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
Why would a school district be split is two? Marshall and Albion share the same school district. Why would they not be kept together? Also Battle Creek, Emmett, Pennfield, Bedford, and Springfield share Police and Fire with Mutual Aid, they all are members of BCATS, and AMASA, share the same Library, Sewer system, Chamber of Commerce and on and on. Albion and Battle Creek share nothing in common including having separate Chambers of Commerce, Separate NAACP Branches, not to mention with this map you have to drive through another district to get from one side to the other. This map is obviously gerrymandered and stretched and is no different than what currently exist which says enough sing the district was one used as an example of a gerrymandered district and a reason why this commission was needed.
Please give us the option of a Midland-Bay City house district as drawn in the original Pine map. Do not make concessions to appease people but stick to your mission of partisan fairness. The Midland-Bay City district was near to zero political bias. You can't get a fairer district. It will improve the overall partisan fairness of your maps which still lean toward Republicans in an unacceptable manner and will give the people of Midland and Bay City the chance to elect the best candidate, no matter their party.
Lynda Kay Magirl
This map of Midland and Gladwin together is not ideal or partisan fair. The two cities have little in common. Gladwin is a very rural town whereas Midland has more of a big city feel with lots to do and offer. Please give us back a map (like the Pine Map) for the City of Midland and Bay City together to create partisan fairness. Midland and Bay City have a lot more in common than does Midland and Gladwin!
Please go back to the original Pine map, which included areas to the east of Midland. This one is not fair. It's clearly biased toward a Republican win.
I can not understand why you changed the Midland area and lowered the political fairness of this map. You can put Midland back with Bay City which will give you more room to work in the Detroit area. There seems to be a push to pacify the Republicans in Midland but that is not one of your critical!
Terrible gerrymandered map. The Soviets had elections too but the people were going to get the same leadership because the election process was rigged. With maps like these, the pretense of elections should end and the democrats should be granted permanent control.
As noted on this map, there have been numerous comments regarding the state house map for Pontiac that have consistently been disregarded by the commission. Please listen to our thoughts regarding COIs surrounding Pontiac and include us with Auburn Hills. Another area to think about is that Waterford as a whole is a Township versus Pontiac which is a city - therefore, the needs are also extremely different and would be hard to address for a representative. I urge you all to please listen to us regarding this change.
I am writing to ask that you keep Midland and Bay City in the same State house district. There are many commonalities between the two cities, a manufacturing base and school athletic teams among them. Many more things are common between the two cities verses the rural areas you have included. Your maps reapportioned them together in the Pine map and for the State Senate/and Congressional maps so why are the communities of interest not as important for the State House? Please reconsider so the people of these cities can be represented fairly.
Allison M Wilcox
I don't like the district that you have drawn here for Midland. Please consider putting back the Bay CIty - Midland district that you had on the Pine map on at least a few of the state house maps that you put forward. You can improve the districts in the Detroit area and change to a Midland-Bay City district, with Midland county in a different district to improve the partisan fairness of the overall map. Making competitive districts in Mid-Michigan is really important!
This map #255 is disappointing for City of Midland mid-Michiganders, as it lumps Midland & Gladwin Counties together to create a safe Republican seat. It also lumps Bay City with Bay County for the same reasons. This does not improve partisan fairness for either the state of Michigan or for Bay City or City of Midland residents. I know previously you were very sensibly putting rural areas with rural areas, and putting cities with cities. Why did you stop applying that very reasonable approach? I hope it is not appeasement of the Republicans to give them a safe seat but it appears that is the logic applied. Please follow your criteria, criteria which place partisan fairness considerably above adhering to county lines. You talked about giving us options for these maps destined for the 45-d review/comment---so give us options! Please give Mid-Michigan at least one map that does a good job on partisan fairness—like the original Pine map which paired City of Midland with Bay City---keeping like with like, and keeping communities of interest whole. This is such a significant criterion. Please give us a map with your improved districts for Detroit and other metro areas and that puts City of Midland back with Bay City to provide improved partisan fairness for all of us. Thanks for your thoughtful and courageous work to give Michigan fair voting districts—truly a first!
I’m not sure why the original Pine map was changed. It was a very competitive district that either party would have been able to win. With the revisions, Auburn and Williams Townships are now in a totally different district than either Midland or Bay City, the two areas with which we are most closely connected. It almost seems like someone has a vested interest in keeping Midland county a safe Republican seat. Please reconsider, and keep the original Pine map.
Why have you not corrected districts 38 & 29 after numerous comments from people from each of these affected communities? Somehow this area doesn't count? The correction can be accomplished without affecting VRA, population, COI or partisan fairness metrics (put it back the way it originally was). It is pretty ironic that the MDOS put a very nice interview with a Pontiac resident on the MICRC website (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1TTWzToRGs) about Pontiac's COIs, and then the same people completely ignore the COI mentioned over & over again.
Livingston County is drawn well in this map with the Brighton area kept together in one district, the Howell/Fowlerville area together in another district, and Tyrone Twp with nearby Fenton.
On this map, there are only 109 districts. The Michigan House should have 110, you are missing a district. If I missed it please ignore my opinion, however, I looked a few times and could not find district 110. Please fix!!!
This is the one change from the Detroit re-alignment that I don't like. Chair Szetella said that the district that shifted from blue to red on the partisan fairness metrics was in Macomb County, but I don't think it's true. I think that happened because 22 and 13 exchanged Southgate and Ecrose. Put Ecorse back in 22 with the other Detroit River communities and Southgate back in 13 with Allen Park and Lincoln Park. That re-unites communities of interest and improves the partisan fairness.
The Commission should keep the Detroit revisions suggested by Commissioners Kellom, Curry, and Rothhorn. These "unpack" Detroit while keeping neighborhoods and other cultural interest groups whole. I also like the resulting changes in Oakland and Macomb Counties, which create several very competitive districts in Troy/Sterling Heights/Clinton Township.
You only created this Midland district to appease Republicans asking for a whole country district. Nowhere in the constitutional criteria is "appease Republicans because they didn't get the other districts they want". But partisan fairness is number 4 on the criteria. Far above county and city lines. This district hurts the overall fairness of the maps and creates two strong Republican districts in Midland and Bay City where you had a strong Red and a barely (1%) leaning Blue. That was as close to zero political bias as you were ever going to get and you erased it for no good reason.
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?