. However, this would be a second choice to Linden as it is not as fair for Michigan state.
Teri G Frantz
Not the best, but not the worst. I like Linden better.
This map is a decent map but it's not quite as fair or as logical as Linden regarding partisan fairness, VRA concerns, or the districting in Washtenaw County (where I lived for over a dozen years).
Mary Ann Fontana
This map is better than Palm but Linden is the best of the State Senate maps.
I do not like the Cherry V2 State Senate map. It divides Jackson County and combines rural areas of Jackson county, which is rural in character, with densely populated areas in Washtenaw County, including half the city of Ann Arbor . Ann Arbor has public utilities, widely available broadband, and public transportation. Most rural areas don’t have these public services (and don’t need them). These different communities have different needs and require different legislative representation. Please adopt instead the “Palm” State Senate map. It keeps Jackson County whole and combines it with more rural sections of adjoining Counties. Thank you.
Of all the maps this one promotes partisan fairness. Please consider approving this map.
lori A Boyce
Although i do not like this map with respect to my own community. However, this is the better of the collaborative maps state wide / overall.
Cherry V2 is an okay map that is a bit more fair. It also keeps the Tri-city area of Midland/Bay City and Saginaw together which is sensible from a public policy perspective. They have similar interests relative to rural areas. But for me Linden is a better map that is less lopsided.
The Cherry map seems reasonably fair, as does the Linden map. Both are a big improvement over what currently exists. Thank you.
This is one of the most fair maps.Maps that are less unfair, are still unfair. We want maps that are actually fair.
This map would be second choice compared to Linden. It provides two districts to represent the large urban/suburban population of Grand Rapids and is effective for Michigan overall.
This map is a good representation of a variety of voters and their concern... this is a fairer way to have my vote heard equally. I VOTE YES ON CHERRYV2
Commission was formed to free Michigan of unfair partisan bias, this map is one of the least unfair of the available drafts.
This map doesn't serve the city of Grand Rapids well. It would be better to have Grand Rapids as one district and Wyoming/Kentwood/Grandville and separate districts. Those areas are growing and need different representation than Grand Rapids.
One of the best maps
Fair map with competitive districts. Less compact than Linden.
I do not like the Cherry V2 State Senate map because it combines rural areas with the city of Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor has vastly different resources and services than rural areas do and therefore need different representation.
Whatever happened to keeping the districts as square as possible? Isn't that supposed to be a main goal when redistricting occurs? Why is it assumed that people have the same interests/opinions just because they are the same race or ethnicity? That's an offensive assumption. This map is a terrible mess.
The Cherry map comes close to partisan fairness. Thank you for your work. The Palm map seems transparently unfair, as it would result in a state legislature controlled by a party that could get less than 50% of the popular vote.
Palm is an unfair map. Cherry is better. Partisan fairness must be prioritized.
This is my #2 choice among Senate maps. I like the way Clinton-Eaton-Ingham counties are treated. I don't understand why all the maps retain a partisan bias toward the Republican party opposed by a Constitutional criterion.
I like the Cherry map for the State Senate. It, along with Linden, are the “least unfair" in terms of partisan fairness.
This is a good map, and I would be fine if it is selected. It has pretty good partisan fairness scores. Splitting Sterling Heights at Van Dyke makes the most sense if it must be split. Sterling Heights has a lot in common with Troy and Rochester Hills so this configuration would work.
This map does not demonstrate partisan fairness which is your constitutional duty to uphold. Please accept Palm.
I do not like the Cherry V2 State Senate map. It divides Jackson County and combines rural areas of Jackson county with half of the city of Ann Arbor . Ann Arbor has public utilities, widely available broadband, and public transportation. Most rural areas have none of these things. These different communities have different needs and require different legislative representation. Please adopt instead the “Palm” State Senate map. It does a much better job of satisfying the ‘communities of interest’ objective of this committee. Thank you
Why split Ann Arbor?? They should have their own voice. You didn't split Flint or Kalamazoo, but Ann Arbor? That's garbage.
This is a fair and balanced map, and keeps like voters together. Good work.
Prop 2 promised to end drawing lines for political reasons, or gerrymandering. This map makes it even worse by breaking up united communities for blatant political purposes. This map is not TRULY fair to both parties like we were promised.
Proposition 2 was voted on to end gerrymandering. This is a better map for partisan fairness so that we all have a voice, not just one party. We all deserve a voice.
Does not follow constitutional guidelines, splits up communities of interest.
Kim K Lindsey
This map groups too many varied and different counties together, blowing up the communities of interest criteria.
This map is quite good with respect to partisan fairness, which is the thing that matters most to me.
This map is gerrymandered to bias the democrats. Do not use. Use the fairer Palm map instead.
Agree with Richard Wochoski - this is better than splitting Troy into Macomb County, but would like to see a map keep Troy completely in Oakland County. This is a pretty hard county line regarding COIs.
Penny K Wingate
A Very Big NO! What does Hillsdale have in common interest with New Buffalo and Constantine? Why are 3 of our county townships pulled away from us and given to the Ann Arbor area for? They are OUR communities of interest, as is Lenawee and Jackson counties!! Go with Palm on this one!!
Jackson County should be left with the rural counties to the south and west...Jackson County does not belong with Washtenaw County.
Jay R Taylor
Terrible split of Oakland County just to please and reward Democrat strongholds. Need to keep large cities intact and have smaller townships intact.
This map does a good job of not packing any districts.
A truly fair map is one that respects communities and their interests and gives both parties a chance to win majority. This map is not that.
This map is fair.
This is a fair map that is closest to giving an equal voice to all voters
The partisan fairness on this map is really good.
I believe this map disenfranchises Sterling Heights, the state’s 4th largest community, by drawing it into different districts, where no area of Sterling Heights is a majority.
This map is acceptable and will be politically fair and honor the COI areas.
Having looked extensivly at the actual data below and not just the lines on all maps presented this is the absolute most fair. Based on the diversity of the populations in the proposed areas alone this is by far the best one.
Monroe shares important and pressing Lake Erie and lakeshore issues along with the I75 corridor that needs to coordinate with downriver business and industrial development.
Monroe County has more in common with the Downriver area. We share Lakeshore issues and the I 75 corridor for business and industrial development.
I like Cherry v2. It seems to give the most opportunity for voters to choose who will represent them.
Cherry V2 is a good map that will create a competitive district that will allow the voters to decide who they will elect.
The most bizarre stair-step striping I've ever seen through West/SW MI. This looks a lot more like gerrymandering than a recipe for good representation.
We appreciate that the Commission has kept Ada and Cascade townships as part of the north Grand Rapids area district 30. We are an integral part of this urban area. Linden map would be more partisan fair statewide. Thank you for considering our comments and giving us representation
Seems to represent Michigan voter well except that the Linden map does it better. Appreciate the Commission keeping the south side GR together to best represent Asians.
Sonja Marie Patrick
This is the worst map of them all. Why would you split calhoun 3 ways, diluting our voices. What on God's green earth does the little town of Homer have in common with Ann Arbor? Apparently their voices mean squat and they don't deserve a representative because no one ever goes to visit Homer, unless you live in Calhoun County and you know that a gem like Homer exists. If you pick this map, there will be even more law suits for how gerrymandered this map is.
Nancy M Howk
Please DO NOT vote this map in, the west side of Calhoun County has NOTHING in common with a majority of the District represented here. Why would a Single District snake for such a length, but if only to cancel out voices. Thank you.
Any map that Splits Ann Arbor is an insult to the people of Ann Arbor, Jackson, and Michigan. Creating a democratic majority at the expense of communities of interest is a joke.
If not Linden, vote for this map. Not as fair for Michigan voters as Linden.
A reasonable plan, a few oddities, but fair to both parties.
Genesee County have 5 senators??? this is wild. It washes out the communities of interest. this is the 5th largest county in the state and should remain in place.
This is a more fair way to map this area
Matthew D. Horwitt
Cherry is a relatively fair map, although less compact than Linden. All Senate maps have Republican bias, but this is better than Palm. Districts in Ingham-Eaton-Clinton are competitive and reflect the diverse communities.
This is a great, proposed map that needs every consideration given to it.
The Cherry v2 map is good because it's the most partisanly fair of the maps available. Not perfect, but it's the best available.
closest to fair of all the maps available
The partisan fairness is best on this map!
Please keep Clinton County Whole
This map is in second place compared to Linden map. Could be better representation for Michigan and our Asian population. Thanks for creating a south side Grand Rapids Senate district. Thanks for listening to our comments.
I would be living in district 12 (clay township), as a young voter in southern st.clair county I belong in district 25. We as a community group have more in common with people that live in St.Clair county then those that live in Detroit. We have different interests and needs as a community.
This map better achieves partisan fairness
This is an acceptable map with partisan fairness scores only slightly higher than Linden, and it has the Tri-Cities Senate district so many of us have asked for. Thank you for consistently listening to the citizens of Mid-Michigan. I prefer the Linden Senate Map because it has a lower efficiency gap and lopsided margin than Cherry V2. Linden is the best map for the state of Michigan of the available 3 though none of them achieve proper partisan fairness scores.
I don't agree with these new borders. Canton is already a really crowded place and expanding these borders to Inkster will make it even harder for minority groups to be represented. It also makes it harder for elections. Plymouth and Canton are usually viewed as one entity so it would be easier to include Plymouth instead of Inkster. Also, the demographics of Canton vs. Inkster are completely different and would mess with the funding system.
As a student from PCEP, I believe that we should keep Canton and Plymouth together in District 5. The two cities are very similar, and because they share a school system, the Plymouth-Canton residents all share similar experiences and history. I find it odd that Plymouth was grouped into District 13, when geographically it is far away from west bloomfield which is also in district 13. I don't think that Plymouth shares nearly as many similarities with West Bloomfield as it does Canton. Having the maps drawn like this, there would be an issue of people with different experiences cancelling out each other's votes.
In terms of the effects on district 5 from the new borders, I personally believe the split is not a good idea. The most apparent reason, that we can derive from just looking at the map, is the fact that the new districts split Canton and Plymouth. As we all know, depending on where we live, determines where we go to school. Changing these borders will cause more harm than good as schooling in these two townships is so connected and will be extremely hard to separate. Another issue that is shown in the chart below, is that not only does the overall population deviation decreased by almost 2% but the ethnicity in the district is majority white. This can and most likely will lead to issues with representation. Therefore, redistricting is not a good idea.
I think the districts of canton(5) should join with those of Plymouth seeing as the school districts are combined. This would make the representation more valid since they are with people we are around with the most. These lines should remain almost identical to school districts in my opinion while still trying to keep equal populations. The diversity isn’t the greatest so improvement is needed.
I think these proposed district lines are not well-suited for the community. For starters, I think a positive of this plan is that the district does have more racial diversity than others, at around 66%. However, this plan divides Plymouth, Canton, and Wayne, which are relatively similar in racial backgrounds, as well as the fact that these cities share a school district and similar cultural backgrounds. It would not make sense for students who live so close to each other and attend the same school have different districts. Additionally, different cities like Northville, Westland, and Inkster have different needs as the latter are more working class populations whereas the former is more wealthy and diverse. I think the borders should be expanded to include Plymouth and Canton in one district and include cities like Garden City and Inkster in district 2.
I think that this district's boundaries are ok. The deviation of the target population is not bad. However, the main issue I have with the district is that the diversity of it is not exactly equal to that of the surrounding districts. Additionally, I feel this district, Canton, could be shaped a little bit differently. It seems a little too rigid around the edges. It would be better if cleaner boundaries were made. It would be even better if Canton (distinct five) somehow combined with Plymouth (district 13). They both share the same school district, PCEP, and it would get rid of the weird shape of district 13. It was also combined similar parts of the two separate districts.
Overall, I believe the district lines should be redrawn. The cities of Plymouth and Canton interact on a regular basis, and even share the same school district. Redrawing district lines would advance the diversity among the two cities. Canton contains a wider variety of people compared to Plymouth, therefor, combing the two would create an even wider spread of people to be represented. Challenges are always going to be inevitable when it comes to redistricting. For one, representation won't be equally layed out, as some areas will contain people with similar beliefs, while other areas will be more diverse. Taking all of this into account, district lines should be redrawn because it will diversify the representation of the two cities and makes the most sense in the long run.
I believe it is unnecessary that Plymouth is part of district 5 instead of district 13. It is a better idea for both to share a district because they could also share a school district. District 5 is off of the target by 4302 people and District 13 has an extra 2688 people. This completely throws off the balance.
I dislike the district borders due to how first the unevenness of it causes it to cut Livonia in half and as it looks like much of District 5 is going into District 4. Nonetheless, Plymouth is separated by Canton which makes little to no sense due to the similarity between them and the many things they share like schooling. The districts themselves are separated fairly equally in population, but disregard race. Many areas like canton have many different races, but if you were to look at nearing Districts many have little diversity which is something that should be taken into account when districting.
In my opinion, district 13 is more diverse regarding race, compared to other suburban town groups in the Western suburbs. So in that sense, the voices of many communities will be present in this proposed district. However, while I know it is inevitable to split towns in half during re districting, Farmington Hills and Farmington are in completely different districts, and Commerce Charter Township (and a little bit of Walled Lake) are completely cut in half. This makes me concerned about how the districts will tackle education if they are splitting up towns. As a resident of Plymouth, our school districts are connected with Canton’s - and Canton isn’t even included in this district. It’s obviously not just about Canton and Plymouth’s needs, but considering we have an extremely large school district and are correlated in many different ways, I believe they should be in the same district.
This districting map splits up Plymouth and Canton, two cities that are pretty much one and the same. I go to PCEP high school, which has students from both Canton and Plymouth. Because of this, I, and many of my fellow students, feel that we are of the same community. Additionally, Plymouth and Canton share a similar demographic, so it only makes sense to group the two together to ensure representation of the ethnic groups in the area. Not to mention the border boundaries look very odd, with district 13 stretching all the way down from Novi to incorporate Plymouth.
In my opinion, the district borders do not need to be changed. I'm sure many would agree with me when I say that changing the borders would mess with the Plymouth- Canton District. My second reason would be that if we take a look at the table provided below, we see that the diversity of the area is in perfect balance compared to some of the other districts. Additionally, the population of the already established district seems to be in the right place. In conclusion, changing district lines will be an event deemed unnecessary.
As a student at PCEP, I find that it is unnecessary that plymouth isn't included with district 5 and is instead with district 13. District 5 is deviating from the target by lacking 4302 people. District 13 has an excess of 2688 people. As such it would make more sense for plymouth to just join district 5, seeing as how they share a school district together and are similar in many regards. This would make both the districts closer to the target, while maintaining a fairly accurate representation of the towns and individuals living there.
I believe that the separation between Canton and Plymouth is unnecessary and will be confusing considering the fact that the two communities are so closely connected. They share similar diversity demographics as well as a major school district (Plymouth Canton Community Schools) so dividing the two would create a large change in many aspects. One issue is transportation for schooling as bus routes are already designed to cover the entire area.
I think splitting Plymouth and Canton into two different districts is not a good idea. While the two communities do have their differences, I believe that the consequences of splitting up the two communities will outweigh the benefits. The racial diversity, political diversity, and economic status demographics are quite similar in both communities. I think the most important part is actually that Plymouth and Canton share a schooling district. Splitting up these two communities has the potential to create conflicts within the school system and may damage the operation of the system entirely. Therefore, I think that district 5 should be expanded to involve Plymouth.
Samantha Emery (for another friend)
I appreciate the diversity in the current drawing of district 5. Splitting up Plymouth and Canton would allow each community to become more independent. It would also provide the opportunity for each community to directly resolve issues that specifically affect each community. Plymouth and Canton have many differences that would be better targeted if they continued to be two different districts.
I would say it is very well drawn. But they should have included Plymouth and canton together. They are very similar through diversity along with economic status wise. Plus they a very much related and work together. Such as having a shared school district, libraries, etc. Which causes them in a way to be a whole.
The district line between Plymouth and Canton is unnecessary, and could cause a lot of disturbances between the communities, since they are connected, by schools. Separating Plymouth and Canton would disrupt school districts and communities. The district line is unnecessary because both districts are able have a similar, diverse demographic and are economically similar. Dividing Plymouth and Canton would cause issues that could be easily avoided. Even though, some areas of either cities have different socioeconomic factors, they are still very similar.
I don't think drawing the line between Plymouth and Canton is a good idea. The populations of Plymouth and Canton are similar in terms of things like economic status and racial diversity. They also share a school district so splitting them apart could cause lots of problems.
As a member of Canton Township, I believe that the separation of Plymouth and Canton is not a good idea. This is because both Plymouth and Canton share a school district. This would cause school transportation systems (such as buses) to be disrupted if the boundaries were changed. Also, most of the ethnic groups in both the Plymouth and Canton are largely well-respresented resulting in their being no need to make the change.
I believe that the congressional district borders are good for multiple reasons. The borders of canton and plymouth are connected which is good because they share a school district. Also the border are easy to look at and clear so its easy to see how everything separates. Finally, there is a good amount of space in the areas and they cover cities that are in the same area.
Samantha Emery (for a friend)
I don't think drawing the line between Plymouth and Canton was a beneficial idea. The populations of Plymouth and Canton are similar in terms of economic status, racial diversity, and political diversity. Plymouth and Canton also share a school system so splitting them into two separate districts has the potential to cause more conflicts that could negatively impact the efficacy of the current system.
I believe the division of Canton and Plymouth will cause more issues than solutions, as these towns have historically been united for long, and dividing them will only create more problems. Canton and Plymouth are already similar, and PCEP, the district that I attend, has three of the biggest high schools in all of Michigan, with around 2,000 students in each school. However, aside from the division of Canton and Plymouth, I believe these changes are good in eliminating borders that could benefit one political party over another, which helps keep our elections fair. If the new borders did not divide Canton and Plymouth I would support this change, but due to it, I am divided on the issue leading to my vote.
As someone who has lived in Canton, Michigan since birth, I think that Westland and Canton should be split. I also think that the line between Plymouth and Canton is unnecessary. This is because both towns/cities have very similar population demographics. They also have a joint school district and transportation system.
I think this map would be better drawn with Plymouth (13) and Canton (5) shown as more closely related. This could include adjusting the district lines to combine the two into one district. I find this important because the two are very closely interwoven. For example, the school district in these two areas is shared under the name "Plymouth-Canton Community Schools". Students from each area attend the same schools and intermingle with those from the other area.
I don't think the line drawn between Canton and Plymouth is necessary. This is because both Canton and Plymouth have similar demographics with substantial populations of many ethnic groups. Also, Plymouth and Canton share a similar education system. If the border was drawn, transportation systems for the school system would be disrupted creating unnecessary hassle.
The district boundaries are good because it ends Republican gerrymandering to give parties a better chance of sharing power in Lansing which ensures partisan fairness. There seems to be more evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, and these lines don't benefit a political party that holds power when they were drawn. A challenge of the district map if approved is city splits because this breaks economic and cultural ties between towns and counties. If we include parts of cities with other cities this may not include the interests of everyone because they will be overshadowed with the most populous of the areas we are combining.
District 5 compared to the other districts is much more diverse and economically different from the other districts. I feel like having this district may cause issues in funding and public resources. The district strongly varies when it comes to socioeconomic factors, which could be an obstacle for those on the lower end of the district. The boundary between Canton and Plymouth is also unnecessary because it splits up two very alike towns. The school system also is currently joining the two together, and it would be better if we allowed the two towns to remain together. I feel like Canton is somewhat out of place in District 5, and should be regrouped to better fit demographics. Plymouth being grouped with towns such as Northville and Novi is also impacting the resources provided for District 13, which as a district could impact the need and resources for Plymouth.
Chae Eun Park
I believe that the borders themselves are well established, but there are issues within for the state senate district map of Canton and Plymouth. The two cities are separated, despite having the same school district of PCEP. I believe this should be changed to more accurately depict the population of students in the two cities. Also, the racial gap between majority and minority groups is large here, despite there being a large percentage of many ethnic groups in Canton and Plymouth.
Chae Eun Park
I believe that the congressional district borders are well drawn for several reasons. The first is that the borders of Canton and Plymouth are connected, which makes sense given that there share a school district. Second, the borders are clear and there is no marginalization, meaning they are clear cut and easy to distinguish. Lastly, there is a reasonable amount of space covered in the areas, and they include cities that are reasonably in the same district.
I don't think the separation of Plymouth can canton is a good idea. The Plymouth Canton community schooling is a good schooling system and would face problems if Plymouth was separated from Canton. The diversity and demographics are also very similar in these two cities. This is why I think the boundary of district 5 should be extended to include plymouth
I have been a member of the canton community since I was born(since 2006). Personally, i think that the district boundaries are poorly defined. One reason for this is that Canton and Plymouth have a mixed schooling system. This shows the poor boundary line definition between Canton community and Plymouth community. However the boundary line between canton and westland are well defined. These two communities don't have much in common and look like two different worlds. Not only this but the schooling system of canton has been ranked very high compared to westland consistently over many years.
I believe that the District 5 borders are fine where they are. The total population of this district is close in number with other districts, and there is also good racial diversity, showing that the borders have been drawn accordingly. However, I do not agree with the split between the Plymouth and Canton districts. District 5 divides the PCCS Community School District as well as the Wayne-Westland Community School District, which are both close-knit communities for people within the cities and would have impacts on the social and educational happenings. Nonetheless, this doesn’t seem to be a major problem, since not many conflicts would happen.
Chae Eun Park
I disagree with the state senate district borders around Canton and Plymouth. There are borders separating the two cities, despite the unison of school districts at PCEP. I believe that the district boundaries could use improvement, specifically in representation of minority groups. There is a large proportion of the majority racial group in Canton and Plymouth, despite the diversity of the area there.
I believe that the separation of Canton and Plymouth districts would not be a good idea. Our communities are too alike and doing something of this scale really puts a burden on the people. While reading through the comments I see many people sharing the same doubts as I. As a student who goes to a PCEP school the separation of the district will create differences among us that are not currently there and Id like for it to stay that way.
Personally, I believe the proposed district map does not represent the interests of everyone. For one, it splits up Canton, Plymouth, and Westland, all of which a large majority of PCEP students come from. This could cause issues with funding and districting for who can go to PCEP. In addition, it splits Livonia in half which could cause issues with voting in Livonia. Overall, the proposed district does have some benefits, but I believe it would not be the best decision for everyone.
Personally, I feel that the district lines are fine as they are in the map. I've had a quick read-through of the other comments, and I do acknowledge that a challenge of this setup would be the separation of Plymouth and Canton as they are prominent cities for my school district. At the same time, however, I feel that including Canton and Plymouth in the same district might create an unbalance of power between the districts. I'd assume that switching districts for Plymouth or Canton would mean swapping out another one to add to Plymouth's district, and that would convolute things even further. It would mess with the populations, diversity, and political boundaries that are already well established.
I am pleased with the districting with District five. The district has widespread racial diversity, as a decent amount of the population is made up of African Americans, Americans, and Asians. We also have a small deviation from the target that means we are meeting the criteria our district wants us to reach. Redistricting this area would hurt many of the schools in it and hurt the Plymouth-Canton relationship.
While District five seems to be drawn out fairly, there are still some downsides. One good aspect is the population amount in comparison to the surrounding districts, which appears to be fair. Another good quality is the diversity and representation which is present, as well as the socioeconomic diversity. Despite these factors, I believe Plymouth should still be included in District 5 based on social patterns and school districts, because of its many similarities to Canton, a major city in district 5.
District 13 seems to be well drawn in terms of population and diversity. By including Novi (23% asian, ~10% African American) and Farmington (20% African American, 14% Asian), it ensures diversity. However, it does break what is a close knit and diverse community of Canton and Plymouth. Canton and Plymouth are integrated in terms of people, economic activity, and education. Breaking that could introduce inequity and nullify the minority vote, specifically in Plymouth which is 90% white.
In my opinion, District 5's borders could be drawn better. While considering things like population and diversity, I would say District 5 was drawn correctly. But upon closer inspection, I saw that Plymouth and Canton are separated. It makes no sense to do this, as they share a school district and are generally looked at as the "Plymouth-Canton area." Putting them together would be more beneficial for everyone involved due to their shared qualities.
I think that the district 5 lines should stay the same because the people in this area share a lot. We have schools that are shared between members of the community that lives throughout Westland, Plymouth, Canton, and more. I think that changing the lines would create more unnecessary change for the people that can attend schools in the district. Also, many social events that occur include people from all parts of the district such as events that relate to the holidays or even educational ones. Creating different lines would discriminate people that are used to attending these events from being able to come.
I think there could be some benefits to redistricting, like increasing the diversity of the area. District 5 is about 66.55% white, and while that is more diverse than some areas it is not as much as others. I think a good thing that comes with this is the relatively large Asian community. However, other communities (such as the Native American community) are not as present or prevalent. Overall, the district borders are drawn well, but can be drawn better in the future.
I do not think the District 5 lines are that bad. This district has good racial diversity and communities in the district have a similar demographic. However, I think changes should be made. This district divides the Plymouth-Canton School district, which is a closely tied community through education and social events. It also divides the Wayne-Westland School District, which is another big school district in Michigan. Splitting up closely tied communities and districts could cause conflicts of interest, but overall, this isn't a major problem.
The map is less partisan fair for Michigan and not as good as “Linden” although it is the second best compared to “Linden”.
While District 5 has a lot more variety than other districts and represents the perspectives of minorities, I feel there are a few things that may be done to improve the district system for the city and its neighbors. To begin with, there should not be a boundary between Canton and Plymouth. Both of these towns have comparable demographics and are served by the Plymouth-Canton School District, which is a big school system. If they were gathered together, the school system would be improved even more, and community people would have a say. Northville and Novi also have different needs and perspectives than Plymouth, reducing their impact in the district. As a result, I feel that Plymouth and Canton should be combined, as this would benefit both areas.
I think the boundaries are fine as-is. There is a moderate amount of diversity which is good, we do not want too much diversity but we do not want none. Adjusting the boundaries would be too complicated, many students will have to change their schools or their bus routes may be cut. It is an unnecessary hassle.
I don't think it is a good idea to split up the University of Michigan North Campus from the South Campus. This map cuts off the North Campus Residence halls from the rest of the University.
I think that Canton shouldn't be separated from Plymouth because they fall under the same school district and the new districts would affect the school population. Also with the new district lines there would be less diversity in the population. This is because most of the people living in Westland, Garden City and Inkster have more working class people, whereas in Canton and Plymouth there are people with a more diversified background and occupation.
I believe that these new borders are not ideal. It's splitting up Canton and Plymouth. The diversity within the new borders is not as diverse as the current borders. Plymouth and Canton are also school districts together, and splitting it up would cause new conflicts.
One aspect of this map that I agree with is that it does not have much population deviation in district 5. I also disagree with a lot of things such as the unusual shape of this map, which may leave out communities of interest. For example, district 5 also includes Inkster, which may not have the same groups or interests as Canton. It also includes part of Livonia, which is not representative of Canton. Overall, I would suggest a few changes such as taking out Inkster.
This plan appears fair as the commissions’ map makers say it leans to Dems 20-18. But Bridge Michigan shows a 19-19 split. Most important factor is to avoid the result of the 2014 election when GOP candidates won 27 of 38 seats despite getting just 44,503 more votes out of the 3 million votes statewide. Please make every attempt to prevent that from happening again.
I think that the borders drawn are pretty good. The only thing that I would say may be an issue is diversity. While Plymouth/this area isn't completely lacking, places such as Canton are far stronger in this area. Canton is also very connected in the Plymouth-Canton Schools. However, I realize that other cities, such as Northville, are closer/more compatible with this district, and this is barley an issue.
You've got Milan on the wrong side of the fence here. For years Milan's Washtenaw County residents have been represented by people in the Ann Arbor area. Many residents of Milan City proper, both in Monroe and Washtenaw counties are people who are from the Ann Arbor area and moved to get affordable housing. This map disenfranchises people in Milan, especially the Washtenaw County carve out, as we will not be well-represented by anyone coming from District 16. Either split at the county line or carve out southern Milan and put it in with Ann Arbor in District 15.
All maps have Republican bias, but this one is reasonable. Good division of Lansing region and Ann Arbor region to reduce the partisan bias favoring Republicans. Numerous competitive seats. Far superior to Palm, Kellom and Lange.
I do not agree with the way the district borders are drawn out, and they should be changed to include Plymouth and Canton in the same district. Canton and Plymouth share a similar demographic and population. They also have very connected communities, such as the shared school district, more so than Plymouth and Northville or Canton and Inkster and Westland. Also, adding Plymouth to the district would increase diversity in the area. The district could be expanded to include Northville as well, but it should at least include Plymouth and Canton together.
I don't think a line was needed to be drawn between Canton and Plymouth. Canton and Plymouth are very similar. For example, they have very similar demography and are part of the same school district. The voters' influence of both Plymouth and Canton is going to go down because of the divide. Overall, Plymouth shares more similarities with Canton than it does with Northville or Novi, so, therefore, Canton and Plymouth should be included within the same district.
District 5 is not a good fit for what needs to be done. Plymouth-Canton community schools is a very good schooling system that would be disrupted if Plymouth were to be separated from Canton. On top of this, for anything to be done in both canton and Plymouth, both districts have to request what needs to be done. This is not to mention the demographics and diversity of Canton and Plymouth, which are very similar. Therefore, I believe that the line of district 5 should be extended to include Plymouth.
I believe that while District 5 has much more diversity than other districts and represents the views of minority groups, there can be a few changes to help make the district system better for the community and its neighbors. Firstly, there should not be a line drawn in between Canton and Plymouth. Both these communities share similar demographics and share Plymouth-Canton Schools, which is a large educational system between these. If they were grouped together, it could enhance the education system even further and would provide a voice for members of the communities. Also, Northville and Novi have other necessities and opinions than those of Plymouth, which decreases their influence in the district. Therefore, I believe that Plymouth and Canton should be grouped together which would be beneficial for both communities.
Please keep Troy with other Oakland County jurisdictions, such as Clawson and/or Birmingham to the South rather than putting it in a district with Macomb County/Sterling Heights. Troy COI , as noted by others, align with Oakland County and keeping it so districted would provide fairer representation.
Keep all of Troy in one district.
This is the second-best map compared to “Linden”. Thanks for creating 2 deserved Senate seats in the Greater Grand Rapids area. Splitting into south and north districts preserves the character of each district. The map is less partisan fair for Michigan and not as good as “Linden”. Thanks for listening to our comments.
I disagree with the map where canton and plymouth fall. Canton should be included in plymouth district for many reason. They are in the same school district (Plymouth-Canton Community Schools) so that should be a sign that they should be together. Also they are much more similar to that district and most of the towns in there rather than the towns in its district like westland and inkster. I do understand there is never going to be a perfect map and that no one is ever going to agree so it could be a lot worse.
It is ridiculous to split up Jackson County and combine it with part of Washtenaw County specifically Ann Arbor. The city of Ann Arbor does not represent the views of Jackson county in any way.
Canton should not be in the same district as Westland. Instead they should be with Plymouth, Northville, and Novi. Not only does Canton share a school district with Plymouth, but in culture Canton shares much more in common with Plymouth, Northville, and Novi. In general Canton is seen to have a good amount of money like Plymouth, Northville, and Novi. In general people are more alike depending on how far up, and down river they are. It is hard to make this district map because there are so many small districts and people in SE Michigan, but to make the districts more effective with the people inside them being more similar, Canton should not be grouped with cities South or East of them, only North
Hello everyone my name is Sarah I and I don't believe the line between Canton and Plymouth is needed. Canton and Plymouth pretty much the same demographic and community. One problem out of many is that they share their school districts. What will happen to it if Canton and Plymouth are separated? Plymouth has many connections and has many smaller interconnections that may be affected if these two cities are broken up. If we were to expand the border however we should expand it to Northville as the community much like Canton and Plymouth. We should do this because not only the community but also the amount of "wealth" in this area. So to sum up: don't break up Canton and Plymouth, But if you want to expand, add in Northville
This is a very poorly drawn map because it mutes the voices of rural voters in Hillsdale and Jackson Counties.
Splitting Ann Arbor and Jackson, are you serious? Can the commission give an honest answer for how that is justified by VRA or community of interest considerations?
Jackson should not be included with Ann Arbor
Troy COI deeply align with Oakland county and have little in common with Macomb county
I don't think the line between Canton and Plymouth was necessary. Both Canton and Plymouth are very similar, and they have a similar demographic. They also share the same school district, as they are closely connected. If Canton and Plymouth were grouped together, the quality of education would significantly increase. Overall, Plymouth shares more similarities with Canton than with Northville, and thus, they should be included within the same district.
Troy has far more in common with Clawson and Madison Heights than with Sterling Heights/Utica. I believe Troy should be drawn within Oakland County
As a current resident living in the northern end of the proposed district 29 - I feel my interests are better represented in this district versus being combined with district 30.
I don't think think district 13 was drawn very well. District 13 is mostly Plymouth Northville, and Novi. I think that Northville and Novi have a different demographic than Plymouth and the two places will have different interests. Also, the voting influence of Plymouth residents will go down because the needs and priorities of the Northville and Novi residents will outnumber those of the Plymouth residents.
Cheryl D Hayes
Cherry has better partisan fairness scores than some of the other maps. I went door to door for Prop 2 and nothing is more important than fair maps.
I don't think there was a need for a line to be drawn between Canton and Plymouth in district 5 and 13. This is because both of the places are similar, with a similar demographic. Also, the people share things like a school district and many parks, which is why they should be grouped together. The people will have similar interests and their population together would equal around what the populations of the other districts were, which is why those two should be together.
I believe the map should be drawn differently to combine Plymouth and Canton, with other areas such as Westland, Garden City, and Livonia combined separately. Because Plymouth and Canton share a school district, especially with the high school, it would make more sense to combine the two communities since they always have been very intertwined. There is also a significant wealth gap between Plymouth and Canton vs. many of the other cities in district 5, such as Westland and parts of Livonia, so putting those two different communities together could cause issues with equal representation and education opportunities. The boundaries of districts 5 and 13 should definitely be reconsidered because they would divide diverse cities that have always worked well together and combine cities that have significant wealth gaps and school district differences between each other.
Ariana Marie Faulkner
In my opinion I think we should keep the districts how they are. I feel if we combined the two districts it would be two big of a city. The taxes would most likely go up as well because we could be considered a city. Also in my opinion I feel there is a clear income difference between plymouth and canton which I feel should stay separate. And as I've said before I feel a lot of people would lose their jobs if the two districts were to combine.
Ariana Marie Faulkner
I like the idea of keeping the two districts apart. If we combined them taxes would go up, slow decision process. There would be more government control, schooling could be different as well and new bus routes, people would lose jobs because in different districts we have the same jobs but if we combine them there would be no use for two of the same company.
The district lines should be reevaluated based on the shared cities within each district because District 5 should be grouped with the city of Plymouth rather than the city of Westland. In terms of schooling, Westland schools are placed under the Wayne-Westland Community School District, while Canton schools are placed under the Plymouth-Canton Community School District. Plymouth and Canton are already such a diverse and intertwined community due to the shared public schools where people of all backgrounds have created a sense of community and camaraderie. Having our schools shared makes us close, but if our cities were joined into one district, we could all work together to continue our diverse community and accommodate for all of the interests of the people in both Plymouth and Canton, bettering our schools and the children being educated within them. Overall, Canton and Plymouth share a more common interest than the interests shared between Canton and Westland.
Ariana Marie Faulkner
It would be better financially because we would gain more government dollars. We would be more recognized in washington dc because both canton and plymouth combined would be a bigger city. We would gain more resources by combining the two districts as well. We could also attract more companies to move to our area.
This is a relatively fair map - gives majority representation to majority voters. Does well with communities of interest. Thank you for your efforts.
Overall, I believe that district 5 is well drawn, but there are a couple downsides to it. The deviation between the target population and our actual population is very low (-1.62%), which is a good thing. Also, the population of white people and the population of people with heritages of black, native, asian, islander, etc. are more balanced that in say district 12. This means that other communities are well represented and their voices are being heard. One issue I have with the district borders is that Canton and Plymouth aren't grouped together which is a downside to our school district (Plymouth-Canton). If they were grouped together, the quality of education and schooling in general will increase.
I think this map could be drawn differently. District 13 seems to include wealthier areas which mean those people will be represented in that district. The cities in district 13 are not all in the same county and don’t interact as frequently. I think it could be redrawn to include more diversity. I think Canton and Plymouth should be included in the same district because the communities interact together especially due to the shared school district. Canton is very diverse and having the two together would allow for a wide variety of people to be represented. It is hard to draw district maps because there are always going to be some communities with a lot of diversity and some where people have very similar beliefs and backgrounds.
This is one of the most fair maps. It still favors one party, but comes closer to partisan fairness. Cherry is slightly better with partisan fairness. Maps that are less unfair, are still unfair. We want maps that are actually fair.
I continually am confused at why Plymouth and Canton are split on these redistricting maps. The two cities are nearly inseparable, have one school district centered around a combined group of high schools. How is it that families with students in the same school district would be in different voting districts. I am possibly more confused at why in its place Inkster is included. I can't say that I even know anyone from Inkster, and it changes the population and financial makeup of the voting district.
No map ever drawn will be perfect and satisfy everyone. That being said, there is one striking feature of this map that I question. I don't understand why Plymouth and Canton are separated. It's not as if their combined population is too great to be a part of one district, and as a Canton resident, I can say that residents of these towns hardly distinguish the two. People from these communities share a school district (along with a large high school campus), so it doesn't make sense why Plymouth is paired with Northville rather than Canton.
I this that this map is a good representation of this area's community. For example, in the community there are many neighborhoods that are very similar to each other. These neighborhoods mean that those people living there have similar financial situations. So, this map does a good job at not cutting off or splitting those parts of the community.
I agrees with putting Northville and plymouth together, as they are two towns with similar, suburban type population. What I find weird is that Canton and Plymouth are not in the same district, because we probably share even more similarities with them than Northville. Heck, we even share a high school with eachother. In the end, DIstrict 13 is good, but in order to improve it, you must include Plymouth and Canton to the same district.
Overall, District 5 is decent, especially in terms of the population. The Asian community is well grouped and well represented compared to the overall white population and the other districts, where voting is also reasonable. However, I do not believe Canton and Westland should be grouped together because Canton and Plymouth would make much more sense. For instance, the prominent public schooling of Plymouth-Canton provides for an important factor, which is not represented very well at all. Currently, Plymouth is in District 13; allowing Canton and Plymouth to be integrated together will severely improve the quality of Plymouth-Canton schools and the thousands of students that attend by allowing better, continuous communication and beliefs.
When looking at the map as a whole, I feel like the borders might need some work. Looking at the racial diversity of each district, there are pretty big variations. Some have an overwhelmingly white population. In addition, all districts are majority white. I understand that this may just be a reflection of the whole Michigan population. Specifically looking at district 5, I have doubts about putting Westland and Canton together. From my experience living in Canton, I would say that putting Canton and Plymouth together may be better. Minor changes can be considered overall.
I feel like this district, though similar in population to all other districts, exceeds particularly in the amount of land it covers. I believe these voting districts should represent similar land areas, as well as population, but while I think it is difficult to do so, I believe different townships could be included to make the area smaller, while still representing the same amount of people.
I approve of this map, as it helps emphasize diversity, as the diversity of this district in Asian population is larger than other districts. However, I think that Canton and Plymouth should be grouped together in a single district as they are grouped together in many of the other districting efforts. In addition Canton also has a similar demographic to that of Plymouth. This district includes a 'dip' at the land at the bottom. This could have been expanded to reach lower deviation from the rest of the map.
I agree with Kristine S Detmers comment posted in Michigan State House Pine V5 map, "... All these maps should have been drawn with a color blind eye and based on population alone! Gerrymandering at its worse!". The data shown in these maps should have only provided the "Total Population" and the "Voting Age Population". All other numbers are injecting race and ethnicity which overlooks the most important fact, "We are ALL Americans"!
I approve of this map, as it helps emphasize diversity. However, I think that Canton and Plymouth should be grouped together in a single district as they are similar and are grouped together in many of the other districting efforts. In addition this district includes a diagonal triangle shaped piece of land that could have been expanded to reach lower deviation from the map.
Overall, I believe that the redistricting of the communities in District 13 benefit the interests of the people. Population-wise, the deviation has gone up about 1%, which continues to allow fair election processes. As a resident of Plymouth attending Plymouth-Canton schools, I don't think there is an issue with the splitting of Plymouth and Canton. The representation of both Plymouth and Canton residents continues to stay at a consistent rate, so the issue over electing representatives clashing with the school district's knowledge on the subject isn't an issue. I also believe the communities of interest in District 13 are all relatively similar to each other, which of course, is the most important issue to be accounted for. An issue I could see in District 5 is the difference of interests and goals between Canton and Inkster/Westland which would lead to problems within the communities.
The state senate districts are evenly drawn just in terms of population. However, the districts are very uneven in terms of diversity. Certain districts have a very heavy bias towards the white population, with over 90% of the population being white. This may lead to issues with the representation of the people. Additionally, some borders split cities that are very integrated communities. For example, the border between districts 5 and 13 split Canton and Plymouth. This is an interesting choice considering that Canton and Plymouth are very integrated in terms of people and education. Separating them into different districts messes up the representation of a connected population. Overall, the district borders have been drawn well, but some of the smaller details in certain communities should also be considered when creating these districts.
This map is better than most although there is still partisan bias.
Keep Berrien whole.
The state’s senate district boundaries seem fine to me in this arrangement since they account for most of the districting criteria written into the state constitution. Some of the criteria that the state’s districts meet are the equal population, contiguity, and (in my opinion) community of interest requirements. The population of each district ranges from around 258 to around 271 thousand people, the districts each directly border one another’s boundaries, and (I believe) that, since each district is usually either rural, suburban, or urban, each community member's social and economic views/desires usually mirror each other. Others think that the community of interest requirements are not met because of the many urban and the fewer rural districts, which they think give Democrats the upper hand in elections. My response to these arguments would be that these districts are fair because they reflect the many suburban and urban citizens’ interests and they have about the same populations as the rural districts.
Overall, the map for this district looks rather well-drawn. However, it seems to split Livonia into two parts, which may cause divides in communities. However, the map does do a good job of connecting other cities with similar populations, like Westland and Canton. There is a pretty large racial bias towards the White population, but that seems to be a thing with the population of Michigan as a whole. In the end, it is a strong map with a few things that could possibly be changed
Your constitutional duty is to consider communities of interest. This map divides our rural voices with that of major metropolitan areas. We ask for fairness, not divisions with attempts to divide us and give unfair advantage to big cities. Please consider the PALM map, which allows our rural voices to have fair representations.
It may make more sense for Troy/Rochester to be included with Birmingham/Clawson and removed completely from Sterling Heights.
All maps have a relative Republican bias but this is relatively fair. Cherry is pretty good. Palm is very unfair.
Relatively fair map . All maps have Republican bias , but is better than Palm . This tri-county area is competitive and reflect diverse communities .
This creates 6 VRA districts. Does well with COI. Most fair of the Senate maps, but still should work to get closer to partisan fairness.
This is the best of the Senate maps but it still favors one party
This is not a good map for Jackson County as it splits it in two - and both halves get attached to Washtenaw County and the university city of Ann Arbor. There could not be two more dissimilar communities of interest - rural, small manufacturing vs big university city. These communities do not share similar needs or solutions. The Palm State Senate map is a better option.
It seems that the map for redistricting is fairly well drawn except for a few key flaws. I believe the map also splits up communities that would do well together. There is not much relation between those in the Canton and those who live all the way out near Inkster. It makes sense that Canton would be grouped with Westland, but it seems that Plymouth and Canton would be best if put together due to their close relations. This map does seem to also split Livonia and connect it to Westland, which is an interesting choice to say the least.
I don't mind this map redistricting because It does connect Canton with similar areas. I don't think it's the best and I do think that changes can be made such as redistricting Plymouth and Canton together because of their heavy similarities. I think the map separates cultures and interests which is one flaw I see. Lastly, I think that this map helps significantly towards the Westland and Livonia area which have always been heavily seperated.
Maps gives disproportionate advantage to one party and does not reflect obvious COIs in south-central Michigan. This violates the spirit of Prop 2 by ignoring communities and party-favoritism.
Cherry is reasonably fair and has less Republican bias than Lange map.
I do not like how this map is drawn. I think it splits up communities that work well together and limits diversity. It does not provide adequate resources for everyone now. It also takes away the large variety of cultures and interests. I think the cities will benefit more from being grouped with many different types of people.
I live in District 4 and I like the boundaries here -it represents this COI well. Just wish there was a little more input. Good job.
This map is fair. it recognizes the need for representation of the major communities in the Lansing area: Lansing, East Lansing, Meridian. Balanced.
This is the right direction for creating a partisan fair map. This map should be the working model that evolves into a fair Michigan. We’re not close yet.
This is one of the fairer maps.
Laurence S Rosen
This map recognizes the need for representation for each of the major communities in the Lansing area: Lansing and East Lansing/Meridian/ etc. Much more balanced and fair.
This map splits up the capital area in a fair manner. It gives the right representation to Lansing and East Lansing.
This map and the Linden map both lean closer to partisan fairness than do the other proposed State Senate maps. I am concerned that several of the districts north of 8 Mile Road in both maps extend into Detroit, though. I would prefer that those VRA districts remain as they are.
This map along with Linden come closest to meeting the criterion of partisan fairness.
Just NO. Everywhere. Just NO. Horrible map.
I like Linden best, but he Cherry v2 State Senate map is a reasonable alternative.
This map does not align with the "communities of interest" principle as well as the Palm map. Too much combining of rural and metropolitan areas. Looks like lots of gerrymandering to favor the Democrat Party it appears. I thought the commission was about "people and not politics".
What a crazy convoluted map. I have no knowledge of the communities that snake to the east. Some of these maps leave me suspicious of the true intent of the constitutional amendment.
Does not create as many competitive districts a Palm proposal.
This definitely does not keep the communities of interest together. It cuts Grosse Pointe Park into three pieces.
This map is outlandish. What rational reason, other than gerrymandering, could there possibly be for dividing 2 counties in half. All this does is give the larger urban area of Ann Arbor more of a voice than the small rural areas of Jackson County. This committee was supposed to be impartial and take politics out of it. The PALM map is the best of the options for fairness in redistricting. Please DO NOT select this map. Please DO SELECT PALM. Thank you.
This map is fairer than Palm.
Thank you for your work trying to reduce partisan bias. This map is one of the better State Senate maps.
Jennifer Leigh Umphress
This district does not represent my community.
This is the worse map of all. Separating Jackson County in half. The voters of Jackson will never be given a fair chance at reprensentation.
This is a fair map, although all maps have Republican bias that is likely to affect the majority in a close statewide race. It is far better than Palm, which is very unfair.
andrew j seiler
This map does great on partisan fairness and should be your top choice for State Senate Maps!
This map is acceptable. However, Linden is a better map reflecting statewide voting patterns and communities of interest.
I dislike this map. It does not keep Jackson county whole and needlessly divides it. Jackson county should never be lumped into the same district as Ann Arbor, unless gerrymandering is the goal.
This Ann Arbor split is bizarre. It may make the Ann Arbor democratic activists happy that they can supersede the Jackson folks and guarantee a democratic majority, but it has no basis in communities of interest. Nor is it fair, as anything other than a 19-19 split is a disproportionate advantage.
This map is acceptable. However, Linden is a better map reflecting statewide voting patterns and communities of interest.
Peggy L Van Sickle
This particular map appears to be the fairest map partisanshipwise. I know there are a lot of complaints from the other side, but partisanship is one major consideration. That's why the People put this in your hands.
Sue Matthes Hadden
This map does great on partisan fairness and should be the top choice for State Senate Maps.
All the State Senate maps seem to be the same in Southeastern Michigan. If the only differences are in the outstate areas, it would be nice to know why. Is there no other combination of COI's to be found for us?
Thank you. I'm glad to see Ann Arbor divided between two parts of the County instead of standing alone as an island.
There is ZERO reason to split Ann Arbor for community of interest reasons. The only reason to do such a thing is to unfairly give democrats an insurmountable edge. We were told this commission would respect communities of interest. This map does NOT do this.
This map is not balanced and unfairly represents urban areas
No map is ideal, but this map seems to meet the needs of the residents of my area for representation fairly
I do not like the Cherry V2 State Senate map. It divides Jackson County and combines rural areas of Jackson County with half of the City of Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor has more public service offerings, widely available broadband, and public transportation. Most rural areas, like Waterloo Township, have none of these things. Rural communities have VERY different needs and require different legislative representation. Please use the PALM State Senate map. It better represents my community. Thank you.
This proposed map unnecessarily divides up Jackson County splitting up our current Community of Interest. Please do adopt this map. The Chestnut map keeps the Jackson Community of Interest together.
Do not like
The Cherry V2 State Senate map combines rural areas of Jackson County way too much with the urban area of Washtenaw County. I am disappointed to see how unfair these map options are for those of us living here in Jackson County. This map appears to have been designed to drown out our rural Jackson voice as the Senate representatives would be too busy bending to the specialized needs, demands, and ultimately ‘dollars’ of Washtenaw County. Please do not adopt this map. The alternate Palm State Senate is the better choice. Thank you.
This is not good for Jackson County as a whole.
This splits the entire East Side, home of the Allen neighborhood Center and very involved Neighborhood organization and residents out of Lansing and puts them into E Lansing/Meridian where there is no community of interest with the EastSide.
This splits the entire East side of Lansing from the city. Its integral to the city, not to East Lansing, Meridian et al.
Don't split up North and South Jackson Co. Ridiculous!
It is obvious what you are doing by splitting up three different counties to create new districts! Let Jackson Co. have our district, and Washtenaw Co. have theirs. No common interests
This map seems mostly fair, as the population sizes in each district are similar and shaped normally. Communities of interest are mostly represented. I think that District 15, where I am from, is one of the most interestingly drawn districts. The city of Ann Arbor is split up, and grouped with cities that have different needs, such as Jackson county.
Rick L Catherman
This map seems to be the least biased map, and although not ideal, this Senate maps would seem to serve the residents of my area in the most fair way.
I don't like how far east this map goes as we in the Southwest corner are not connected to these eastern counties. However, this map does seem to be one of the least biased.
City folks don't understand the issues and needs of farming communities. This map lumps urban and rural areas together and this will leave farmers without a voice because there is such a lack of ties to agriculture today. Please keep Jackson County together in one district. I am a senior citizen and I rely on services in my community of Jackson. Thank you.
Priority should be based on community of interest. This maps splits up Jackson County and the community of interest it serves! This is partisan gerrymandering. Please remember that the law states that districts should not provide a disproportionate advantage for any political party.
Caron Maria Wootten
This map is absurd, it guarantees that Jackson County voters will not a voice to represent them. With the nod given recognizing communities of interest in the Congressional mapping, this is a slap of recognition that it isn't being taken into consideration at all here.
Jeffrey B Halter
This is a strong map which links my part of Ann Arbor with neighbors to the North and East. Overall, it is well distributed and meets partisan fairness criteria.
I do not like the Cherry V2 State Senate map. It divides Jackson County and combines rural areas of Jackson county with half of the city of Ann Arbor . Ann Arbor has public utilities, widely available broadband, and public transportation. Most rural areas have none of these things. These different communities have different needs and require different legislative representation. Please adopt instead the “Palm” State Senate map. It does a much better job of satisfying the ‘communities of interest’ objective of this committee. Thank you.
Good map - will have to listen carefully to the voice of constituents
I support this map in that COI’s are together in the tri-cities (district 35). Please let partisan fairness and allowing all voices to be heard guide you in making the final decision and not gerrymandering. However, please consider putting Bridgeport, Hemlock, and Thomas Township in district 35 as well. They are very much a part of our COI and do not belong in a separate district.
This map appears fair to me and keeps Livingston County and it's environmental concerns into one district, including the area just south of Livingston County which shares environmental, transportation and recreational interests. Thank you.
Close, but no cigar! The industrial economic resources of ports, roads, and proximity to Chicago are shared with shoreline counties of Muskegon, Ottawa, and south ... not north with the vacationland counties.
Good map Keep Rockford with Grand Rapids
Craig Michael Flietstra
I think the rural area of northeast Ottawa county would be better served if they were included with the rest of Ottawa county.
Gera;d De Maire
We should have stuck to squaring districts instead of trying to please everyone who had an opinion at the public meetings.
This is a really bad map for mid-Michigan. It splits Lansing and East Lansing and groups them each with their own rural areas. The focus should be on creating a district (or two) that represents Lansing/East Lansing and one (or two) that represent the more rural areas.
I was a fan of the Eid map, but that doesn't appear to be available any longer. Perhaps you've incorporated some of that into one, or more, of the maps that are available. If so, great. Other than that, except for Lange, there doesn't seem to be a lot that separates these maps from a West Michigan perspective. So, except for Lange, pick one that's closest to what the Eid map looked like.
You can't be serious with this map. It certainly shows the bias of the committee. I an insulted that as an immigrant, you separated my district making it a mess.
This map does a good job of keeping the LSC communities together.
I am adding to my first comment that I like how this map keeps the Huron Chain of lakes together in one district. All the lake in the chain have a "Do not eat the fish order" because of PFAS. It is best to keep them in one Senate district.
This seems like a fair drawing of the districts.
This is ridiculous. Having Salem Township be a part of this gerry-mandered district that includes Livingston and Jackson counties makes no sense. Most of the folks in Salem Township have a South Lyon address. Most consider them a part of the "South Lyon" area. They go there to shop, dine, socialize, go to church, etc. Salem Township should be in the same district as South Lyon and Lyon Twp.
This looks like a good map. I collected signatures for VNP and want to see fair maps. Thank you for all your hard work
This looks like a much more fair voting district than the one in which I currently reside. Thank you.
I live in SW Barry County. This is a good map because Barry County is grouped with portions of Allegan, Kent and Calhoun counties with many common interests.
This is absurd. There is no reasonable explanation to split the city of Ann Arbor besides trying to guarantee a democratic majority. That is not the job of the commission. They should respect communities of interest. Any changes for blatant partisan reasons like this is pure gerrymandering.
The Commission has done a commendable job on the Congressional and State House district maps keeping Kent County reasonably intact. The proposed State Senate maps are another story. All three collaborative maps have Kent County fragmented into 5 pieces. Each map has southern Kent County combined with Benton Harbor/St. Joseph, as well as other district boundary irregularities. The proposed maps for State Senate are not reasonable and may be worse than the previous gerrymandered maps. It surprises me that this fragmentation is not obvious to the Commission, and that the Commission considers these maps acceptable. I oppose the three proposed State Senate maps. The proposal to combine southern Kent County with Benton Harbor/St. Joseph is absurd. The citizens of Benton Harbor have major concerns with lead in drinking water. How well would their concerns be addressed if their state senator lived in far-away Kent County? Maybe the Commission hasn’t heard from Benton Harbor. The residents of Benton Harbor have to worry about their day-to-day drinking water and do not have the luxury to monitor Commission proceedings. It would be nice to think that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate, but that’s not how the real world works. It’s up to the Commission to use best judgment and to develop reasonable district boundaries. The Commission considers Grand Valley State University (GVSU) a Community of Interest and has based one senate district on this premise. The student population is about 25,000. This compares with a senate district size of 260,000. What about the other 235,000 people in the district and their communities of interest? Much has been made of urban communities versus rural. The northern Kent County communities of Sparta, Rockford, and Cedar Springs are an easy commute to Grand Rapids, and northern Grand Rapids can be linked as a Community of Interest with them. Another thing that the Commission has not considered is the population growth of Kent County. The areas that are considered rural are already becoming more urbanized and will become more so in the next ten years. Connecting disparate communities into one district does not foster consensus needed for representative government to flourish, and this action ultimately defeats the whole process of redistricting. Representative government benefits from cohesive districts, where common community goals, objectives, and consensus can be formed. I believe that truly representative government is essential in dealing with the challenging issues of today. Today’s issues are too critical to wait another ten years for new redistricting to occur. Citizens trust the Commission to do the right thing. Please do the right thing and redraw the State Senate maps keeping Kent County intact. I have a proposed map, p6745, that you can use as a starting point. Thank you.
This map does a good job of incorporating COI's
I like how this looks...many thanks for all of your efforts thus far
This appears to be a sensible district, in which moderate sensible candidates may run for office. Finally, an opportunity for to elect representatives that must understand the many concerns of all the people, rural & urban, wealthy & poor, & everyone in between. We need wise moderates to develop widely accepted solutions to our problems. Please help unite America. Prevent the tearing apart by the those who profit from sowing discord an mistrust which weakens America. (If you can replace the primary systems with ranked/approval voting, even better.) We need representatives who are the most widely accepted candidates, not the fanatics who use all the classic propaganda methods to profit by maximizing fear and hatred of fellow Americans outside their party. Clowns to left of me, jokers to the right; please bring me to the middle with you.
I am in support of this map. Thank you for honoring the fact that the Tri Cities are a COI. I sincerely hope you will keep an eye on the metric of Partisan Fairness. The hierarchy of the criteria in this Constitutional amendment is your guideline.
One of the key issues of redistricting is the grouping of minorities into areas with limited voice. This is one reason why we have toxic water without redress in Flint and Benton Harbor. It takes real vision to assure a voice for large but marginalized populations.
The boundary between district 30 which cuts across Grand Rapids along Fulton should be moved south to Wealthy St. when making its border to district 29 to the south.
None of Ottawa CO west of Kent CO should be in the same district with Kent CO and should be removed from district 30. If you then need population to add to district 30 take portions of northeast Kent CO around Cannonsburg and add them to district 30. This would also help to keep Kent CO whole.
Claudia Kraus Piper
This seems to be the most fair map.
The municipality of Detroit had a 2020 census population of 639,111 according to the 2020 census, making it the 27th-most populous city in the United States. Michigan Senate 265,193 Ideal per district 639,111 / 265,193 = 2.4 districts ? 7 districts cross into Detroit ??? Any Partinishit ????
I can live with the boundaries of District 4 , at least the have a contigous community of interest in the Downriver. And i fully understand why Allen Park and Lincoln Park are not included since they have large population groupings that standalone numerically. Good work given the districting challenges and constraints.
This districting "solution" represents a partisan attempt to force together communities which have little in common. Whether intentional or unintentional, the result of such a map will be the dilution of the political voice of the people of Hillsdale and Jackson, who have little to nothing politically in common with the voters of Ann Arbor.
This looks like a reasonable map - I am so grateful for the work that has been done. These are divisive times and if we can move even a bit closer to less partisan boundaries we are doing a huge service for Michigan citizens and for our democracy.
All three of these maps are bad because they split the city of Livonia in two and divorce it from neighboring communities of interest in Western Wayne County. Please go back, stop trying to "unpack" Detroit in strange ways, and draw districts that let Detroiters represent Detroit. This will then allow you to keep Livonia and Western Wayne County communities together as they are in today's Senate District 7.
Balanced party representation is the key to fairly created districts. Thank You for your work to achieve this!
The goal is free and fair elections. There should be no consideration of maps proposed by individual commission members.
THANK YOU. The districts look much more competitive than they have in the past.
I like this map keeps the LSC area in one district.
This map is a huge improvement over the previous.
Diane K Davidson
Thank you for a fair and equitable map that represents the voters.
This map is drawn fairly, serves the COI well. Many Thanks
This district, because of the heavy partisan lean, invalidates my vote. Districts should be as close to equal as possible. There is nothing about this area that requires such a gap.
Thank you for creating fair maps.
Thank you for your hard work making Fair Maps. It is awesome that we have Districts that are fair for everyone
I do not understand why the part of Section 3 in Oakland and Macomb Counties is not exchanged with the part of Section 10 in Wayne County. It would seem that county affiliation has a higher commonality of interest than most other factors, yet these districts are misconfigured to achieve some other purpose.
Carol A Simmons
This map seems much more equitable than the others I saw. Thank you for your hard work and for Taking michiganders’ comments into consideration
This is a better looking district than the first one I commented on, but there are definitely some weird things going on. There are lots of COIs that are overridden by population, like Ann Arbor being split in half. It's inevitable that rural areas get lumped in with urban areas, it's a simple matter of population, but there should be a better way to go about it. Overall a good start!
This map is well thought out, keeps community of interest together and displays partisan fairness.
Our family thanks you for the long arduous work that resulted in these Fair Maps. Fair Maps! We thank you! More importantly, our democracy thanks you! Fair maps: music to our patriotic hearts!
This map is a perfect example of how NOT to fairly designate a district. People commenting about “Community of Interest” between Jackson and Ann Arbor are failing to describe how they are communities of interest….that is because they are NOT communities of interest. Jackson County is primarily ag, and really has very little in common with Ann Arbor. Dividing the county into two districts and lumping them in to the Ann Arbor area is done to simply increase the influence of one party and decrease the other. Keeping the county as intact as possible is one of the requirements of the Constitution, and this map fails in that regard and many others. the PALM map is the most fair map.
Thank you for creating fair and equitable maps.
THANK YOU . The districts look more competitive for 2022.
DARLENE M DOMANIK
This map creates FAIR districts for everyone! Please adopt it.
Gayle Kalvelage Steiner
Thank you for moving toward more competitive districts.
Cathy Jo Muha
District 14 looks fair to me. My community of interest, Chelsea, Dexter, etc., are together. Thanks.
Districts 14 & 15 are nothing but partisan gerrymandering. The interests of Jackson county and of Hillsdale, in particular, will not be represented under these proposed districts. A district is supposed to preserve the distinct characteristic of a particular community so that it can be represented. There is nothing with districts 14 and 15 that preserve the distinct interests of Jackson county. These districts are anathema to both fairness and republican government.
Districts 14 & 15 are absurd and are nothing more than gerrymandering. Ann Arbor districts that extends across 1/2 the state, come on. Other than a highway which runs through the area, there is little commonality between these areas and will result in these communities' voices being drowned out by Ann Arbor. Completely unfair!
Thank you for creating this set of maps. It is fair and exactly what the voters wanted!
Thank you for considering the needs of a broader community so that issues of broadband access, density, education, social services and transportation can be shared and addressed together by residents of the new district 14
Districts 14 and 15 render the rural interests of the Hillsdale and Jackson county subservient to the neoliberal and urban interests of Ann Arbor and Yipsi
Splitting Lansing area is the fair thing to do. THANK YOU!
The citizens of Jackson County and particularly Hillsdale have no interests or sentiments in common with the people of Ann Arbor. These districts would in no way promote so called "partisan fairness." They essentially crack the votes of rural and conservative voters across two districts which will be dominated by the more populous and liberal cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. There is nothing fair about turning a traditionally conservative district into two liberal ones.
I am honestly bewildered by the unequitable drawing of districts 14 & 15. I thought we were trying to avoid districts tortuously drawn for political advantage! What do Spring Arbor and Ann Arbor have in common besides the name "arbor"?? Jackson county people share workplaces, playgrounds, neighborhoods, churches, and all the other venues where community happens---all the traits of authentic community that they do not share with Ann Arbor, which of course has its own community. Wouldn't it make more sense for Jackson and Washtenaw counties to be their own districts? Ann Arbor's population is greater than all the towns in Jackson County combined, so pairing the two would effectively silence Jackson voices. (Notice that the favorable comments are all from Ann Arbor area... it's human nature to not mind getting disproportional influence...) I appreciate the hard work of the commission, but unfortunately, it seems all too clear that the old ideological and special interests are trying to surreptitiously influence the commission to sneak in gerrymandering through the backdoor.
What do the people of Hillsdale County have in common with the people of Ann Arbor? These may as well be different nations. They share almost no interests in common. One thrives on agriculture and industry, the other on technology, education, and service jobs. Their political and social beliefs diverge as starkly as any two communities in the nation. How will the small, rural pockets in Moscow, Somerset, and Mosherville have their voices heard amid the overwhelming influence from Ann Arbor? Half a dozen densely packed apartment complexes in Ann Arbor outweigh an entire township in northern Hillsdale County. Before the non-partisan redistricting committee came to power, this was not an issue. Hillsdale County was not gerrymandered and its interests were not diluted by crowded cities. Please correct this error and restore northern Hillsdale County to District 17.
The lines drawn for Districts 14 and 15 are naked attempts at a partisan gerrymander to dilute the interests of rural voters in northern Hillsdale County and Jackson county by swallowing them up with voters in Ann Arbor. The Michigan Constitution states that lines should be drawn with a view to grouping voters based on the views of "communities of interest." Voters in Ann Arbor have no common interests with those of rural communities. This is a shameful map designed to to give more power and influence to those in more affluent and suburban and urban neighborhoods. These districts should be redrawn with a better eye towards preserving counties together and with a greater consideration for which voters should actually be grouped together based on their genuine common interests.
District 15 is swallowed up by city interests and will not represent the predominantly conservative and rural voters of northern Hillsdale County. In that respect, it appears to be classic gerrymandering, designed to dilute or destroy the representation of disfavored voters. Please reconsider this portion of the District 15 map. Thank you.
This is by far the best map for partisan fairness to date. While it could be made better, it is encouraging to see this process move in the right direction. Keep up the good work.
Explain to me how the strange way that districts 14 and 15 are drawn protects "communities of interests." It's obvious to everyone that this new map is meant to dilute and disregard the interests of rural communities in the Hillsdale and Jackson counties by lumping them in with urban Ann Arbor. Southern Michigan does NOT share the same interests as Ann Arbor. This new independent redistricting commission is using the same old partisan gerrymandering to give an unfair advantage to urban districts!
This is a better map. Thank you for all your efforts.
Carl L Hamann
I oppose this map due to the fact it divides Midland County. I am a councilman for the Village of Sanford. We work very closely with Midland county and the City of Midland . We need to have a single voice representing our issues. As of last years national disaster we need focused representation to help us rebuild the massive destruction of our area and communities!!
Districts 14 & 15 are a great improvement! I think you've done a great job creating two competitive and balanced districts. I appreciate the difficulty -- balancing the high residential concentration/segregation of many COIs with the need for balanced legislative representation. Thank you!
It is an improvement. But there are still some really odd looking districts. This should not be about parties. It should be about population and geography. It is an area that an elected official will serve and represent. Not a permanent job for elected officials who really do not do either. Parties have far outlived their usefulness.
Bonnie Jill Haver-Crissman
Thank you for keeping Midland together with the Tri-Cities in this map-- this gives us hope for our voices to be heard for a change. 10,000 people applied to be on the MICRC and you are our dream team. 1000's of Michiganders worked for Proposal 2 and Millions voted for it's passage. We voted for fair districts and the opportunity for all our voices to be heard. The metrics of your success are the measures of partisan fairness. The world is watching. Please give us the maps with the best measures of fairness to vote for. Maps drawn for partisan fairness are not gerrymandering. The world is watching.
This proposed district map is a substantial improvement. Over the last decade, I have lived, worked, traveled and vacationed all over the proposed district 15 and 16 areas in rural, suburban and urban areas, in Washtenaw, Jackson, Hillsdale, Lenawee, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties. I have worked with local and state and federal governments, manufacturers, non-profits, start-ups, developers, farmers, and more. These experiences have taught me that we, the people who live and work in this region, are *far* more similar than not. Some folks have commented that these areas do not have any interests in common. Based on my first-hand experience and expert knowledge, I could not disagree more. They have *so much* in common: from overlapping economic development interests to our shared groundwater reservoirs, from the rural farmers who grow food and raise livestock to the suburbanites who show up to the farmer's market(s) every week to buy fresh local produce. If a man from Brooklyn accidentally falls off of his barn roof while doing repairs, to which hospital trauma center is he air-lifted to? If a family from Ann Arbor wants to enjoy an autumn day with the grandparents, which orchards will they visit? I-94 is one of if not the busiest and most important corridors in the state, especially when it comes to logistics and the distribution of vital goods. During this time of unprecedented supply chain problems, it is more important than ever to shore up community support around this essential artery of our community’s livelihood. Our interests are tightly interconnected, and to say otherwise is disingenuous hogwash based on dogmatic ideology, identity politics or a massive misunderstanding of our region’s infrastructure and resource distribution.
As a Battle Creek resident, I am very happy not to be included with Kalamazoo in this district, as they would have easily outweighed us.
Examine the substance of the comments on the map. Those who oppose the attachment of rural and conservative communities in Districts 14 and 15 to Ann Arbor offer a reason: the larger number of liberal votes in Ann Arbor functionally silences the fewer conservatives who would now be attached from the areas of Jonesville, Jerome, Somerset, etc. Look at the comments of those in favor - they make claims without proof, saying that representation of diverse interests will be the result without offering any explanation of how, directly contrary to simple logic. This is clearly a gerrymandering initiative being supported here in this forum by people with partisan interests without the benefit of reason or facts. Let's be better than this.
Thank you for keeping Rockford and Plainfield Township together and with Grand Rapids.
Barbara A Conley
I think district 37 is a reasonably fair district. Overall I thank the commission for paying attention to partisan fairness. The state Senate maps are now a toss up, by the metrics we can access!
I live in Hillsdale County and the citizens of my region of Michigan have very little in common with those in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. My region and that of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti share neither cultural nor economic interests. District 15 is a clear violation of Michigan Constitution's Art. 4§6(13)(d), which proscribes drawing districts in order to advance the political interests and electoral advantages of a particular political party. This effort *clearly* constitutes partisan gerrymandering in order to dilute the political efficacy of GOP voters in Jackson and Hillsdale in favor of the Democratic Party. Willful distortions of true political representation, the cornerstone of our popular government, is not something Michiganders can abide.
I support this map as it is unpacking the Ann Arbor area connecting it with Jackson and other cities along the I-94 corridor which is an economic community of interest. Thank you commissioners for the partisan fairness of this map.
I live in Hillsdale County and I can tell you the people of northern Jonesville, Jerome, and Somerset have little in common with those in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. These are not "communities of interests" that share cultural, historical, or economic interests (per Michigan Constitution, Art. 4§6(13)(c)). District 15 is a violation of Art. 4§6(13)(d) that prohibits drawing districts in such a way to give disproportionate advantage to any political party: liberal Dems in Ann Arbor will clearly dilute if not utterly drown out conservative GOP voters in Jackson and Hillsdale. This districting is obviously gerrymandering for partisan purposes.
Please shuffle these districts around. First, the border of the southern Kent County seat should be Wealthy, not Fulton. Also, Cascade makes more sense to be in the southern half of Grand Rapids because of the airport and not East Grand Rapids. Lastly, please shift the surrounding districts . District 20 contains Byron Township in the North and Benton Harbor to the South. These areas have nothing in common. District 33 has bits and pieces of 7 different counties. District 18 is grabbing parts of Kent County that belong with the other Kent County areas. I believe you can shift these seats around to make every one look better than currently drawn.
Districts 14 and 15 - the districts regarding Ann Arbor - are problematic. As a resident of Hillsdale County, I am especially disappointed in district 15. Members of our community ought not be scooped out and thrown in with the voters in Ann Arbor. Splitting up Hillsdale County divides conservative voters and dilutes the conservative vote in Michigan. If you adopt this map, you will have failed in you efforts to curtail gerrymandering. Please reconsider the Senate districts.
Thank you for combining Jackson county with Washtenaw county and part of Ann Arbor! Please continue to apply fair and equitable efficiency gaps to partisan fairness, racial equity and communities of interest. Establishing, maintaining and preserving these standards are what we voted Prop-2 in for.
This is map is either malicious or braindead moronic. Whichever it is, it doesn't serve the residents of northern Hillsdale very well. It is and ought to be understood as a giant middle finger to those constituents.
Districts 14 and 15 are egregious examples of partisan gerrymandering. They subordinate rural interests to the urban centers like Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.
Thank you for this fair map!
Districts 14 and 15 are ridiculous and totally disregard the rural communities of interest in Hillsdale and Jackson counties. What does Jerome or Moscow have in common with Ypsilanti? Same with Albion and Ann Arbor?
Thank you for combining Jackson with Washtenaw extending to part of Ann Arbor. This helps to create a district with a fair efficiency gap. As a Dem voter who lives in a +80? Dem district, I know my vote for Senate doesn't matter. People don't vote when it doesn't matter. I love my current district and senator, but I know fairness and unpacking is more important for democracy. Thank you.
District 32 doesn't work well for me. I'm just inside the northern edge even though my work, civic and social life all take place north of me. But hey, I get it. I'd rather it be fair for the greatest number than simply work for me. Nice job.
Thank you for the update on districts 27 and 29, this looks really great. I appreciate this very reasonable way to give these areas fair and appropriate representation!
I appreciate the way in which the new 32nd District brings together the coastal communities of Muskegon, Luddington, Manistee, and Frankfort together. This makes good sense to me.
the district 14-15 plans are a very reasonable compromise and support the goals of competitive districts - which we have not had in washtenaw and jackson counties, and also communities of interest. living in western washtenaw county, my family has friends throughout the area - Jackson, AA, Dexter, Chelsea, Manchester, etc., and we patronize businesses, doctors, vets, mostly in the western corridor. Ann Arbor is nice for UofM events, but we definitely have a broader experience of the area. these are good maps!
Thank you for making our state’s districts more representative of all people who live in them. This helps to ensure that everyone will have a fair chance of being represented.
This map reflects Jackson and Ann Arbor as communities of interest, protects partisan fairness, will eliminate built-in bias an wasted votes and will require politicians to be responsive to the communities they represent. Thank you commissioners for partisan fairness.
This one again is gerrymandering. Please stop and consider the population requirements for redistricting. This suggestion far exceeds that requirement and therefore only leaves one deduction, you are gerrymandering. We voted for the people by the people and I am very disappointed, except for Commissioners Clark, Lange and Wagner who seem to be contemplating why the people chose citizens to accomplish this process. The families in the City of Midland and the County of Midland have more shared concerns with education, employment, law enforcement, social welfare... than they do with the people in nearby cities. Keep Midland County together, please. Gladwin is part of our watershed district and if not kept together we could loose the much needed help to recover from the dam damages over the next 10 yrs.
The boundary between Senate districts should be Wealthy St , NOT Fulton. Wealthy St. follows the ward line which are core Communities of interests.
The 4 Ottawa County Townships are rural and do not belong with Metro Grand Rapids. Cannon and Algoma Township can be added to balance the population.
The way district 15 just swoops over to scoop up some of Hillsdale County's voters is obvious political partisanship to dilute the effect of those conservative voters. We see what you're doing. You are abusing the authority entrusted to you.
Although I’m not happy with the district I will be in, I believe the boundaries are logical and I support this version.
catherine L mitzel
This map does a good job of including all of the Tri-Cities urban/ suburban communities. We have so many shared interests in business, education and entertainment. Thank you
In this map I count 8 districts that cross Wayne county boundaries. My own city of 100,000 is portioned. How does this promote communities of interest?
This is now the 3rd version of the map that I have been told is "Fair". I fail to see how it keeps getting "fairer". With this one, it is clear you are gerrymandering the other way, with all the contorted district shapes. Neighbors should share representation. I live in Webster Township technically, but 3 minutes after I get in my car I am in downtown Dexter. So now you’ve sliced the northern reach of Washtenaw County from the Dexter city limits north and replaced it with Stockbridge? Doesn’t make any sense. Districting should respect county lines wherever possible. Start with each of the counties and then either combine or split as necessary to balance total number of votes and get the right number of districts. Get as close as you can and then stop. But please - no more contorted district lines!!!
The way that districts 14 and 15 have been drawn is shameful partisan gerrymandering. Hillsdale County and Jackson County have nothing in common with the liberal Ann Arbor. They have clearly been lumped in with Ann Arbor in order to allow Democrats to overwhelm the rural population in these areas and effectively deprive these communities of representation. This independent commission was supposed to fix gerrymandering, not make it worse!
Midland and Gladwin counties should be connected in any version of a Senate map. Please provide a Senate map option that reflects the voices of the Tittabawassee watershed communities.
After looking at the population data, the partisan data, and the geographic aspects of this map, I am very impressed by how this map effectively manages a variety of sometimes competing interests and affiliations. There will inevitably be those who will complain about being swamped out by metro voters, or by rural voters (as I have been the last 10 years in a township outside of Ann Arbor), but I am pleased with the metro/rural balance in my proposed new district.
These districts are ridiculous and disrespectful of the right of the people of Jackson County to have representation. Ann Arbor is a unique brand of liberalism way more liberal than most democrats. It is fundamentally undemocratic spread Ann Arbor's influence beyond its city limits.
I fully support this new map and appreciate the commission's hard work to draw balanced districts. Bringing together rural areas with parts of Ann Arbor will enable representatives to advocate for federal funding to create better infrastructure not only in the city, but also in surrounding areas. The pandemic truly highlighted a need for broader access to broadband internet, for example, to enable our children to fully participate in school. These new districts will have a positive impact on equal access for all.
This State Senate district makes sense...it keeps COI together...Asian American and Chaldean American.
If there is any care at all for representing the distinct interests of entirely different communities, Districts 14 and 15 must be redrawn. Make no mistake, these proposed districts are no attempt to ensure that every vote matters and that every voice is heard. In actuality, it ensures that the interests of places such as Jackson, Northern Hillsdale County, and various rural areas will be overlooked on account of their inclusion in the same district as Ann Arbor. These very different sets of interests do not admit of mixture. Ann Arbor will dominate and effectively disenfranchise those living in areas that hold different interests. In the spirit of true fairness and representation, these proposed districts must be redrawn.
This is a balanced map that gives a fair chance to both parties and respects the real ties between Ann Arbor and the surrounding areas. Representation that must be inclusive of a larger territory should lead to better use and sharing of resources.
Neither Hillsdale County nor Jackson share common interests with Ann Arbor. To combine rural geographic communities with a heavily partisan and populated metro area could be seen as an intentional act to undermine the voting power of the citizens of Hillsdale and Jackson Counties.
I appreciate the hard work of the commission to create these balanced maps. It has been a thankless and difficult job. Thank you.
I am glad to see this map #251 combining the Tri-Cities with Flint for a MI Senate district. It makes a lot of sense to put these urban/suburban cities together and to put the rural parts with other rural parts. This approach honors the COI and partisan fairness criteria. Hopefully other districts--especially around Detroit--can be improved vis-a-vis partisan fairness. Thank-you for your hard work.
This map does a good job of balancing the many interests to be considered.
Jeffrey Brian Halter
I've lived in Ann Arbor since 1984. Thanks for drawing in Districts 14 and 15 in Cherry V2, allowing us to maintain ties with friends and colleagues to the West along the I-94 corridor. This is a big step forward!
This is a much fairer map and gives all voters a better chance of having their voice heard. Thank you to the commission for the hard work to ensure that every vote matters across the state.
No part of Jackson or Hillsdale county should be lumped with Ann Arbor. They are worlds apart and share no interests. Ann Arbor couldn't care less about the issues that are important the rural areas around. It should be lumped in with Ypsilanti. To do otherwise is clearly gerrymandering.
Thank you for your work and for unpacking the Ann Arbor area and creating communities of interest along the I-94 corridor.
District 14 is a disaster. How anyone with half a brain would think that is a representative district is beyond me. Jackson and Ann Arbor similar, since when? All this will accomplish is massive rural areas being ruled over by the leftists in Ann Arbor.
I appreciate that the commission has, with this map, found a balance between communities of interest and partisan fairness. I am looking for districts whose representative will need to consider the needs of many voters with different needs, and this map of 14 and 15 does that well. Thank you.
Thomas L Knox
As a Chelsea resident for over 20 years, I am pleased with this proposed new map. My new district does extend over multiple counties, but it more fairly represents the rural population and is anchored by the I-94 throughline. I have a lot of common with people in the area covered in this map. Nice job.
It is good to see the Grand Rapids city will get two State Senators.
Thanks for getting the Grand Rapids airport with the city of Grand Rapids they should be kept together.
I thought all of Ottawa was a community of interest and would not be split up.
Please do not join rural area in Ottawa with the City of Grand Rapids mi these are not communities of interest
Adam Benjamin Smith
Thank you to the commission for creating a map that unpacks Ann Arbor, giving more of a voice to Ypsilanti communities. The commission has created a map that I believe to be fair in terms of partisanship as well.
I think this map does a nice job of balancing the many different issues that go into creating districts. Thank you for your work!
Emily Van Ark
I like that this map feels like it will make my vote matter more because the district is more balanced, and will also encourage our elected leaders to make sure they’re taking the considerations of voters of both parties into account in order to earn their (re)elections.
Thank you for improving the partisan fairness on this map. I still have concerns around VRA districts in Detroit. Several VRA districts have been combined with suburbs; the west side of Detroit with Farmington and Redford Charter Twp for example. This disadvantages Detroit, a minority-majority city, and means that residents will never be able to elect a candidate of their choice to represent them in the State Senate. Please reconsider this and respect the rights of VRA districts.
Thanks for unpacking Ann Arbor in this map. Partisan fairness is what fair maps ARE. Thanks for your work.
Many thanks to the MICRC for working to create maps that will better represent the people of Michigan as a whole!
This map is a much needed improvement!
I appreciate all the efforts of the bipartisan commission to create fair and balanced districts for voting in Michigan. I have long felt my vote was lost and think connecting Washtenaw and Jackson Counties together is a great plan. We have much in common and similar needs for our communities, both cities and rural areas. Thank you!
This map is the best for the communities in Ypsilanti, Michigan!
I worked on the campaign for Prop 2. I am happy to see the work that has gone in to unpack our district in combining it with Jackson and other communities along the I-94 corridor. Thanks for all your hard work in working towards partisan fairness.
Thank you for all your hard work. This map is an improvement toward making the map a fair distribution.
Thank you for trying to draw fair maps!
These maps are finally fair, thank you for putting in the work to get them there. You now need to apply the same effort into making the house maps fair. Thank you!
Thank you for finally taking Partisan Fairness seriously, these maps are much better than anything you have put forth so far. Please apply the same principles to the House.
I appreciate the changes that have made to the districting map in my area - Chelsea. It looks more fair. Thank you!
Thank you for your work in creating fair districting. This is so important for our democracy.
As a recent emigre from Pittsfield Twp, I think this is a much fairer map than previously. This is exactly what the voters had in mind when the Commission was created. Thank you for your attention to partisan fairness and what communities of interest truly mean. Keep up the good work!
I like this and appreciate the effort at partisan fairness. Thank you for your efforts. I volunteered for this committee and am kinda glad I didn’t get picked. Tough, tough job you guys have.
Great map. Thank you!
Katherine C ASkew
Yes Please!! This map looks fair. Thank you for the hard work.
Katherine C ASkew
Yes Please!. The maps for 27 and 29 look really good. Thank you!!
Thanks so much for putting together a fairer representational map of districts. Good job and thanks for listening to our comments.
Robert J Dunn
I appreciate and respect the work you accomplished in making my region fair. I know there will be opposition but the purpose of the commision is try to make a fare map within 5%. This map is much closer to this criteria.Thanks Bob
This is NOT my community. I do not travel to Fenton or Fowlerville. This effectively nullifies my vote because my views are not similar nor will anyone elected from this district represent or listen to my or my neighbors south of 8 miles.
Thank you for your hard work on these maps. And thank you for improving partisan fairness in Michigan!
Thank you Commissioners! 14 and 15 do a good job of you understanding partisan fairness w communities of interest!
Wow. I'm not sure this will play to my favor, but this looks incredibly fair-- no more crazily drawn lines, and population numbers and representation are even. This took a lot of work, and I'm grateful for folks who want the vote to be representative of a democracy (small d :)).
Cheryl Lynn Depner
This is a vastly improved map. Superior townships share much common work, school, tax decisions and communities both rural and urban than the map that had us divided between 3 counties that had nothing in common. Thank you for changes the map!
I appreciate this redrawn map of my district and the surrounding districts. They are much more representative of the overall culture of this area.
Cheryl Lynn Depner
This is a much improved map over the one that had has "clumped" like afterthought with Oakland, and Wayne Counties. We share much more in common with Ann Arbor, and rural communities with this map. Thank for listening to our comments!
This district seems fair, giving everyone a chance to run a competitive campaign and win based on the issues. I like this.
Thank you for this map. Partisan fairness is so important to our area and our country. This does it! Much appreciate your hard work.
I appreciate your work to make a more fair map that's also mindful of our communities. Thanks!
Thank you so much for the work you've put into creating this map. I appreciate that this map has been created with fairness and nonpartisanship at the forefront. These district boundaries make sense, and I appreciate that they have been drawn in a thoughtful and balanced way.
As a Chelsea resident, I appreciate having the rural areas balanced out with the cities along the I94 corridor. We have similar interests.
Kevin J. Camero-Sulak
I appreciate the work put into creating balanced districts. While possibly a small area-wise change, it is clearly an improvement in reaching a fairer allocation.
Rae Ann Weymouth
Cherry V2 goes a long way toward a fair and balanced map. Thank you for your efforts in this important direction.
I think this map is an improvement and appreciate the time and effort it required. I am especially glad to see the majority of the UP separated out from the northern lower Michigan peninsula. The needs and focus of the two areas are not the same and should have different representation. I am also glad to see a more equitable distribution in Oakland County rather than the contorted Italy-like-boot shaped type of district that currently exists. This map seems much more balanced and fair to the citizens of Michigan overall.
District 30 north Grand Rapids should not include these 4 rural townships in Ottawa county. District 30 can easily be improved ( without affecting the balance of the state map districts) by adding Cannon and Algoma townships in Kent county and moving these 4 Ottawa townships to like district 33. Then only minor adjustments to districts 18 and 20 will be necessary. This will vastly improve the communities of interest of each of these districts and keep district 30 area contiguous with Grand Rapids 6 city area and all in Kent county
This is a great map. It is particularly good for giving Ypsilanti their own representation without being beholden to all of Ann Arbor. It will allow for more diversity in voting and representation!
Thank you, MICRC, for your hard work and for remaining nonpartisan. As a resident of Washtenaw County, I feel this map will improve fairness and representation, and will reduce the current map’s tendency to favor unhealthy polarization of our politics.
Rita Karen Loch Caruso
This map is much improved and removes past problems with seemingly arbitrary district boundaries. Thank you to the commission!
I commend the work that has been done for District 14. There are so many shared interests with this grouping even though some areas are rural and others urban. Many people in this area work and recreate in Ann Arbor or Chelsea and Dexter, thereby having investment in the governance of these areas. All have vibrant downtowns, support local businesses and work to conserve and maintain natural environments which are frequented by all in these areas. I support this map and thank you for your commitment to the redistricting process as it was intended.
Thank you for keeping the Tri-Cities together in a senate district. I would like to see the commission do more work on the overall partisan fairness and on areas like Detroit as Commissioner Kellom has indicated. Please give due diligence to the most important criteria at the top of the list of COI's and partisan fairness in relation to Detroit.
Mainly happy with the lines for district 14. Was a bit surprised to see it go so far west but otherwise great work by the committee!
There seems to be some confusion over communities of interest and partisan communities. This map is the best of both. It accounts for the large amount of interaction of people within this map in terms of economy, natural environment conservation and use, entertainment. Many citizens interact daily within this area by going to jobs outside their city limits. The Michigan Theater in Jackson is a favorite venue of mine not only for it's historical value and esthetics but also as a wonderful concert venue. The people in this area have many common interests and should have be able to determine the future of those interests. Thank you.
This version looks better balanced, thank you!
This senate map gives each party a chance to win the most seats very fair draw of Jackson Washtenaw area.
This is a fair map
District 15 seems to be drawn fairly, as well as neighboring 14, seems to meet the fairness quotient. Thanks for all your work.
Thank you Commissioners for listening to residents and attending to partisan fairness, among other criteria. I am very pleased with this map!
This map is a distinct improvement that creates better balance--not perfection, which is impossible--and fairness. When the process is good, and this one was, the product is better.
I grew up in Lenawee and agree that it should be grouped with Monroe county rather than Hillsdale. Lenawee and Monroe are more closely tied.
Boundary line needs to be moved from Fulton St to Wealthy St or even to Hall St. Then move further into Gaines Township and Byron Township.
Thank you for splitting the Greater Lansing area into two districts. This map is fair and representative.
The number of communities, individual cities, and even precincts you have split to gerrymander these senate districts is an embarrassment to the idea of a citizen redistricting commission. You could have set a gold standard, but you have done a worse job than the politicians because it is clear you don't understand the communities all across out state. You consistently have put Arenac County with northern counties we have no ties to, and kept us separated from Bay County because it helps you draw partisan Democrat maps. Unacceptable.
This is a great map. The Commissioners have done a good job taking in to account communities of interest in the Ann Arbor - Jackson community of interest. This map does not give one party advantage over another which is exactly what the Michigan Constitution require. It promotes partisan fairness.
Hillsdale County does not share a community interest with the area surrounding Ann Arbor. So called "partisan fairness" should not take precedence over the Commission's Constitutionally mandated directive to create districts representative of COIs.
This is a great map. I appreciate the redrawn lines creating balance in the Ann Arbor area (districts 14 and 15). The rest of the state appears to be drawn fairly as well. This map accurately takes into account the communities of interest in our state and does not deliberately give advantage to one party over another. This map represents what Proposal 2 in 2018 was designed to do - create a level playing field for all political parties. An overwhelming majority of voters supported Proposal 2 in 2018.
Thanks for the many hours of work it took to get to a fair map. I live in proposed district 15 and like that it (and adjacent district 14) look as though they will achieve partisan fairness goal. Please approve this version.
I think this a fairly drawn district.
Nancy A. Smith
(edited to correct typos) District 14 and 15 appear to be reasonably well-balanced in terms of partisan fairness. I am happy with what I see. District 14, especially, takes into account the many COI submissions that have stated how Jackson City and surrounding townships share commonality with communities along I-94, including many in Washtenaw County. Thank you for working to create fair representation for Jackson County.
Thank you for listening and including my East Ann Arbor residence with the townships and community to the east into Ypsilanti and areas west. I approve of the district that extends along I94 from Ann Arbor out to Jackson. These districts, 14 and 15 give a more equal voice to the various communities that interact east to west. Thank you for dividing Ann Arbor in this way.
Thank you for the work you have done to create fair and balanced voting districts while eliminating wasted votes. As a resident of Ann Arbor, I appreciate the balance created in districts 14 and 15.
I am pleased to see that this proposal would do a good job of providing fair representation for this region of the state, taking its demographics into consideration. Thank you for doing the difficult work of drawing equitable district lines.
Nancy A. Smith
District 14 and 15, appear to be well-balanced in terms of partisan fairness. I am happy with what I see. District takes into account the many COI submissions that stated how Jackson City and surrounding townships share commonality with communities along I-94, including many in Washtenaw County. Thank you for working to create more fair representation for Jackson County.
Laura M Schwennesen
Thank you for improving fairness of the district. This is very much needed and appreciated.
Thank you for improving the fairness of the map.
Thank you for all your efforts to make such a fair map! It looks to me like a good balance between partisan fairness and keeping communities of interest together. As a side note, I live in District 15, and my family is spread out across Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Pittsfield Township. I'm happy to see we're all in the same district!
I can see how these districts will support competitive elections. This is so sensible. District 15 looks good to me.
This is not what the Commission was tasked with doing. It was supposed to create districts which represented communities of interest. Northern Hillsdale County and the Jackson are not within the same community of interests as Ipsi and Ann Arbor. So called "partisan fairness," should NOT take precedence over communities of interest, as illustrated in the Michigan Constitution.
I appreciate that the three neighborhoods on the far east side of Detroit are together (East English Village, Morningside, Cornerstone Village). However, I'm still challenged that the district extends far north into Macomb County, where their area is being split into three sections, when they can be in the same district. Why not extend District 10 into Grosse Pointes, instead of streching it out beyond the county line? If communities of interests are to guide the process, then please respect municipal and county lines.
This map seems like an improvement and the work to create it is much appreciated.
These maps (particularly 14 and 15) are much more in line with a full representation of the various communities. There is more diversity and more of an opportunity for people to have a voice
As a resident of Augusta Township who previously worked and lived in Ann Arbor for many years, I fear that my views will not be represented by being in the proposed District 16. I don’t feel that I belong to the community that district encompasses.
This map is a vast improvement on the last one, thank you for working to create a more fair and balanced representation of our voters.
Barbara J Hagan
I think this map is fair and balanced for our household.
Kathleen M Singer
This map makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for your efforts.
Thank you for working to create a map that reduces partisanship and increases fair representation across districts. I think the maps for 14/15 do a good job on that front.
I think this version of district 14 and 15 are well done. I think this will lead to a better over-all representation of our citizens.
Robert T King
Thx for making maps more partisan fair.
I like this newest configuration for Districts 14 and 15. They which better represent our communities of interest that run east-west. Thanks for all the commission's hard work to create fair maps!
While I appreciate the changes that have been made to make the districts more accurate there is still along way to go there are still many areas that are misrepresented here including areas that are two counties away. Why? What good does that serve in representing our local concerns? Being from Manchester which has become a commuter's burb of Ann Arbor is slumped in with those votes from Homer and Clarendon and Jerome?
I believe this map is fair and will create more diverse, competitive and non-partisan districts.
Steven M Gray
I think District 14/15 is very fair. I think there is much in common across the Districts especially between Ypsilanti/Ypsilanti Twp and the Jackson area. Great job!
I like the split between 14 and 15 - this seems to take into account more partisan fairness than some of the previous versions.
The City of Midland and Flint should not be in the same Congressional district. None of your maps provide an option that addresses this. Your maps simply cater to Democrat demands. Independents and Republicans live in these areas too and deserve to be heard in this process. Stop ignoring us. A city of 40,000 has vastly different needs than a city of 100,000. Please change one of your 3 congressional maps to separate Midland from Flint.
Thank you for the breadth of representation in Districts 14 and 15. I'll be in District 14 and look forward to having a more regional viewpoint represented.
I am hopeful that this district allows me to be better represented. My current Rep. Whalberg has no care about his constituents because his district is so heavily gerrymandered. This seems more reasonable in size and scope
This map looks pretty good. As someone who represents 1100 workers and retirees, most of whom live and work in either Jackson or Washtenaw counties, we feel this map will represent them at both their residence and place of employment. For far too long working families in Jackson have not gotten the respect we deserve because politicians never had to listen or earn the vote of a large portion of voters. This map changes that and ensures that all constitutes will be represented. Thank you and please get the House maps right!
Ali Galip Ulsoy
Dexter is with Chesea, north Ann Arbor and Jackson in District 14. Good map.
This district map is better, but would be better still if my area in webster township were included. My kids go to Dexter Schools and I work/live in A2. I am much more aligned with A2 Township than with Livingston County.
I like the range of communities covered by my district. It looks like it will provide a good mix of perspectives; not one-sided.
My small area below Joy Road and above Eastgate has split our community which belongs with Dexter/Ann Arbor and put us into the Brighton, Fowlerville, Livingston County area. This will invalidate my vote and voice.
Pamela Ann Raymond Ernst
Much improved in Washtenaw Co!
The two districts in which Ann Arbor is in look like they will represent a diverse set of voters.
Thank you for putting Cascade where it belongs!
I like that District 22 does include the entire Whitmore Lake community across both counties. Thank you.
This map presents a fatr distribution of voters
As an Ann Arborite I really like this map. Its a very easy dividing line to understand. It seems to also give Ypsi decent representation and not completely overwhelmed by the A2 vote.
I like this map, especially the split of Ann Arbor to create more diverse districts. Thanks for your consideration.
I really like this map and appreciate the efforts to keep communities of interest together in a nonpartisan way. Balanced and fair.
Many thanks to the commission for making the maps are fair so all of our votes count. It's good to be represented!
I live in the proposed district 15. The new map looks good and appears to be a fair representation of the people who live in these areas. Thank you for your work on this project.
This does not look right. Why is a portion of District 22 sticking down into District 14. The area around Chelsea is missing a quarter of its school district. Then there is a square of District 14 placed northwest of Chelsea into another District (light green). District 14 extends too far to the west. I thought there was a program that mathematically balanced population with geography. This looks like political "calculations" not science.
CHARLES W BILLUPS
Love District 14 and 15. They emulate the intent of the Prop. A diverse pool of voters, parties, and opinions. This will ensure that all voices are heard. Great balance between rural and suburban. A politician will have to represent the WHOLE district to win this one.
I like this map. It will help the communities a lot. The commission’s work is greatly appreciated.
Wow, this map is even better. Thanks so much for weighing all of the constitutional rules and listening to citizens. These districts respect communities of interest while balancing partisan fairness.
Appreciate the commission's work to move toward a map where every vote counts. Thank you!
This map is has done an excellent job of creating diverse pools of voters in districts 14 and 15. I am hopeful that this will lead to greater engagement/responsiveness from the politicians who represent these districts. This map goes a long way toward increasing fairness and reducing bias. Thank you for your hard work.
Carrie A Rheingans
Thank you for working to revise these maps and listening to our comments. This one looks much better.
Susan Marie Craig
I approve and it looks well-balanced.
I think you have done a good job and I support the Cherry V2 maps. Thank you for working so hard.
Thank you for your hard work in developing this map! I appreciate including diverse communities along the I94 economic corridor to keep the district balanced and competitive.
Thank you for your hard and fair work. I feel represented!
Districts 14/15 look comprehensive and fair. Regular folks, from all walks of life, with "regular folk's problems and concerns" live in these districts. Representing and speaking for All the constituents in these districts will advance the humanity of local politics. The commission has done, and is doing, some fine work. Thanks so much.
Donald H Locker
This map appears to be well balanced. I approve!
As a Western Washtenaw County resident, this district makes sense. The cities on the I94 economic corridor have been absorbed by the heavily gerrymandered rural districts for years. This configuration gives a much fairer shot at real representation to voters. Thank you.
I do not support the Cherry V2 map, as it splits Southfield and Lathrup Village from Oak Park. These 3 communities comprise contiguous African-American and Jewish COIs and this map unfairly separates our communities of interest.
These Ottawa County townships do not share a commonality of interest with the Grand Rapids community. They are rural and do not share the urban concerns and interests of the Grand Rapids area. They would be better served by joining them with the rest of Ottawa County. The Cannon and Algoma townships are a much better fit in terms of interests with the Grand Rapids area.
I support this portion of the map very much. I think the pairing of part of Ann Arbor, Chelsea, and Jackson with Albion, Grass Lake, and some of the more rural areas in this district will demand politicians understand the concerns of two different (though connected) constituencies.
Thank you for adding Cascade township with the Grand Rapids airport to this district. The airport needed to be in a Grand Rapids district.
I think this will be a very competitive district with different communities of interest. It is a thoughtfully drawn district!
Thank you for this portion of the map that fairly captures a combination of diverse locations and communities of interest. It is a well-balanced and competitive district!
Great map overall EXCEPT Kentwood and East Grand Rapids do not belong together. Maybe Cascade and East Grand Rapids could trade districts?
This version of the map, though imperfect, is the best thus far. There is a better balance within districts so that candidates must work for all their constituents.
I support this version of the map. It is much improved over previous versions and goes a long way to ensure fairness in representation.
I support this iteration of the redistricting map from my perspective near Bridgewater.
I'm really not seeing the logic of district 15. It snakes over 4 counties and connects communities that have very little in common or connections. I kind of see some logic on 14 in that it follows the I94 corridor, but 15 feels a lot like the bizarre, out-of-touch districts we're trying to get away from.
Daniela A. Wittmann
I am happy to see districts 14 and 15 drawn in such a way that each district has a mixed population of urban and rural voters. This will force politicians to represent the interests of economically and geographically different population. Bravo!
Thank you for creating more balanced districts!
Thank you for recognizing the importance of unpacking Ann Arbor in order to have more balanced (fair) State Senate districts. These districts will ensure that candidates must fight for every vote - and therefore work to represent every voter - in the district, rather than the hyper-partisan representation we have had.
This proposal is good for district 16 - keeping primarily Lenawee and Monroe Counties together as a community of interest.
On the whole this map has shaped up well. However, for the second time now - Ottowa county rural farmlands shouldn't be grouped in with the West Grand Rapids district.
I really appreciate how this map represents Jackson and the I-94 corridor. Great option for elevating partisan fairness across Michigan!
this map forces the major political parties to be responsive to their voters, and will help reduce the "us vs. them" attitude in Lansing.
This map isn't perfect -- I still don't like that what is shown as District 8 goes into Detroit -- but it's not as bad as the House map or a couple of the Congressional options.
Thank you for creating a much more balanced and fair district!
Patrick John Quist
I just do not understand the commission's reasoning for District 20. Exurb Grand Rapids is not even remotely a community of interest with the lakeshore or South Haven or Benton Harbor! Please reconsider this district!
I only count one district that is plurality black and zero that are majority black. This map is begging to be struck down by courts on VRA grounds.
This map is much more balanced and representative of constituents than how we are currently configured.
Splitting cities like Grand Rapids is indefensible if the commission is supposed to be following criteria like communities of interest and avoiding chopping up municipalities. It is extremely easy to draw a clean district with a population extremely close to the target by combining all of Grand Rapids, Kentwood, and East Grand Rapids. Please revise the lines to do this.
Sue Matthes Hadden
Thank you Commissioners, for unpacking Ann Arbor and addressing partisan fairness. Politicians in these districts (14/15) will have to be responsive to their constituents. This map eliminates built in bias and wasted votes. This Senate map is a huge improvement over the previous maps and I hope you are able to continue this same focus for the House maps. Thank you for your hard work and perseverence!
A State Senate district consist of 265,000 people. The City of Grand Rapids is 200,000 people. Splitting the City of Grand Rapids into two different districts violates municipal boundaries in an obvious intention to guarantee another democrat senator. The whole City of Grand Rapids must be in the same district since this is a community of interest that is being split. The City Ann Arbor should not be split for the same reasons. The City of Lansing should be in the same district with East Lansing and surrounding communities. The gerrymandering is grotesque.
I greatly appreciate all the work put into creating balanced districts. While perhaps a small change area-wise, it's definitely an improvement in reaching a fairer distribution.
Thank you for including Cascade Township with the Grand Rapids metro area for the State Senate map. Please do the same for the State House map.
Thank you, Commissioners, for taking partisan fairness seriously and unpacking Ann Arbor., This Senate map is a huge improvement over its predecessors in this regard. I urge you to keep it, and to extend the same kind of concern for partisan fairness to the state House maps, which still lag far behind in this regard. Thanks for your dedication and hard work!
This is a good looking map.
This area belongs to Ottawa not Kent.
I appreciate the work that was put into this map. This helps with partisan fairness. There is a nice combination of rural and suburban communities in district 14. Thank you, and please keep the Fair Maps Project in mind as you continue to move forward.
Thank you for unpacking Grand Rapids. We should have 2 State Senate seats representing us. This map seems fair and balanced from a partisan perspective
Thank you for putting Cascade Twp and the Gerald R Ford Airport with the city of Grand Rapids. They really are a community of interest.
Ottawa County should be kept whole, there is much more community of interest between the rural twps. than with the city of Grand Rapids. You could add Algoma and Cannon Twps to the east of Grand Rapids to balance the populations distribution from removing the Ottawa County Twps. If you look at a map drawn in district.org (https://districtr.org/plan/73502) you would see that change.
Thank you for unpacking Grand Rapids, but can you please move the northern boarder line between #29 & #30 to Wealthy St from Fulton St? Wealthy St is a Ward boundary, has been for 40 years and this change would better reflect communities of interest in the city. If you look at a map drawn in district.org (https://districtr.org/plan/73502) you would see that changes.
Mitchell G. Hall
This map is a good effort overall and I especially support the way my area (District 14 and 15) are configured. I live in Pittsfield Township and believe combining our area and west of us with part of Ann Arbor makes sense as a community of interest, while serving the required goal of partisan fairness. Thank you for your continuing hard work!
I like the balance in Districts 14 and 15 as drawn. It looks like it could lead to more diverse and hopefully responsive representation for the communities between Jackson and Ann Arbor instead of treating each place as a monolith.
This map serves Ann Arbor and the surroundings well. Keeping AA voters clumped together does not lead to partisan fairness, nor to a long-overdue recognition of the interplay between the urban area and the universities and the surrounding areas, including the Jackson corridor. Far from swamping rural areas, this partition will encourage dialogue and interchange.
I support District 14 as drawn. I live in Jackson and my office is in Ann Arbor. My spouse lives in Jackson and his work is in Dexter. To me, the connection of the I94 corridor makes sense. In addition, it is a good configuration because it provides voters with opportunities to elect someone from either party. Having balanced districts is crucial for our representative democracy.
I appreciate the work put into this map, redistricting is tough in a state as diverse as Michigan. I appreciate that the south-central I-94 corridor is part of one district. As a Jackson resident who travels I-94 daily for work and business, I am keenly aware of how the corridor region is connected economically and culturally.
Please make the boundary between the Senate Districts #29 and #30 Wealthy St not Fulton. Wealthy St follows the Ward line inside of Grand Rapids and the Wards are core to communities of interest.
Please remove these few Ottawa townships from Kent County.
Thanks for heading my comment earlier to put the airport with Grand Rapids.
Combining the airport area with metro GR makes more sense. Thanks for listening.
Thank you for adding the airport, and Rockford, to the metro Grand Rapids area!
These rural communities would be better represented if included with an Ottawa County community of interest. There is little in common with Grand Rapids and the Ada area.
The second ward boundary in Grand Rapids is at Wealthy St, rather than Fulton. Moving Senate District 30 to Wealthy St would keep the second ward community of interest in one district, rather than cutting out one section.
KAREN T SANTELLI
Thank You! Thank You! for including Cascade Township with the metro Grand Rapids area on this State Senate Map. Please do the same for the State House as well!
It makes since to move the boundary between districts 29 and 30 to Wealthy street. That way neighborhoods are not divided.
Rockford is part of the Grand Rapids metropolitan area. Thank you for mapping it in that manner.
These Ottawa townships are rural and have little in common with suburban and metro Grand Rapids
Thank you for putting Rockford city in with the rest of the GR suburbs. It really make more sense this way.
This map is fair and balanced.
Thank you for unpacking Grand Rapids, the district line should be moved though to better reflect our community of interest by tweaking this map and add the precincts north of Wealthy to the district #30. That is the natural boundary for the city.
Ottawa County should not be link to Metro Grand Rapids. This is rural area with their own specific issues. Keep Ottawa County together.
Dennis B MURPHY
I like the way Grand Rapids is divided in that it will likely get us to Senate seats to be honest the second largest metro area in the state should be represented in such a way considering how fast the Grand Rapids metro area and the city itself is growing
Dennis B MURPHY
I think it is a positive move to put the Grand Rapids airport in with the metro area it's a natural fit
The boundary in Grand Rapids between Senate Districts #29 & #30 should be move South to Wealthy Street which aligns with neighborhoods as demarcated by the city. using Fulton Street as a boundary cuts a neighborhood in half. the neighborhoods in Grand Rapids are communities of Interest
The boundary in Grand Rapids between Senate Districts #29 & #30 should be move South to Wealthy Street which aligns with neighborhoods as demarcated by the city. using Fulton Street as a boundary cuts a neighborhood in half. the neighborhoods in Grand Rapids are communities of Interest
The rural Ottawa County Township should not be link to Metro Grand Rapids these are two distinct demographics and each have their own specific issues. they should be in the same district as the rest of Ottawa County
This map is an improvement over the past maps for State Senate districts around Grand Rapids. However the Commissioners keep putting Ottawa CO townships in with Ada Township which is an eastern suburb of Grand Rapids. Ottawa CO should be removed from district 30. District 30 should have its western border right down the western edge of Kent CO. None of Ottawa CO is in my COI. Areas north and east of Ada Township in Kent CO are more of my COI's. Also the north-south line that separates districts 29 and 30 should be Wealthy St., not Fulton St., because Wealthy St. has been the border line between wards for 40 years. These ward lines are important to Grand Rapids residents. Replace Ottawa CO townships with Cannon and Algoma Townships, these second two also being in Kent CO, helping to keep Kent CO whole. Thank you for unpacking Grand Rapids which makes these maps more partisan fair. Look at suggested map attached in https://districtr.org/plan/73502
I like that you have worked on partisan fairness in this map. But my community of the west side of Detroit is lumped in with Farmington and Redford Charter Twp this is to a disadvantage to Detroiters who will never be able to win a candidate of their choice to represent them in the State Senate. Please reconsider Detroit's VRA districts.
I appreciate the work that has been done to improve this maps partisan fairness. I am still very concerned about VRA districts in Detroit and the fact that you have not addressed this issue in this map. Great edits but still more work to be done.
As an independent who has voted for candidates from both parties I’d like to thank you for improving the fairness of my district. The proposed district enhances representation for communities along the I-94 corridor whereas the prior district diluted their interests with large rural areas having different personal and economic wants and needs. As proposed, the district is diverse across small city, suburban and near-rural areas that nonetheless share a sense of community. I see this as a step toward reducing the divisiveness so prevalent in the political landscape.
DAVID A BERNSTEIN
It is right that Gerald Ford Airport is in Senate District 30. It serves the metropolitan area of Grand Rapids. Thank you for responding to past comments in support of that change.
DAVID A BERNSTEIN
Please do not include townships from Ottawa County in Senate District 30. Ottawa County's interest are more focused on rural and small-town issues and solutions. Senate District 30's problems and solutions are increasingly those of a metropolitan area.
DAVID A BERNSTEIN
I was at the public meeting in Grand Rapids. I think that the boundary between districts 29 and 30 should be Wealthy Street, not Fulton as in the present mapping. I am a strong believer in city wards as important political communities, since we have city commissioners elected within those wards. Please make the southern boundary Wealthy Street.
This configuration does a far better job of keeping diverse, suburban Oakland County communities together. The swap of West Bloomfield, Orchard, Keego, and Sylvan to be with Farmington Hills and Novi is fair and better reflects the interests of the minority ethnic communities including Jewish, Chaldean, Black, Asian. Kudos to the Commission for working to find this better configuration.
This map is not perfect, but it's pretty good - including in my area. The I-94 economic corridor is an obvious community of interest of exactly the kind explicitly listed in the Constitution, and this helps you with partisan fairness. Could this be better? Sure! I like the AFL-CIO maps which keep Jackson, Calhoun, and Hillsdale Counties all whole and separate. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I really don't like your Congressional map, and I know folks on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me don't like this map. If you have each side happy with half your work and unhappy with the other half, you're probably on the right track. Keep up the good work - now fix the state house!
I appreciate having most of Jackson County joined with Washtenaw county along I-94. We share common economic interests and a blend of rural/suburban/urban demographics.
I like this map to the extent that Livingston County is kept whole and not with the City of Ann Arbor.
How is this not a gerrymander? I'd love to see someone try to explain how this is a community of interest. It was clearly done for partisan reasons and is an insult to the jackson and western Washtenaw community.
Ypsilanti has a long history of being in the shadow of Ann Arbor. This map properly gives it a district that is only shared with half of AA instead of silenced by the entire city. This also contributes to having a better balance between democrat and repoublican representation for your map statewide, which is one of the most important reasons Voters Not Politicians passed in the first place
It may make more sense for Troy/Rochester to be included with Birmingham/Clawson and removed completely from Sterling Heights.
Thank you for unpacking Washtenaw County. Also thank you for understanding that communities of interest should not be at the sacrifice of partisan fairness. You have done your best work yet with this map, and I hope you continue to appropriately value partisan fairness with your house and Congress maps.
How does this represent a community of interest? You think the people in Calhoun have more in common with northern AA than the people in southern AA? This is ridiculous.
This map is pretty good! While it is certainly not perfect, I appreciate your thoughtful considerations towards partisan fairness. Thank you!
Please include East Sterling Heights with rest of Sterling Heights and Troy. Do not disenfranchise the Chaldean communities living in East of Sterling Heights. Map p7997 does this. https://districtr.org/plan/72287?portal. Thank you commissioners.
I believe this is what we the people wanted. A map that embodies partisan fairness that includes in the changes people like me asked for the Greater Lansing area
I support the alignment of District 14 and District 15. It balances out the strong party lines – both Republican and Democrat – that occurs between the Jackson/Washtenaw/Calhoun area. I live in the City of Jackson. I have also worked with members of the public in Jackson and Washtenaw Counties. From my working and personal experience, there is a very distinct political line that happens along the Jackson/Washtenaw county border. I appreciate the balanced approach to electing our political leaders that these alignments will provide voting members of the public. I support this alignment. This is much better than the current alignment.
That anyone of you can say in good conscious that this district will adequately represent the people in the Jackson (I do not live here) area is very telling. They will have their voices drowned out by the Ann Arbor area. The point of this exercise is to give the people in any given district a rep who can advocate for the district; how much attention is really going to be paid to these residents? They deserve effective representation as well. Quit trying to spread Ann Arbor across half the state.
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?