My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
Loading geometries...
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
District 8
District 9
District 10
District 11
District 12
District 13
District 14
District 15
District 16
District 17
District 18
District 19
District 20
District 21
District 22
District 23
District 24
District 25
District 26
District 27
District 28
District 29
District 30
District 31
District 32
District 33
District 34
District 35
District 36
District 37
District 38
2020 Census PL 94.171 Data
David Hopkinson
Possibly the worst Senate map. The goal of Proposal 2 was that the composition of the elected body to reflect the composition of the voters. Partisan bias and division by partisanship will be the death of this process if we allow it.
Ashley Thomas
Consider all fairness when drawing things lines Vote No on Palm please.
Jerry Oljace
I do NOT like the Palm map. It is the worst of all the draft maps in terms of partisan fairness. And, partisan fairness was a key goal for Michigan voters, and a goal of the MICRC. I strongly urge the Commission NOT to approve this map.
Drew Beckman
This map cannot be adopted! It gives an unfair advantage to one political party over another.
Sue Hadden
This map does not demonstrate partisan fairness which is your constitutional duty to uphold. Please accept Linden or Cherry.
This map splits our small school district in two by assigning Allegan County, Laketown Township to Holland City. This map is not suitable.
Palm is the WORST option of the Senate Map options.
Marie Johansen
The Palm Map has the worst partisan fairness scores of the 3 maps proposed for State Senate. That score alone, tells me that this map should NOT be used, regardless that there may be parts of it that satisfy some. The point of the commission is to create partisan fairness, not maps that keep the status quo. I do appreciate that the commission has tried to keep the Tri-Cities (and sometimes Flint) together, as they are COI and are aligned in many of their needs, in spite of their diversity.
Maria A Thompson
This map is should NOT be adopted as it continues the unfair, partisan gerrymandering that we voted to fix.
Scott Mannila
Based on my research, this map does not achieve partisan fairness. Michiganders voted to have a citizen commission for this purpose. Linden and Cherry are better.
Alexander Gustafson
Mary White
This map seems to split Washtenaw County in a way that gives maximum weight to rural areas, and consequently to Republicans. This map should not be adopted.
Cindy Weir
This map (PALM) has the worst partisan fairness scores of all 3 senate maps. Please do not choose this map. It does not represent Michigan well. Please select the Linden amp for the senate districts. Thanks to the Commission!
patricia m nelson
just verifying my previous comment (email link brought me here)
just verifying my previous comment (this is the page I got when I clicked on the "verification" email link)
patricia m nelson
any other better
worst option
Ashleigh Jennings
This map should be rejected on the basis of partisan fairness--the MICRC's metrics and analysis have shown that it clearly gives a significant advantage to one party. Voters overwhelmingly approved Proposal 18-2 because they wanted to reject a built-in advantage to either party, voters just want a level playing field. Please choose Linden or Cherry to get closer to achieving this critical goal.
William Asher
This map does is gerrymandered, and slants significantly to republicans. Vote against this map. Support fairness.
Brian C. Alexander
Grouping major urban areas with rural areas does not fill The States constitution that when redistricting they group communities of Interest. Some tweaking would fill that statement.
Stephen J Young
This map carves up Allegan County while adding parts of Kent and Ottawa. This is not at all reasonable based on the intent of the plan to be non-partisan.
Merlin Steffes
This map is the fairest. Cherry and Linden are slanted to favor democrats.
Anne Arendt
This map seem most adequate.
Laurence J Wade
I don't think this new redistricting map reflects our communities of interest. We are a rural and farming community and all of Tuscola county should be in our district.
Terri McCormick
While Troy is intact, which is good, pulling in Macomb County doesn't make sense. This is a pretty hard county line for COIs. Is there a better option?
Mik Perkins
This map does not fix the current gerrymandering issue.
Karen M Laetz
I do not like splitting the Lake Michigan shoreline in Berrien County between 2 districts.
Mary Elizabeth Harp
Again, while this map is so far the best option, it now puts me in a district with a county that my city shares nothing with instead of the nearest community that is aligned.
Unfair and partisan map.
Rosemary Jones
This map is a continuation of the partisan gerrymandering that the commission was created to fix.
Shay Florian
This map is very unfairly drawn; most partisan.
Jaime Highfield
This is the most partisan map and is very unfairly drawn.
Phil Marsh
I can accept the Palm map for the Senate I am not pleased with the lack of transparency in open and fair redistricting. I really expect more from my government.
Constance Lippert
The partisan fairness score is unacceptable on this map. Please choose the Cherry V2
Mary Lewis
This map splits communities of interest along the I-94 Corridor, but more importantly, it creates an unfair partisan balance. Your other Senate drafts maintain partisan fairness and respect most communities of interest. There is no need to settle for a map like Palm that is an unconstitutional gerrymander in favor of the Republican party.
Sarah Hehir
All 3 maps are districted the same for my area, however I do feel that overall, this map is the best representation for the state overall.
Suzanne L Zavala
Still not sure how the commission through splitting Downriver into several districts and lumping various Downriver communities with other communities who don't share commonalities. All of Downriver has economic commonalities and lumping some of us with more rural communities or with Detroit will make it much more difficult for our common concerns to be addressed.
Lisa Lamancusa
Not impressed with the partisan fairness of this map for Michigan overall.
Yim Kong
Not partisan fair for Asians or Michigan. Please choose the Linden.
Steve Fish
Palm is not a fair map for equal political representation. This map has similar effects to the current district Gerrymandered Senate map. It disregards the votes of large population Grand Rapids metro city areas by combining with rural townships in Barry, Allegan and Ionia Counties. Better to go with Linden
Elisa Tomaszewski Mantey
This is such a gerrymandered map. But all of them are. Please do the work the voters sought: Create a fair map with competitive districts as much as possible. This isn't it; but the others aren't, either.
This map packs Washtenaw County voters together and is a Republican gerrymander. DO NOT ADOPT THIS UNFAIR MAP!!!
This map is FAR too partisan and unfairly advantages one party over another.
George Moroz
This is the worst, most partisan of the map alternatives
Linda E Schwelnus
This map is the worst in terms of partisan fairness.
Pat Dawson
This map is not fair for Michigan voters. Not any better than the current district Gerrymandered Senate map. City folks won’t be represented well. Linden is the best.
Dan Fox
The worst of the lot. The whole idea of the redistricting commission was to avoid partisan gerrymanders and instead have fair maps. This one is not fair.
Chris Lewis
This map is an unfair partisan gerrymander, and doesn't follow the constitutional requirement of partisan fairness. You spent weeks finding a way to unpack Washtenaw County, so why would you completely undo your work for a map that scores lower on partisan fairness? Please look at the Linden or Cherry V2 maps instead because they follow the constitution, and don't silence the votes of Washtenaw County residents
N Green
This map is the most unfair of the Senate maps
Dominic Jakubowski
Southern St.Clair should not be in the same district as Wayne county. Just because we are lake communities does not mean we are the same community of interest.
Matthew D. Horwitt
Palm is a very unfair map. Linden and Cherry are much better. Map would ensure Republican control even in Democratic years.
Lisa Keith
Terrible map and least partisan of all of them. This map should not be considered.
Joshua Michael Drzewicki
This unfairly packs Democrats into one district and is totally unnecessary. By far this is the least fair map.
Danielle Emerson
This is a horribly partisan map!
Lynn C
Do not use this map. It may seem good that Jackson is "whole" but the other maps that divide things up a bit more actually provide BETTER representation for the area in Lansing. The maps that have a mostly a 1) rural district and another that 2) ties the suburbs of Jackson and Ann Arbor will bring better results from Lansing to this area. Either of the other 2 are much better.
Theresa Mungioli
Rochester and Rochester Hills have more in common with Oakland Township than Sterling Heights. Our communities of interest include Rochester, Rochester Hills and Oakland Township as we have a common history and have many 3rd party agreements to support the communities.
Cassie Gatz
the worst partisan map of all 15. packs democrats
Sam Chu
This map is not fair representation for Michigan or our Asian area. Linden map has the best districts.
Zach Rudat
Please keep Clinton County whole
Bruce Nelson
I support the Birch, Palm and Magnolia Maps but only as the better of three poor choices. I supported a committee to redistribute but believe that the gerrymandering outcome will be the same. Pay closer attention to your mission and the laws to which you as sworn.
Brian Kerrigan
The palm map has created numerous "Gerrymandered" districts when it comes partisan fairness. Please do not consider this Palm map as a viable option, it does not do voters in Michigan justice.
Greg Mayville
I am thankful that the commission has consistently drawn a Tri-Cities Senate district. We appreciate you listening so carefully to the citizens of Mid-Michigan. The Palm map has the worst partisan fairness scores of all 3 senate maps. Please do not choose this map. It does not represent Michigan well. Please select the Linden amp for the senate districts.
Bruce Roller
This is a Gerrymandered map for Michigan and West. It is just as bad as the current district Senate map. It dilutes the influence of large population Grand Rapids metro city areas by combining with rural townships. These townships do not want to be in the same district with Grand Rapids city as well. Better to go with Linden or Cherry V2 to better represent all these areas.
Jillyn Schultz
This map should not have a chunk of SE Washtenaw County and Milan included in a bunch of rural areas in Monroe and Lenawee counties. The people in those counties are by and large not a community of interest. Milan is a vibrant, increasingly diverse city and would never be properly represented by this map.
Susan Andrews
This is a very unfair map. I voted for Proposal 2 because I wanted to get rid of partisan bias. This and Lange fail miserably. This gerrmanders the Ann Arbor area.
Greg Seppanen
We need to look at fairness and this map does not meet that standard.
Laurie Evans
As with the Cherry map, 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.
Karen Lawrence
This is an unfair partisan map for West Michigan and the state as a whole. This map has similar effects to the current district Gerrymandered Senate map. It dilutes the influence of large population Grand Rapids metro city areas by combining with rural townships in Barry, Allegan and Ionia Counties. These townships do not want to be in the same district with Grand Rapids city as well. Better to go with Linden or Cherry V2 to better represent all these areas.
Samantha Hiler
The Palm map is the worst submitted map in regards to the Senate. Please consider Cherry V2 or Linden -- those are far more equitable.
Joseph Bellgowan
PALM is the absolute worst Senate Map.
Margaret Chinoski
Troy should be with COI in Oakland county, that align with their industries and priorities
Kelly Jones
This map is terrible by partisan and is not representative of our community. Troy should remain in Oakland County.
Cheryl D Hayes
Palm is not a fair map. After so many years of gerrymandering, we need fair maps.
Angie Kelleher
The Palm map doesn't represent Michigan well. I appreciate you listening carefully to the citizens of the Midland area. The Linden map is much better for Senate districts - please make Linden your final choice.
Amy Vail
This seems to backslide even further into partisan gerrymandering.
Cal Morton
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"!
Chris Andrews
The Palm map is very unfair. Linden and Cherry are much better. Palm would allow Republican to win most seats even in Democratic years. I voted for Proposal 2 because I want a fair map and fair elections.
Michael Saenz
This chopped up map seems to be the most gerrymandered map of the bunch and won't serve the voters of this district well.
Fred Hall
This is the most partisan of all the Senate maps and creates exactly the sort of gerrymander that the Commission was created to avoid. Please do not vote for this map.
Julie Wuerfel
Keep Berrien whole
Beverly J Riggie
This is the most partisan map. Please don't choose this map.
Kathleen Goodin
I strongly oppose any map that doesn't give each party its fair shot. This map is a gerrymander for the republican party, and violates the constitutional requirement around partisan fairness
Don Bishop
Very unfair map appears to have a partisan Republican basis . Linden and Cherry are much fairer . The Palm map packs Democrats in Washtenww county .
Chris Andrews
Palm has the most Republican bias of the Senate maps. This map packs Democrats in Washtenaw County. I voted for Proposal 2 because I want fair maps so that the party that wins the most seats.
Nomi Joyrich
this map packs Democrats and is extremely biased. Linden and Cherry are way better.
Nomi Joyrich
this map is extremely biased. Totally unfair map. This map sucks.
Carol Ingall
This is an extremely unfair, Republican biased map. Please do not use this map which is harmful to voters best interests.
Christopher John Wagner
This map will not fairly represent the vote of the people in the state of Michigan.
Liam Seppanen
A horrible gerrymander in favor of Republicans
Jeffrey Padden
In terms of partisan bias, this map may well be the worst. It is a resounding endorsement of partisan gerrymandering, and its adoption would repudiate the overwhelming vote of the public in support of Proposal 2 of 2018. There are far better choices available to the commission. Please reject this map.
Ross Vandercook
This map is not fair and is the worst map.
Scott Hiller
Jackson is one community not to be shared with Ann Arbor. Keeping Jackson county as a whole makes most sense and is one map I stand behind.
The Palm map is the worst one. It is very unfair. Linden and Cherry are much better. Palm would result in Republican control even if Democrats won the state-wide vote.
Kristine McLonis
This is the absolute worst of the proposed State Senate maps! Several current VRA districts in Detroit would be divided and merged into other communities. Voters in Detroit would not be able to vote as specific communities of interest.
This map makes absolutely no sense to me unless you are purposefully creating a Republican gerrymandered district. You have divided the Grand Rapids metro area into 3 districts with large Republican leaning rural areas. How does metropolitan interests get represented??? This is not a fair map.
Naomi Ludman
This map leans Red. I worked hard for this commission to become reality. I am disappointed that there are still maps that do not meet the criterion of partisan fairness. This map should not be accepted.
Palm is inferior to Linden. Palm has clear partisan bias -- the urban/suburban interests of Jackson City and surrounding townships get overwhelmed by all the rural townships. Greater Jackson residents would get 10 more years of non-representation with this map. Also, many people object to the non-contiguous shape of Palm, with its fingers reaching into 5 different counties. And, commenters in Calhoun Co. have stated their wish to keep together COIs Albion, Marshall, and Battle Creek along the I-94 corridor.
Ed Saunders
The Palm State Senate map shows clear partisan bias. Linden and Cherry v2 are much better choices.
Helen Goyings
This is the worst map I have seen. This map has the worst Republican bias that I have seen. I thought you were suppose to fix gerrymandering. You failed on this map.
Richard Paas
This map is not close at all, it should not divide up the center of Grand Rapids with outlaying rural areas to nullify minority voters.
Janice Sovak
I can't support this map (Palm) as it is not even close to achieving the goal of partisan fairness. Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti should not be lumped into one district, you need to split Ann Arbor at a minimum.
Pei-Lan Tsou
This map makes no sense. The rural Ottawa county does not belong with the metro GR area.
Pei-Lan Tsou
This whole map is a Republican gerrymander, just as bad as the map we have right now! This is what we tried so hard to get rid of in 2018.
Ronald Emaus
This map creates a huge partisan efficiency gap by keeping Ann Arbor in one district. This is unacceptable according to the charge of the Commission and is totally unacceptable to me. Southeast Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti have more in common as a community than southeast Ann Arbor has with northeast Ann Arbor specifically the Washtenaw and Michigan Ave corridors. This map is unacceptable to me and it should not be considered by the Commission because of the partisan efficiency gap.
Susan Vandercook
This is an unfair map. It would effectively ensure Republican control of the Senate
Margaret Bayless
This map packs Washtenaw County and is much less fair than either Cherry or Linden
C Ann Maki
This map does not take partisan fairness into account.
Jennifer Leigh Umphress
This district does not represent my community.
Nieci N
This map silences the voices of Ypsilanti residents. Our community of interest deserves its own seat that is not in the shadow of Ann Arbor. Also, if this map creates an unfair advantage for the Republican party, than it cannot be considered by the commission. It is simply not fit to give fair representation, and is also a terrible precedent set for future redistricting commissions that claim to be independent. Please do not consider this map.
Daniel Ngo
I strongly oppose any map that doesn't give each party its fair shot. This map is a gerrymander for the republican party, and violates the constitutional requirement around partisan fairness
Barbara Markowski
I strongly oppose any map that does not keep Jackson County whole. Any attempt to lump us in with Ann Arbor is a blatant attempt to silence our conservative voices. Ann Arbor and Jackson are totally different cultures. If we wanted to live in Ann Arbor, we would move there. Respect EVERY community and its inherent value system and stop playing politics with party boundaries, disguised as "fairness."
Chris Andrews
Palm is the most unfair map. It would make it very likely Republicans control the Senate even when Democrats win at the top of the ticket. It packs Democrats in Ann Arbor and amounts to a gerrymander. Cherry and Linden are acceptable. Palm is not.
Aaron Haury
This map is unacceptably partisan!
Jared Boot
This map is unacceptably partisan!
Brenda Humphrey
The palm map is the best way to keep Jackson Co. together.
Jim Hanson
This map fragments communities of interest in the southwest Lakeshore and it is overall not fair
Brian Boyer
This proposed map unnecessarily combines Jackson County with other neighboring areas greatly enlarging the population of our current Community of Interest. Please do adopt this map.
Randy White
The palm map is unacceptable. It is clearly partisan gerrymandered. That is exactly why we voted to change the way we drew the lines.
Karen Land
This is the definition of packing for Ann Arbor.
Rick L Catherman
This seems to be the most gerrymandered of all of the proposed Senate maps, and will not allow all residents to be represented fairly.
Naomi Ludman
This is a terrible map as it fails the test of partisan fairness.
Robert Jones
Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti are distinct communities with distinct socioeconomic conditions. These should not be packed into a district just because the poorly educated believe they are a community of interest.
The only explanation I can come up with is good ol' political gerrymandering. The economic development needs of the southwestern shoreline counties id totall ignored here. Pass!
Sandra Sage
As with everything today, this whole process has turned in politics. All proposals with exception of Palm has given advantage to one political party over another in senate representation. Seems again taxpayers have seen their money wasted.
Jazmine Early
What are you thinking? You divided Sterling Heights on 4 areas? Do you even know our city? THIS MAP IS BAD FOR US. IT IS UNFAIR AND UNEQUITABLE.
Carrie Rheingans
District 17 is not a competitive district. Please do not approve this map.
Patrick Maguire
Salem Township should be associated with Lyon Twp and South Lyon, as opposed to Ann Arbor, Plymouth and Northville. The majority of Salem Twp is South Lyon Schools. Most residents of the township would consider themselves part of the South Lyon area (especially since most have a South Lyon address). They go to South Lyon/Lyon Township for shopping, dining, church, etc.
Jim Lax
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.
Christopher Khorey
The Linden Map is the best Ann Arbor-Jackson configuration. This one does not promote partisan fairness.
Robert J Joerg
This map packs Ann Arbor metro voters into one extremely unfair district. Please do not approve this map.
Jennifer Fairfield
Please listen to all the comments you have received about unpacking Ann Arbor. This map does not accomplish that, and wastes the votes of both Republicans and Democrats in that area. This is not the map for fairness in Michigan.
Chris Roosen
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.
merlin steffes
The municipal boundaries of Grand Rapids are violated. You are splitting a community of interest. Lansing and East Lansing belong in the same district. You are splitting a community of interest.
merlin steffes
This map is better than the linden map. The municipal boundaries of Ann Arbor are not violated as it is the linden map. Grand Rapids municipal boundaries are still violated in this map though.
Mark S. Bosler
Just look at some of the comments for this map. They want you to disregard it simply on political grounds, without stating whether the combined districts have cultural, economic, and administrative commonalities. Beware of these commentators who simply wish to draw maps to satisfy their political objectives. You were not requested to draw maps for this reason.
Harvey Santana
This map disenfranchises the Hispanic vote by placing it in a district apart from the SW Detroit community, it disrupts community cohesion. District 4 would be better served if the precincts in the Barton Farlane neighborhood were replaced and the 7 precincts in SW Detroit returned into District 1. A simple exchange of precincts would fix this issue.
This map does not accomplish partisan fairness. The Commissioners would fail the citizens of Michigan if they went with this map.
Loida Tapia
This map is unfair and favors Republicans, it roughly DOUBLES the Republican bias relative to the other two Senate maps, Linden and Cherry v2. Cherry V2 Map is a far more fair map.
Samuel Lair
Again, this does not represent the interests of Hillsdale County as stated in our petition. If we do not support splitting Hillsdale across two districts, we certainly do not support splitting it into three districts.
This map is disappointing. Not only does it blatantly increase partisan bias, it also hurts communities of interest in these areas. By no means a fair map.
This map for Washtenaw County is the same old animal excrement. Com. Clark, it is five to six miles between Saline and Ann Arbor and you have one twisted idea of a “rural” district if you can make a claim in the public meeting that you separated Saline from Ann Arbor due to the ten miles of rural territory between the two cities; a bald-faced lie. It hasn’t been even slightly rural in 20 years. I do not support this map.
Lindsey Haughton
This map increases partisan bias and hurts communities of interest. Absolutely absurd and what the commission was supposed to prevent. This map is clearly gerrymandered
Linda J Pell
This map clearly disregards the synergies that the majority of Calhoun County residents who work, live, shop, go to school and seek health services along the 3 cities bordering I-94 (Battle Creek, Marshall, and Albion).
Cassie Gatz
A huge step backwards. This map is very disappointing as it is clearly partisan and not at all fair. Once again we are seeing an attempt to silence voters in Jackson. Please DO NOT support this map that breaks up Jackson's community of interest.
Cassie Gatz
this is a huge step backwards. Not just a little bit but a lot. packing dems into a 70+ dem District is clearly political gerrymandering Jackson can still have their county mostly whole with out packing dems and creating an unfair map
Jasmine K
this map is an unconscionable gerrymander that hurts communities of interest, especially in Jackson and Ann Arbor, while doubling the partisan bias. As everyone in Ann Arbor maintained, keeping AA in one large district is not what people who live here want. this is exactly what the commission was created to prevent
Colleen Sullivan
A huge step backwards. This map is very disappointing as it is clearly partisan and not at all fair. Once again we are seeing an attempt to silence voters in Jackson. Please DO NOT support this map that breaks up Jackson's community of interest.
This map blatantly doubles the partisan bias and is detrimental to communities of interest
This map increases partisan bias and hurts communities of interest. The commission needs to prioritize partisan fairness. This map does not do this.
You gave rural conservatives in Jackson County a Congressional district to represent their COI with the border counties, and now you want to take away the City's only shot at having representation for its COI with other cities along I-94. Please do NOT approve this map, which DOUBLES the partisan bias from the Cherry v2 and Linden maps, and doubles down on extra representation for one COI, while giving Jackson's other COI no representation at all. This map still doesn't solve the problem of the district touching parts of FIVE counties which some people objected to, and it packs Ann Arbor into one district against the overwhelming super-majority of public comment in that area. This is thinly veiled gerrymandering for the Republican Party and for rural COIs at the expense of partisan fairness and urban COIs.