My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
Palm
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
Census Legend
Labels visible at zoom level 10.
Labels visible at zoom level 13.
Labels visible at zoom level 15.
Labels visible at zoom level 17.
Current Map Zoom: 8
2020 Census PL 94.171 Data
Loading...
Stella Lubeckyj
This map is unfair. we worked hard at the redistricting meeting and fought for a fair map. We did get the map voted on. It met all the criteria set up by the state. This map does not follow the rules.
Martin Zmiejko
This map is extremely gerrymandered, and is the worst map of the bunch.
Rosalind J Cox
While all the maps give an unfair advantage, this one is the worst and does not even come close to being fair. It packs Democrats in Washtenaw County which is not right. Please do not use.
Patricia Banner
Does not represent where we work, spend time & $.
Peter Bane
Palm packs Democrats in Washtenaw County, and it has a very bad partisan tilt toward the Republicans statewide. One of the worst, most unfair, unrepresentative maps. Put it aside.
Carolyn M Mayne
Keep Midland County whole
Lauren R Taylore
good
Christian & Jenee Velasquez
Carving up Midland, Bay, & Saginaw counties is a sure sign of gerrymandering. This goes against original proposal of the redistricting vote.
Marie Colombo
While all the maps give an unfair advantage to Republicans, this one is the worst. Please do not approve.
Barbara A Conley
do not pick this one. Worst partisan outlook
M Dame
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.
David Johnson
Keep Midland and Gladwin counties together and whole.
Brenda Guest
No to the Palm Map. It slices up Midland County. Stop GERRYMANDERING!! Keep Midland whole.
Anne Van Hulle
Midland county should remain whole!
Dennis Quehl
To all commissioners. Make note of all the RED. Slicing and dicing is what Gerrymandering is. This map has no COI and/or contiguity. for Midland County.
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
Gaye Terwillegar
Keep Midland County whole!!!
Chris Moultrup
This map removes the City of Midland from the County. We need to remain in tact as we are one community of interest.
Nomi Joyrich
This is pretty much the worst of all the maps. No partisan fairness whatsoever.
Nomi Joyrich
This map packs Democrats in Washtenaw County. While all the maps give an unfair advantage to Republicans, this one is the worst. This map looks like it was designed to guarantee Republican majorities. Does not come close to being fair.
Ronald Kumon
This map seems more gerrymandered as compared to the other proposed maps.
Brad Blasy
Bad idea.
MARGARET M GILLEAN
No Way not the one we need
Marie DeLuca
For my disctict, this map well represents communities of interest. We are all on Lake St. Clair or the St Clair River. However, I have trouble with the percent deviation which is -2.44.
Marie DeLuca
This map groups communities of interest for my district. We are all on the water, lake or St. Clair River. I like it that but I have trouble with the percent of deviation which is -2.44.
Mike Scott
Not a good map. Splits up Midland County.
Justin Scott
Midland County needs to stay together.
Jane Scott
Stop splitting up Midland county! unfair to our citizens who live as one community in the entire county of Midland including our Midland city citizens! We work together on hospital, watershed, common employment and so many other topics!
Cathy Lunsford
This map splits Midland county. All of Midland should be kept whole and kept with the similar interests of counties like Gladwin and to the west.
Rebecca S Smith
Need to keep Midland with counties to the west and keep it WHOLE.
Richard Burney
This map can only be described as bizarre in the way it has aggregated areas with no attention to communities.
mark hansknecht
This map is very unfair and should be rejected out of hand
Kurt H Schindler
Not a good map. Worst of the three.
Joseph Lunsford
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.
Gregory P Fox
Packs Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor voters into one district.
Gregory P Fox
This map packs Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor voters (predictably Democratic) into one district. This is what we want to avoid.
Connie
This has the most unfair partisan score and should not be used. The Constitution requires partisan fairness be prioritized.
Laurence Rosen
This map retains numerous districts that are tilted strongly towards the republican party which, I believe, was NOT the goals of this exercise. The Lansing area is drawn in such a way as to dilute the interests of Lansing and its close in suburbs by overwhelming the 25th district with an overwhelming rural constituency. Palm should be rejected as unfair and splitting several communities of interest.
Joan Long
Regarding State Senate map, Palm, I strongly disapprove of this map. I feel it is just as bad as the current biased map.
Andrew Long
People of the Eastern UP need representation of area closer to home. Why would we be in a district stretched 100's of miles to what looks like areas south of Ludington?
Jamie Rykse
No additional comments
Jennifer Majorana
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.
J Michael Dizer
Splitting Midland County apart does not keep our COP together. Keep Midland County whole for the Senate Districts in MI!
Christa Krohn
Please do not slice up Midland County
Jon Lynch
Dividing Midland County makes no sense
Mary Lou McEwan
This 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 slices up Midland County. Keep Midland City connected to Midland County and Gladwin County. No Gerrymandering.
Aaron Majorana
This is a bad map because it divides Midland county and combines Midland with Bay City and Saginaw. As someone who lives in Midland, travels to Saginaw for work and visits Bay City often there is absolutely nothing in common with these communities and Midland.
MARCIA BLACKSON
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 Kepler
This make no sense for my community that is close to the City of Midland
Daniel Kozakiewicz
I disagree with this map.
Cindy Kallgren
No. This is Awful. Keep Midland County out of Saginaw and Bay Counties.
Amanda Oster
Keep Midland County whole!
Cat Trager
Heavily gerrymandered and biased politically to favor the GOP. Please DO NOT go with this map as it flagrantly disrespects the whole reason this "voters not politicians" campaign was started!
Samantha S Wiens-Wice
I do not like PALM. Please vote this down.
Julie Morris
Please continue working on the this map. Please vote against it.
Carole J Chi
This is NOT a good map for COI or partisan fairness; it's gerrymandering all over again, for most of the state. We're trying to get away from that and make all districts as competitive as possible. So please choose the LINDEN Senate Map. Thank you!
Sharon I kalee
Do not think this map is fair. Please do not adopt this map
Sara Weertz
The Palm map keeps our neighborhood (East English Village) together in District 8.
Carol Domino
This map is not a good representation. It does not improve the current unfair distribution and should not be approved.
Jenn Slack
The Palm map is not fair and is not nonpartisan. This map has lines clearly drawn based on party affiliation by location, not by fairness. Please do not adopt this map.
diane Detter
Linden and Cherry are the fairest maps and have competitive seats. Palm is very unfair.
Helen Harms
Lumping my community in with Jackson County ignores the realities of population changes in my area. It totally eliminates partisan fairness.
Connie
This is the worst map. Partisan fairness must be prioiritized.
Chris Graunstadt
This map is unfair, unacceptable and should be dismissed. It fails to demonstrate partisan fairness and runs counter to provisions in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Amy Teare
This map is the WORST of all the maps submitted. It has the highest Republican bias of all the maps.
Jonathan R. Hague
This map is way too far biased to the right.
Bethany A Rocho
No additional comments
Bethany A Rocho
No additional comments
JoEllen Rudolph
The Palm is the worst of all the maps in terms of the most Republican partisan bias. Please do not select this unfair map. This map perpetuates the 60/40 GOP bias that was installed after the 2010 census by extreme Republican gerrymandering.
Robert G. Hawley
imbalanced and overtly partisan
Allison Zimpfer
This map is incredibly biased and should not be supported.
Marilee Milroy
Biased. Asking the Redistricting Committee to Vote Against.
Brett Meteyer
Roberta Urbani
This map is as bad as our current gerrymandered situation with its unfair Republican bias.
Roberta Urbani
This map retains the Republican bias of our current gerrymandered situation -- the situation we worked so hard to overturn with Proposal 2 to let voters choose their politicians, not the other way around.
John Leon
Please vote against this map, it's very partisan and unfair
Dean Creighton
A fairly draw map it isn't.
Jacquelyn Kendall
Grossly unfair.
Suzanne Hudnut
This is not a fair map. GROSSLY GERRYMANDERED. Do not vote for this map
Nancy Flanagan
WAY too partisan. We had an election so tilted districts like those in PALM would be eliminated. NO on this map.
Kathleen M Kaczynski
This is not a fair map.
James McConnell
This map is not there.
Donna Bowen
Unfair.
Justin Harris
This is not a fair map. Please vote no.
Jennifer Hollander
dislike
Roger M Harms
This is a terrible map. I don't think it does a fair job of dividing Washtenaw County.
Jack Ellis
We voted for fair maps and this is NOT a fair map. Our current senate district is grossly gerrymandered, and this plan is just a bit above that. Please do not vote for this map!!!
Marcia Mackey
Please vote against this unbalanced plan
Paul B. Marsh
Too partisan.
Stephen Kemsley
This commission was formed because people voted against blatantly partisan maps like this. Please do not vote for this map.
Andrew Lorenz
The Palm Map has a terrible partisan bias towards Republicans that would perpetuate the gerrymandering problem and minority rule. Every person's vote should count equally. Please reject this map. Choose a map with less partisan bias.
Kevin Marvin
This map does nothing to change the current misrepresentation we have in our state today. This doesn't solve the Gerrymandering problem.
Deborah Newell
Please vote not on the PALM map. PALM has the highest partisan bias of all the maps.
Kelly Bertin
vote no on PALM map
Katie Lynne French
vote no on the “PALM” map!
Beth Doherty
This map has the worst partisan fairness score.
Dana S Houston-Jones
Please vote against this map it is unfairly partisan.
Kaitlyn Eaton
Please vote against this map.
Daryl Biallas
Please vote against this map. This is not a fair map.
MICHAEL MCGEE
Please vote no on this map, It seems very biased.
Janet Armil
The worst and most gerrymandered of the proposed maps.
Paul Torek
This map is unbalanced. Had it been in effect in previous elections, the party that got more votes for state senate would hardly matter.
Edward Saunders
This seems purposefully gerrymandered for partisan gain. Exactly the opposite of why we voted for the MICRC in the first place.
Antoinette Spears
The Palm map has a much higher efficiency gap than both Linden and Cherry. Also, in Palm, 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.
Madhurima Das
Worst map- this is incredibly gerrymandered.
Stephen Sadlier
Troy should be kept with similar communities to the south, Clawson, Birmingham…
Ronald Martin Lacher
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 and does not give citizens the opportunity for fair elections. Please select the Linden map for the senate districts.
Tammy J DeRuyter
While I am a big supporter of Tri-Cities "grouping" (all roads lead toward this as our economic future), numbers clearly show this map to be statistically bias / unfair. Thank you!
Richard Lenski
This map is unfair and puts East Lansing with largely rural areas.
Melitz Mike
Dislike
Thomas DeGrand
Unfair map
Sam Firke
This map is unbalanced and unfair, please do not select it. It functions like a gerrymander to distort the votes of the electorate and produce an unrepresentative state senate.
Lorie
Please vote NO on this! Voting should be fair. One party should not be favored.
Jane Lacher
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 and does not give citizens the opportunity for fair elections. Please select the Linden map for the senate districts.
Ethyl Rivera
This map should be completely withdrawn by the Commission and, with all the others should be redrawn from scratch, paying strict attention to the VRA, the partisan fairness and other attributes which were stated to be its goals. While none of the House maps deserve to be put forward, this should be completely removed from further consideration.
Christine Gagne
This map is not a representation of bipartisanship, and gives an unfair advantage to one party over another - which is the opposite intent of this project.
Julie Kelly
Please vote NO, as this is an unfair map that is not much better than the current map.
Krista Anderson
This is not well done. PALM has the highest partisan bias of all the maps and would be little improvement over what we had under the previous gerrymandered districts. PALM is an extremely unfair map and should NOT be considered.
Kathryn Carolan
Very poorly drawn map
Donald Cooper
Poorly drawn map. Not fair at all
Kathryn Carolan
Very poor map. Not fairly drawn
Kathryn Carolan
Not a fair map.
Jacob Oaster
This map is the opposite of what our voters voted for when forming the commission. Totally skewed map--still gerrymandered, partisan, and bias. Commission--VOTE NO on this map.
Marcy Emmendorfer
Please vote no on this map.
Beth McComas
Please vote NO on this! Voting should be fair. One party should not be favored.
Tim Nelson
Please vote no on this one. This is the worst map of all of them.
Deborah Gowan
Please vote NO on the PALM map. It favors one party over another and is not fair.
Erin Seipke-Brown
This politically skewed map is no better than are current gerrymandered district representation - it is terrible! This state is in desperate need of a fair and representative voting system, which is the precise reason why the redistricting commission was established in the first place. This map fails at that essential criteria. VOTE NO!
Victoria Gutowski
The Palm map is unfair to voters and does not meet the Michigan Constitution's requirement of fairness. I oppose this map.
Jennifer Shelito
This is too partisan and defeats the purpose of the redistricting legislation. What is the purpose in splitting Tuscola county in half??
Virginia Gibson
Want a fair playing field!
Timothy R Geniac
Palm map is essentially a duplicate of current unfair map
Kathleen Townsend
This map is so unbelievably partisan in favor of Republicans. We wanted to finally have fairly drawn districts - a level playing field. THIS IS NOT fair or competitive.
Robin Renee Newsome
The Palm map is an unfair map, it is skewed and does not move to even anything out.
mark carlson
This commission was voted on to create fair and representative districts. This map is basically the same gerrymandered districting we currently have.
Scott Warrow
This map is politically skewed and is no better than are current gerrymandered district representation. We need a fair and representative voting system in this state. This map fails at that essential criteria
Sreela Datta
I wish there were objective / mathematical criteria for redistricting instead of trying to make the map fair on partisan lines.
Katharine Shishkovsky
Please do not vote for the Palm map -- it favors one party too much. Michigan voters want partisan fairness.
Katharine Shishkovsky
Please do not select the Palm map. It favors one party too much. We are partisan fairness.
Partha Goswami
It's a partisan map
Mark Hackbarth
The map is too partisan and defeats the purpose of the redistricting legislation.
Janet Goldwasser
The Palm map is terribly partisan. This is NOT what we amended the state constitution for! Please reject this map.
Allen R Wolf
This map fails the test of partisan fairness. Both of the other two maps are much better than this.
Kathi Harris
Palm is the worst map in terms of seats compared to votes for Michigan. Please do not vote for this map. This map very much discounts the representation of city people by diluting their districts.
Gerald Campbell
The palm map looks worse to me than the current map. This was a competitive district (the 8th) before the 2000 census. The new map should be of that type.
William Asher
The Palm map is the worst of all the maps from the standpoint of partisan fairness. I know there are other criteria that the commission must balance, but to me partisan fairness is the most important, because it and it alone results in a non-gerrymandered map. Please do not approve this map.
Allen R Wolf
This map is the worst of the proposed maps. It results in major imbalances with regard to representation versus the percent of votes received by each party. Please do not use this map.
Dominique Muse
This map does not fix the partisan bias the current map has
Stephen Stackable
Again splitting up Midland city and county, and separating from counties to north and west that have similar concerns.
Mitali Chakrabarti
This map is not fair
Chester Jessick
The Palm map is the least balanced map of the options. Your work has produced much more representative alternatives. Vote No on the Palm map.
Christopher PRatt
This map is terrible. A cow-tow to Republican gerrymandering. This needs to be voted down.
Emily Jernberg
This map packs Democrats in Washtenaw County. While all the maps give an unfair advantage to Republicans, this one is the worst.
Seth Furlow
No real improvement over the current lines.
Carl Spina
This map seems about as gerrymandered as what we currently have. Vote against this map.
Douglas Vincent Wilcox
Dislike and very partisan.
Greg Duenow
End Shirkey's stranglehold on our state.
Rob Backstrom
No
Justin Barney
This map is pretty partisan. i'm not sure why it is being considered.
Tim Russ
This map is ridiculous. How can you justify putting Allendale Charter Township in Ottawa County and Ada Township in Kent County in the same Senate District if not to create a "safe" district for the Republicans? They are not geographically proximate nor are they culturally similar. The only commonality is the white Republican voter base. This map does nothing to ensure the Senate reflects the statewide electorate not the partisan preferences of the minority non-urban Republicans.
Nicole Gillies
This is an unfair map. Not good!
Grat Dalton
This is an unfair map. We should be making democracy representative...and a vote for this map would NOT be doing the right thing. Vote no on the PALM map
Tanner Delpier
The commission exists to eliminate gerrymandering not sanction it.
Mary B Blair
We need to work to end gerrymandering! This map is an insult to democracy! Vote this DOWN! We must defend democracy not continue to erode it!
Mark Hoffman
PALM has the highest partisan bias of all the maps and would be little improvement over what we had under the previous Republican gerrymander. PALM is an extremely unfair map.
Keith R Sauter
This is exactly what I voted against! Do not vote for this map!
Krista Abbott
Dislike
Tamara Constantyn
The voters have asked for a correction to gerrymandering. This map is insulting, almost as if the Commission members are unconcerned about the will of the citizenry, and suggests that no one on it knows the definitions of "fairness" and "non-partisan." I do not want who I am governed by to be decided by cynical, craven, dishonest people.
Carmela Finn
This map is as partisan as the gerrymandered maps done in the past by self-interested politicians. Michiganders chose a citizens commission to make all our votes count. This map does NOT doe that. Please do not vote for this. Thank you.
Murray A Gorchow
I do not like this map at all. It does not address the whole purpose to get rid of partisan gerrymandered maps.
Lori Spink
Doesn't properly address the gerrymandering issues we have in this state. Not a good map.
K. Liedel-Ross
Please do not vote for this map.
katrhleen curell
please do not consider this map a viable option. It has the lowest scores with regard to partisan fairness. Just say no to the Palm!
Brian Dunphy
Absolutely not. This map does poorly at addressing partisan fairness.
Daniel Colling
Do not vote for this map
Jennifer Bidwell
This map does not adequately address the gerrymandering problem we now have in this state. We need adequate representation for every person in the state to address the important issues at hand.
Margaret E Guoin
This is the most unfair of the senate map options. It is not much different from a gerrymandered district. Do not choose this one!
Charlotte H Sommers
do not like this map
Pita
Please do not vote for this map, this not the best representation
Margaret Weber
Reject this map for map what looks designed to guarantee Republican majorities.
Margaret Weber
This map packs Democrats in Washtenaw County. While all the maps give an unfair advantage to Republicans, this one is the worst.
Alice
I comment in this location just because I like the name Stray Cat Lounge. However I want to finish my balance-out-the-prolific-posts-of-Nancy exercise here because I sincerely hope the Nancy Tiseo who felt entitled to make over twenty comments about other communities is not the same Nancy Tiseo, newest Republican member of the Macomb County Board of Canvassers. A person responsible for certifying an election should not be trying to game the comment portion of the independent redistricting process. If it were the same person, and I lived in Macomb County, I would be asking questions about the voting ethics of an individual who seeks to have multiple “votes” on social media.
Alice
Is it a good COI? Ms Tiseo explain how this is a good community of interest. Do you live here or do you live in Ann Arbor/ Washtenaw County where you concentrated most of your comments?
Alice
I love the internet; if one takes the time to research one can find fascinating information about a great many things. For instance, Ms. Decaire owns the property on which Nancy Tiseo placed the Like pin “fair to most.” Did she authorize Nancy to speak on her behalf? Does this person have an opinion of her own about the shape of the political district in which she lives? Given the many red pins on the Palm map, people other than myself must feel this map is NOT fair to most.
Sandra Legacy
I do not like the Palm map at all!
Alice
How does it “accurately represent the community? Nancy must have a great deal of money to be able to keep nine apartments and/or houses in Washtenaw County, one in Battle Creek, one in Grass Lake area, one in Hillsdale, one near Bangor, one in Long Lake, a houseboat outside Muskegon, a something in Huron-Manistee National Forest and now a farm on the east side of district 36. Point I’m trying to make is how much credence do the commissioners give to vague claims of community from these not well verified social media comment tools? Are they reading these comments with a critical eye to ascertain real information, or are they simply counting up the dots?
ICE Faye ICE Menczer
Although I don't live in this area, I do not support the Palm map. It does not look fair.
Alice
Now this spot interests me. Nancy Tiseo has two comments for this area but one can only see the “accurately represents community” pin. If you scroll down to where all her comments were made there is mention of owning property in the area. The pin is squarely on Huron-Manistee National Forest. So… federal government selling off land, hunting rights for the season, what ownership stake does one have in a National Forest? I truly hope commissioners who have our addresses and contact information along with the pins are cross checking to be sure people who comment from an area do live there as well.
Paula Talarico
The mandate is fairness. This does not meet that goal.
Alice
I also agree water blocks should be assigned to match with corresponding land districts. However as I don’t live in Muskegon, I can’t say I agree with this area of the map. Because Nancy is such an authority on Washtenaw County (sarcasm) I question her information on this area as well and feel the need to balance out her non-specific Like comment.
Alice
Which community would you say, Nancy Tiseo, this district fairly represents - Benton Harbor, Grand Rapids, Bloomingdale, South Haven? Does Grand Rapids have much community interaction with Benton Harbor? I am not from the area and I suspect Nancy is not as well. She likes the Palm map for its unfair partisan outcome and went to every red dislike pin and added a generic comment with a green like pin last month to give the impression of widespread support.
Alice
Did the redistricting commission get many requests from the people of Battle Creek to be put into a meandering state Senate district which stretches into Kent and Ionia counties? If not, I’d say this map does not fairly reflect a COI for this region.
Alice
Now Nancy Tiseo is an authority on St Joseph County.
Alice
“Looks” and “seems” is code for I have no knowledge about this area whatsoever but hope to game the system with my 21 Green like pins. Nancy trusts commissioners will not read these comments; maybe she is right - there was some very sloppy comment portal COI evaluation on the part of commissioners.
Alice
And now it is time to go around the map and point out each spot where the authority on everyone else’s community, Nancy Tiseo , has informed the commission how this map represents the community she most likely does not live in or even visit.
Alice
Random house prices from the two different developments near this pin; $159,000 and $139,000 respectively. Also in the vicinity an apartment complex where residents enjoy no ownership equity and Arbor Meadows Trailer Park where you may well own your home but still pay lot rent for the land under the mobile home which coincidentally is not very mobile if the landlord jacks up the lot price. I think Robert Jones is correct in pointing out there are socioeconomic differences between this area and wealthier A2 where random house near Bird Hill Nature area priced at $354,000. I would say lumping them altogether because “cities” is not the community being fairly represented despite what Nancy says.
Alice
By the way, Larry Parsons, of Fenton MI perhaps, this isn’t “Western Washtenaw” this right here is central Washtenaw County and Ann Arbor-Saline Rd should clue in even the most clueless of redistricting commissioners that they are breaking up an affiliated community if they select the Palm map.
Alice
Palm “gives more voice to the community” by PACKING Ann Arbor into one concentrated 80% safe D district. Cool. If Nancy Tieso lives here, she must be homeless. The pin is on the University of Michigan North Campus grounds and maintenance building complex.
Christine L Benninghoff
This proposal is little better than the gerrymandering voters hoped to eliminate with the independent redistricting commission. Voters elected unbiased mapping - let's get it done.
Catherine Mitzel
To rid ourselves of the previously gerrymandered districts, we must draw new lines that look different. The Palm map ranks last in partisan fairness. Please support the Linden State Senate map. Fair districts promote better representation for ALL citizens! Thank you for your due diligence.
Alice
Palm splits off Lincoln consolidated schools away from Ypsilanti Charter Township and hands it off to Monroe and Lenawee Counties to ensure the educational needs of those students are being addressed at the state level. Then someone added exurb areas north of Lefurge Woods , which are in a different school district altogether, and some even asked for a Salem/ South Lyon COI also not represented here. That is not exactly keeping COIs intact.
Barbara Eglinton
This map packs Democrats in Washtenaw County. While all the maps give an unfair advantage to Republicans, this one is the worst.
Hirak Chanda
Would like to see Troy with OC cities
Alice
How nice that Nancy is so well versed in COI theory. Perhaps she can explain the close knit community association she and others ascribe to Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti as if there is no difference between the towns in regards to the library cooperative association Ypsilanti has with southeast TLN and Ann Arbor does not. Ypsilanti engages in reciprocal borrowing other participating libraries. Ann Arbor funds so much of its own collection they opted not to participate in the program. Vastly different library resources is probably a pretty good indication of very different community needs. But this map unfairly packs them all together, because… it is a “glorious way to keep all the Dem garbage” in one little district.
Alice
It would be much better for this community, if commissioners actually listened to those of us who live in the area instead of the bombastic tripe from partisan republicans from Lansing or Macomb County is it Nancy? There are some new apartment buildings on Zeeb and Jackson which are most assuredly not “rural” and how dare any commissioner lie to the public and describe the area as a rural one as he/she cracks it off from the city it associates with.
Alice
Doesn’t give the community a better voice. To the East you have Dexter, “bedroom community” to Ann Arbor and all of the new commercial development along Jackson Rd. To the West, there is Chelsea and people in Chelsea have expressed a desire to be in a community that includes both Jackson and Ann Arbor. This map is basically ignoring their voices. But I guess it makes Nancy happy so we are expected to live with the same old junk. I say scrap this map in a place like Razorback Metals and pick a better configuration like Linden.
Michael Glover
For my district, I don't like the Palm map as it doesn't seem fair or competitive.
Alice
Map is a bad representation of this community. First, people in Manchester can speak for themselves, they don’t need Nancy Tieso to do it for them. Second, I am absolutely certain Alber’s Orchard gets more custom from the Ann Arbor than Homer in Calhoun County. Why should this area be used to “give population” to rural areas of Western Jackson County and Calhoun County?
Alice
Not really more in line with our community. Commissioner Clarke described his Republican gerrymander as a “rural” community that serves Jackson. Over 20 years ago Lodi Township and Washtenaw County were advised to create another paved access route to I94 to eliminate congestion on Parker and Saline/Ann Arbor/ Wagner Rd. Dell/Zeeb Rd was flagged as the road which needed to be improved and yet grant funding from the state never seems to arrive. Most improvements have been county funded. This couldn’t be because we are constantly placed with some distant group of Republican voters, not from the area, who would rather give tax breaks to corporate interests than work towards overdue road infrastructure improvements could it? A very bad COI right here.
Alice
This garbage map splits up the Saline school district, Nancy’s pin is right across the street from the high school, and carves out all the population attending said school who reside in Pittsfield. How does this “give ( our school) a better voice?” Perhaps we would like to have one representative who is concerned about our educational needs in a rapidly growing community as opposed to some crossroads town with a county-wide consolidated school system in a “rural” area of Hillsdale. Linden is better.
Julia Goode
This map seems really biased and unfair.
Jim Searls
Palm is a poor choice!
Jane L Slaughter
This is the sort of gerrymandered map we elected the commission to get away from. How did it even get drawn, given the criteria? Please eliminate Palm from consideration.
Elizabeth C Palazzolo
This map is worse than the gerrymandered situation we have now
Rick L Catherman
Least fair of all the proposed Senate District maps.
Jaime Brants
This map is very partisan and goes against the very purpose of Prop 2. Please vote no on this map and let the voters pick their politicians fairly.
Charlotte sadler
The Palm draft map leans too far to the right. I was so excited that the redistricting commission would be drawing fair Michigan voting districts. Now I’m worried! Please vote no on Palm!
Matthew Kachel
The voters asked for fair maps. This map is just a continuation of Republican gerrymandering that has been going on for decades.
Christy Mayo
This map is awful and highly partisan!
Cheryl D Hayes
The Palm map is a step in the wrong direction. Prop 2 was supposed to put an end to gerrymandering. Palm perpetuates gerrymandering. Cherry and Linden are better.
Janet Pushies
The Palm map is not fair and is not nonpartisan as it clearly favors one political party. This map is not in keeping with the values of the Voting Rights Act that we all worked so hard to pass. Please do not adopt this map.
Thomas Guyer
This map is extremely biased in favor of Republicans.
Susan Jagoda
District 10- Obvious Republican bias. District 10 is not representative of the majority of residents in this area. This is unacceptable. I want representation for a better future for Michigan and for our nation in general. I don't want a bunch of liars and Republican obstruction in congress.
Lynn Pottenger
The commission has consistently drawn a Tri-Cities Senate district, which I greatly appreciate. We recognize and are grateful that you listened so carefully to the citizens of Mid-Michigan and heard us asking for this, given our many COI’s as urban/suburban cities with overlapping economic, cultural, and educational communities. Out of the three proposed Senate maps, the Palm map has the worst partisan fairness scores. This is a key criterion and should not be allowed to progress. Please do not choose this map. It does not represent Michigan well. Please select the Linden map for the senate districts, which does a better job of providing for competitive districts, including Mid-Michigan. Thank-you for all your hard work on drawing fair district maps.
Trina Borenstein
Please reject this map. All your hard work on this endeavor has resulted in better, fairer maps than this one.
Marian Mahoney
This is a terrible map - clearly partisan - Do not even consider this map - the state voted foe Fair Maps - this is not a fair map!
Kyle Jones
This map is very unfair. Cherry and Linden are much better.
Brenda Lindsay
This map is partisan and not fair.
KATHRYN R HOARD
This map is unacceptable.
Jessica Swartz
It doesn't make sense to split Kalamazoo and Battle Creek.
Sumita Pal
PALM map is unfair. Should not be chosen.
Doris Feys
Please don't use this map! It's even worse than our current one. Thank you for all of your effort - but please DON'T adopt this map.
Mary O'Neill
I collected signatures because of maps just like this one. Please do not use this gerrymandered map! Thank you for all your hard work
Kaushik Pal
PALM is not a fair map.
Jordan Baker
Worst map of them all, I thought this was suppose to be fair for both sides?
Melissa Rose Luberti
This map is grossly unfair.
Martin Miller
Of all of the proposed maps, this one is the poorest reflection of the various regions and communities in the state.
Paula Johnson
This PALM map has the highest partisanship, favoring the GOP. Very unfair to the voters of MI
Charles Hicks
This is an extremely unfair map.
Connie
Palm is an unfair map. Linden is a better map.
Melanie Hardy
This map promotes gerrymandering and is unfair. Please do not use this map.
Melanie Hardy
This map promotes gerrymandering and is unfair. Please do not use this map.
Karol Walker
Please do not use the palm map. It only repeats the problem we have now with gerrymandering.
Elizabeth Bielby
Not a good map - I don't see how this fairly divides up voters in a nonpartisan way.
Shirley Lynn Kunze
Bad map, bad map. Definitely not good for the state of Michigan. We're trying to be fair, and this map is not achieving that goal.
ALLISON Fox FOX
The Palm proposal is heavily gerrymandered and favors Republicans. Please consider Cherry or Linden instead. Thank you to all for your work on this!
Stephen J Franko
Bad idea!
Linda Furlough
Truly awful! This map is so unbelievably partisan in favor of Republicans. We voted for Proposal 2 because we wanted to finally have fairly drawn districts - a level playing field. This is not it.
Joseph D. Chin Jr
The purpose of the commission was to draw fair and balanced maps. This district map is not acceptable as it provides for a highly favorable republican bias for this District. No better than the current gerrymandered district for this county.
Mark Roger Putnam
I lived in Tuscola County and find this map is very partisan. From what I research and read; this is the worst map for the State of Michigan.
Lawrence S Alpert
This map is quite unfair.
Patricia Belanger
We need a fair map that has a level playing field. This map doesn't do that.
Elizabeth Benyi
This map is one of the most partisan gerrymandered maps ever produced for the state of Michigan and is in violation of the stat Constitution and the Voting Rights Act
Charlotte Jeanne Morton
Please fix this map. It is not fair to voters of Michigan and clearly favors one party. That is still gerrymandering.
Phil Sarnacke
This map is truly a partisan map favor the party in power. This should be an exercise to make Michigan and example to the nation of non partisan politicking.
Vaughn Derderian
This map is incredibly biased in favor of Republicans for no good reason.
James A DeNardis
dislike
Ronald Fox
Very unfair. Heavily gerrymandered to favor Republicans. Palm is biased. Palm is a terrible proposal. Cherry and Linden are far superior.
Cynthia M. DeNardis
Do not consider this map. It should be FAIR. That's what this group is all about, right? We have to watch every move you make. PLEASE !!!!!!!!
Aaron Stark
Unfairly gerrymandered district
Nicki Anderson
This map is heavily gerrymandered for the GOP and should not be used.
Donald Tilley
This is a lousy map.
Harrison Cole
This map is ridiculous, unfair, unbalanced
Adren Rice
I know you Republicans have no actual interest in being fair, so we are going to fight you every step of the way until you dissolve as an organization. This is unacceptable, and I deny your attempts at cheating.
Jamie Foxx
THIS MAP IS BOOBOO
Robin Smith
I am commenting on the Palm Map. This is a very divisive map it is not representative of people of color in-terms. It is gerrymandering at its worst. Please re-consider.
susan p steigerwalt
Palm is outright gerrymandering. the WORST!!!do not vote for it!!
Giselle Gerolami
Very unfair map
Ryan Riske
This map is a gerrymander for the GOP. Please do not vote for it.
Matthew Cecil
This map is an extreme partisan gerrymander for the Republican Party in a state that should be about 50/50 based on recent elections.
Debbie Rosenman
This map is the worst! Do not consider it all!
Jordan Ginder
This map is heavily gerrymandered. We voted against gerrymandering in 2018. Don't bring it back today!
Andrew Kasha
This map is extremely gerrymandered in favor of the GOP. It violates the VRA and the intent of the citizen redistricting committee
Luke Vandenberg
This map does not represent the intent of the redistricting law. It does not fairly balance democratic and republican districts and gives an unfair advantage to the republican party.
Wendy Winston
This map is not fair. This is the least fair of all the proposed maps.
John Pakledinaz
This map is unfair and unbalanced. This is by far the worst of the maps and should not even be considered.
Aimee Ergas
This map is unfair and unbalanced. Like the former map, it disconnects us with other communities most related to ours. Gerrymandering continues.
Philip Martinez
This map gives an unfair advantage to the Republican Party, and it is not fair. We voted for this commission to undo gerrymandering, not to re-do it. Please choose Cherry or Linden instead.
Sharon Million
I vote no on the Palm map. I thought the committee was suppose to reduce gerrymandering. Not in this case. Bad plan.
Mark E Miller
The Palm map has the most partisan bias, at 2.3%, of any of the proposed Senate maps. All of the rest are within the range of 0.3% to 0.32%. This fact should suffice to disqualify Palm.
Charlotte Jeanne Morton
The Palm map is not in line with fair maps for our state. This map needs a major overhaul. Do not vote for this map it is the most biased of any of the maps. Palm Map does not support fair maps for Michigan.
Wallace Bronson
If this map was drawn up by the Republicans you can bet your life that it’s going to screw the rest of us. Don’t vote for the Palm map what so ever
Nancy Nikolauk
Vote no on Palm Map most biased map that reflects gerrymandering this process is supposed to omit.
Andrea Geralds
Why did we bother voting for Prop 2 just to let the gerrymandered maps stand and continue to disenfranchise voters???? This is a slap in the face
Barbara Cooper
This map does not provide as fair representation to minority communities
Justin Smith
Unfortunately while this map is no different from Linden and Cherry for my district, it is statewide the least fair and most disproportionately partisan option on the table. Do make the mistake of enacting this map into law- please.
Stephen L Tillison
Of all 15 draft maps up for consideration by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, the PALM Senate map is the worst. PALM has the highest Republican bias of all the maps and would be little improvement over what we had under the previous Republican gerrymander. PALM is an extremely unfair map.
Eric Sabin
This map is incredibly biased and unfair. The district lines clearly favor one party over the other.
ANGIE DANIELEWICZ
This map is so unfair.
Nancy Mroczkowski
This is not a good map for Michigan cities overall in regard to voter representation. District lines are drawn such that rural population areas disproportionately dominate most districts including cities. Please do not use this map
Janet Louise Armil
This is the most biased politically of the final maps.
James C carpenter
Palm is an extremely unfair map. I am asking the Commission to vote against this gerrymandering bias.
Anne Campbell
This map is really broken up and is against the principals of Prop 2 and the overall goal of providing more equitable representation
lori A Boyce
wow - this map is so gerrymandered - totally against the principals of Prop 2 and the Voting Rights Act.
Frances Ann Schichl
I do not like Rashida Tlib she only looks out for Arabic residences
Eric Kyle Schichl
I do not want to be represented by rashida tlib, I fully reject this map
Robert Kennedy
Palm is the worst of all 15 maps which you approved for final consideration. Severely unfair. By far the most biased. Do not vote for this in any of the decision rounds.
Cassandra M Foley
Please vote NO on the Palm map. This map is a replay of what we have now--it favors one party over the other! Proposition 2 was passed by Michiganders to eliminate partisan maps like this.
Deborah Kallunki
The Palm map has the worst Republican bias of all of the draft maps. It is an extremely UNFAIR map. Vote NO on Palm!
Danielle Fergin
This map is terrible. I am shocked it made it this far without someone pointing out that it 100% politically bias and removing it. This was not created within the spirit of the redistricting process as evidenced by its horrible score for partisan fairness. This map is a step in the wrong direction. The reason we are redrawing the maps is because of maps such as this.
Benjamin D'Angelo
This map has the same effect as the previous (gerrymandered) districts
JOHN D PATERSON
This is a poor rendition of redistricting for fairness. Please do not choose this option.
Robert Rutkowski
I do not support Palm - it does not represent fair re-districting.
Fred Cepela
PALM fails the partisan fairness test. Please emphasize partisan fairness to ensure competitive districts. This will avoid extremism in the legislature.
Darcy Rutkowski
The goal of this whole process was to eliminate gerrymandered districts and Palm definitely does not do that. I support both Cherry and Linden as being much better choices for fair elections.
Michael J. Polzin
This map is very unfair. Cherry and Linden are much better.
HEATHER MLSNA
This configuration doesn't promote fair elections.
HEATHER MLSNA
This configuration doesn't promote fair elections.
HEATHER MLSNA
This configuration doesn't promote fair elections.
Gregory Lynn Snider
This is a very partisan map. Please vote agains Palm.
Mary Ann Margaret Idzikowski
This map is very biased and unfair, Linden and Cherry are fairer
Molly Morrissey
This map is so bad for partisan fairness that I am very surprised it has made it to the final round. Please don’t vote for this map because it would not lead to good representation for the citizens of Michigan.
Marie Johansen
The Palm Map has the highest rating of bias favoring Republicans. This is gerrymandering all over again-no improvement here only more of the reason we asked for a commission to REMOVE bias from the maps. Please do not use this map.
Jean-Philippe Faletta
This is a terrible map, very biased.
Janice Karlovich
No on Palm map -- too much partisan gerrymandering!
Kathleen McKee
Awful, just awful. Communities of interest are ignored totally. This is a disaster for the communities on the SW/MI-IN border. This matters to maintaining our economic growth.
Beverly J Riggie
This map is not a good map it is to biased one way. The goal is to be as close to zero bias as possible.
MARK HOLTAN
PALM does not create a level playing field. Please reject the PALM map.
Veronica Paiz
Vote No. PALM reeks of partisanship. Same old White map -- but bigger. Nothing here for POC.
Susan Vandercook
Unfair map. Scrap it.
allison youngs
This map is highly biased.
Cynthia Hudson
This is an unfair map. Please do not use this map. The Cherry map and the Linden map are better options.
Jeanne Munn
This is an unfair drawing of a map and does not represent the voters of my community!
ramona j clemente
Every other map is better than this one. Talk about partisanship. It is beyond laughable. Make the maps fair to both parties, not just one regardless of which one.
Joanne Carlson
This is not a fair map. It does not represent the citizens of my district. I vote no!
Kim Hunsanger
This map should never be considered a far map in any way.
ken tilp
A very unfair map!!!
Rob J Ross
This plan is very unfair and partisan. It gives Republicans a very unfair advantage.
Maggie D'Angelo
This map does not maintain bipartisan equity. Please do not vote for this map it is still unfair. Thank you for listening.
Robert Gilbert
The whole goal of this commission was districting fairness; this accomplishes the opposite!
Fay E Tanner
This is not a fair redistrict.
Christine Gierczak
PALM map is far too heavily biased toward Republicans. Please vote against it!!!!
Naomi Ludman
This is not a fair map. I am not asking for maps to lean Blue. I just want partisan fairness and this map is far, far, from that.
James S Rodgers
Please choose either the Linden or Cherry map. Palm is clearly the least fair of the State Senate maps in that it provides a partisan advantage to one party and does not allow for fair representation for minorities. Thank you for your hard work on this difficult task.
Logan Chappell
Vote NO
Kari Huss
Vote no. This (PALM) map is very unfair. Cherry and Linden are more fair.
Clifford Johnson
I see that I'm not alone in asking you to reject this map! Very lopsided.
Gwenne Allgaier
I strongly dislike the PALM map, as it is unfair to Michigan citizens. Our maps need to reflect our populace.
Nancy Duemling
While this map doesn't vary much from Linden and Cherry for my district, what it does in other areas of the state is supremely partisan and defeats the mission of the MCIRC. Do not adopt this one!
Evert W Vermeer
This is a bad map for the MI Senate and should be rejected outright!
Mary E Vermeer
This is the most unbalanced/unfair map of all the options and should definitely be rejected!
Mary Sepe,
This map lacks fairness thus nullify equal competition among candidates. Please do not vote for this plan.
Eric Rader
This map is not fair and should not be approved.
Nicholas D. Barnes
This map is trash and needs to be voted against. Please do not vote for this map.
Daniel Towner
This map is unfair and redistricts in a partisan way. This is against the wishes of the people.
Janice Ray
This map is very biased in favor of Republicans. The idea was to create more balance with an unbiased commission!
Horace Porter Abbott
The Palm Map is not only
Rick Novak
Obviously not drawn with fairness in mind. This is not what the voters intended when we overwhelmingly voted to have an independent committee do the redistricting.
Elizabeth Kaufman
This map is UNFAIR. Cherry and Linden are much to be preferred
Heidi Gates
This map is in no way balanced. The Palm map is not a fair map in terms of partisan leanings, and will just add to the gerrymandering that redistricting is supposed to correct. Please do not choose this map. We need fair elections.
Christine Klykken
I thought that the reason for redrawing the maps was to create fair elections. The Palm Map is heavily favoring the Republicans and clearly hasn’t been drawn with fairness in mind.
Jennifer D Porter
Stop trying to re-district to favor one party over the other. This disenfranchises me and others.
James Nelson
The Palm map is poorly drawn. The Cherry map is a much better choice.
Liam Richichi
This is not a fair map in terms of partisan leanings. Please pick one of the other Senate maps.
Terry Brown
I really dislike this map. It doesn't seem likely to allow the upper Thumb area any representation. Also the entire map seems to bend over to the right.
Angie Kelleher
The Republican bias for this map is clearly too high!
Nancy Flanagan
NO. This map subverts the whole, approved-by-large-majority process of developing fair maps.
Caroline
This is the least fair map out of the proposed Senate maps.
ELLEN ANNE TEGHTMEYER
I ask the commission to vote against the Palm map. It has the most partisan bias of all the maps presented. Partisan fairness was one of, if not THE top issue, for voters of the MICRC. Chose Cherry or Linden instead. They are less bias.
Allison Wilcox
While the Palm map puts Midland in a senate district with Bay City and Saginaw, which I like, it has the worst score overall for partisan fairness. The desire for partisan fairness was the overwhelming reason that a majority of Michigan voters wanted the MCIRC created in the first place. Please choose the Linden state senate map instead.
Robert T King
This is an extremely biased, unfair map violating the purposes of the commission.
Judith Maiga
This map is horrendous. The point of this entire venture was to get rid of gerrymandering. This map is blatantly biased. Please vote NO on this map.
Kevin G Karpiak
We all know this process is very hard and no map will be perfect, but this particular map just fails in too many ways and doesn't achieve the central goal of the initiative that created this commission in the first place: to assure the greatest democratic participation in our state
Melany Mack
The Palm map has the poorest partisan fairness score and should be rejected in favor of either the Linden or Cherry maps. Thank you.
Barbara A Conley
vote NO on this one (Palm)~
THOMAS HATCH
Vote NO on PALM
Melany Mack
The Palm map is the most unfair map offered for the state Senate. Both the Cherry and Linden maps are more fair and should be selected over the Palm map. Thank you.
Jason Craig
Vote no on PALM!
John Lindstrom
This map splits critical areas of Ingham County, areas that have similar issues, creating an unfair division of the communities clearly to the advantage of one party, thus violating the provision that districts ensurre partisan fairness. Of the other maps, the Cherry or Linden maps most likely serve this region more appropriately.
Wanda Eichler
This map is not fair. Asking the question “is it fair to all concerned?” brings the answer “no.” Please do not choose this map.
Michael John Kidd
Please get this right. This is not a fair map and should be rejected now. The Cherry and Linden are much better.
Kent Koehn
Thank you committee members for volunteering for such a difficult task. I believe this Palm map does not capture the fairness in representation that the voter passed petition was seeking. I would recommend looking more closely to the Linden and Cherry maps.
Carmela Langley
PALM Senate Map is tilted towards one party unfairly.
Jack G. Devine
Seems to be tilted to one party.
Alexandra VanDoren
I voted for the non-partisan redistricting commission because I believe our districts should reflect the balance of voters in our state as much as possible. The PALM map does not do that.
Laurent Chappuis
Not fair and no better at creating competitive districts as the current situation. Avoid!
Thomas L Knox
This map (Palm) is far too similar to the current gerrymandered State Senate maps - very unfair and not what the folks who voted for the MICRC wanted to see: fair districting and fair representation. Reject this map!
David A Berger
This map does not represent an equability.
Timothy Duane Early
This map is to partisan. Not an equal representation of the populace.
Charles Hodgman
This map has the worst partisan fairness scores of all the maps and should be rejected.
Molly Reeves
Worst choice. Favors unfair advantage to republicans.
frances lichtman
The efficiency gap of the Palm map is a reason to reject it outright.
S Jackson
This palm map doesn’t achieve the partisan fairness for the purpose intended. It greatly shortchanges the Ypsilanti community. Please consider this outcome.
Chuck Wilbur
This map is unfair. It does nothing to eliminate gerrymandering. Cherry and Linden are superior maps. If we are just going to adopt unfair maps, what is the point of this whole exercise.
Ruth Murphy
Chippewa County doesn’t need to be split, It would unfairly split the tribal population. They are already at a disadvantage.
Cheryl D Hayes
Error in my previous comment. Red, not green. Palm is extremely biased. Cherry and Linden are much better.
Chris Andrews
Palm is a terrible map, very unfair. It locks in Republican majorities. Please approve CHERRY or LINDEN isntead. The party with the most votes should win the most seats. That's how democracy is supposed to work!
Randa Cain
I urge the commission to vote against the Palm map. It has the most partisan bias of all the maps offered. Partisan fairness was one of, if not THE top issue, for voters of the MICRC.
Mark Zacharda
This map should be SCRAPPED! It's the worst in terms of partisan fairness. The party that wins a majority vote state-wide in the statehouses should control them. In no circumstance should a party get, say, 45% of the vote state-wide and be able to control one (or both) state houses. Palm oil sucks. Palm map sucks, dump it!
Carl Morrison
This map is so far away from what I expected from the nonpartisan redistricting commission when I voted for the ballot initiative to form it.
George S Taylor
This is not a good representation of the voters in our area
D Pond
Please vote against this map. None of the maps achieve partisan fairness, and this map is the least fair. Please remember the reasons you decided to be a Commissioner when you vote. Partisan fairness benefits everyone.
Charles Henry
The Palm Senate map should not be considered by the commission as a fair map. You can do better certainly. I prefer the Linden map.
Scott Bunce
This appears very biased and does not provide a level of representation that is not skewed towards a single party.
Barbara Lucier
This is the most disappointing proposed map. Every voter I have talked with from both parties wants more competition so that voters can choose office holders who will be more representative of their constituents.
Katharine Shishkovsky
These maps are unfair and do not achieve partisan fairness. Please do NOT adopt the Palm maps. The citizens who voted in the MICRC wanted partisan fairness!
Cory
This map is very bad and very partisan in favor of Republicans. The 22nd district to the west of me is a perfect example of a pro-Republican gerrymander.
Rosa Holliday
This Palm Senate map is unacceptable. It's gerrymandering favoring the Republicans. This is where we are currently with Republicans drawn maps. Please Commissioners, vote no on this map.
Lisa DiRado
Do not pick this map. The partisan fairness is the worst of all the maps you have submitted.
Michael Wiese
The Palm map is unfair. This map leans the farthest to the RIGHT of all the draft map proposals. Of the 15 draft maps being considered by the MICRC, the Palm State Senate map is the worst. Palm has the highest republican bias of all the maps and would be little improvement over what we had under the previous republican gerrymander. Palm is an extremely unfair map!
KAREN T SANTELLI
This is an extremely unfair map! Why is this even being considered!
KAREN T SANTELLI
Cascade Township is Metropolitan! It should not be drawn with Rural areas, it needs to be included with the Greater Metro Grand Rapids area.
KAREN T SANTELLI
This is an obvious attempt at gerrymandering. Metropolitan areas are deliberately drawn with Rural inclusion. There are no Communities of Interest representation!
Christine Strickling
The Palm Map is the most unfair map offered. It is has little change over the current gerrymandered map, and goes against the aims of the law that this commission should be following.
Trisha Spaulding
I voted to support the redistributing effort to end gerrymandering by both parties. This proposal takes gerrymandering to a new level. Please do not support it.
Karla Paterson
I appreciate the hard work this committee has had to do, but please keep at it. This palm plan does not stay true to the objective of not giving priority to any political party. Please make our elected officials work for our votes not expect to win outright.
Thomas H Carey
Palm is too similar to previous distracting, unfairly privileges Republicans.
Emily S Kallunki-Pasternak
The Palm map is extremely unfair and would be very little improvement over the current heavily gerrymandered map. This whole process was voted into being because voters want fair maps. The party with the platform that attracts most voters statewide should win the majority of seats. Our maps need to serve this function --representative democracy. Thank you for your work!
Susan Nicholas
This Palm map is very unfair. Please vote against it.
BRIDGET P FOX
This map is grossly bias. It clearly gives Republicans an unfair advantage. I know the MICRC can and must do better. Please throw this map out.
Dan Hoogterp
This map is too partisan. Please vote against it.
Linda J Pell
Please vote against this very partisan biased map
Marshall THOMSEN
There are better schemes. The Linden map treats southeast Michigan more fairly.
Linda Bischak Etter
The Palm map is not a fair map. Please vote NO on Palm.
Joel Ombry
Please reject the Palm map. It is the most biased in favor of Republicans. There are choices that do a better job of maintaining communities of interest (eg. Linden) without as much partisan bias.
Jeffrey B Halter
Surely, you can do better! I've voted in Washtenaw County for nearly 40 years. We need better, balanced representation.
Lawrence Rucker
To similar to current voter map
Gerald Edward Lang
Free and Fair Elections
Amelia Hefferlin
I voted for the redistricting initiative because I want a fair system instead of favoring one party over another through gerrymandered districts. This plan is the least fair of all of the proposals and runs counter to the spirit of the Michiganders who voted to reform the system. I urge you to reject this plan and to adopt one which is more fair to all voters.
Mary Kaven-Barron
This map is not neutral and should not be chosen. Please vote no on this map!
Lauren Lisi
When I collected signatures for the creation of an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission everyone who signed that petition signed it because they wanted Fair Districts. This is the least fair map of all maps. Do you saddle us with this map for 10 years.
Catherine Gramze
Do not vote for this map. It is another gerrymander designed to keep the Republican minority population in control of the legislature.
Robert Ziel
This plan fails the neutrality objective for redistributing. Please do not choose this plan.
Theresa Pearce
Most unfair of all senate maps. Please do not choose this one.
Judith Marie Daubenmier
This map is the most unfair of all three of them. It preserves the Republican edge so that they can win fewer votes statewide than the other party and still win most seats. That's now why people created your commission. We want partisan fairness!
Elizabeth Ann Alexander
The PALM Senate map is NOT a fair and unbiased map. This map should not be chosen.
Gloria A Brooks
The Palm map has the highest efficiency gap at 6.1 and a nearly 6% lopsided margin. This map should not be adopted.
Susan M. Diliberti
I find this map to be the most unfair map of all the maps. Please do not choose this map.
Anita Lamour
This map is biased and favors a Republicans statewide. Mix it up so a Democrat could win here.
Paul McAdams
This map is not as fair as others. I hope you reject this option.
marie joppich
this is not a fair map
Deborah Parker
This map heavily favors the Republicans. Communities of Interest is really code for continue the Gerrymandering. We must mix it up so that each party must work to win the election. To do this we can not put everyone with the same interest in the same district. We are looking for even splits. Thank you Deb Parker
John P. Lieto
This map is so unfair! I know the committee can do a better job than this. Please don't consider this!
Jon G. LaSalle
My previous entry of support IS A MISTAKE. I actually believe this map is awful, and fails on many levels including partisan fairness--there is none.
Gwen Hejna
Palm is by far the worst, with large Republican bias, out of all 15 draft maps.
Marci Welford
I dislike this map, it has the least partisan fairness.
Loida Tapia
This map is unfair because it cuts through many communities of interest, and it's unfair on the partisan measures.
Charles Tobin LaVoy
This just looks like more partisan gerrymandering again. I thought the whole point was to have a map that's fair?
Ruth Ziel
I’m terribly dissatisfied in the commission putting forth this map. These maps were to be neutral. This is clearly not based on it’s scoring.
Mark Zacharda
This map should be tossed, it's the WORST at partisan fariness, which voters said they wanted when the overwhelming approved Prop. 2 in 2018 to create the MICRC and take the map drawing away from interested partisans. Thank you.
Gerald A Payment
this map horrible
Jeff Towner
This does not serve the purpose of keeping communities of interest together. It exacerbates the partisan imbalance. It does not represent partisan fairness, which is the reason the Commission was established to avoid. Not a fair map.
Marjorie Anna Tursak
Very partisan map, therefore unfair. Sink it. It is worthless.
Jennifer Jones Barnes
Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor should be separate. For 40 years I have called Saline Junior Ann Arbor. They should be in the same district. Dexter & Chelsea are very similar to much of western and southern Ann Arbor. They should be connected. The I94 corridor between Ann Arbor and Jackson has communities that share familial and employment ties that reach through Washtenaw county to western Wayne county. This map does not serve the purpose of keeping communities of interest together and it only serves to worsen the partisan imbalances that this endeavor was meant to avoid.
diane chielens
This map is not fair. Of all the maps, this is the worst for partisan fairness.
John Braamse
This map does not reflect partisan fairness
Tad Wysor
The Palm map does the poorest job of achieving partisan fairness. Please recognize this and reject this map. Thank you.
Tonya Ann Cole
This map is unacceptable, it does not create a diverse voting pool, it separates the ecomonic classes and is not equitable.
Cheryl Jones
Palm map unfairly packs Ann Arbor into a single district. This disregards the wishes of the Ann Arbor community, me.
Kirsten Herold
this map does not achieve nonpartisan fairness. Packing all Dems into one district is the exact opposite of what the referendum on the commision intended, and contrary to the will of the people of Ann Arbor.
Edward Ian Robinson
This map is highly biased in terms of partisan fairness. It packs all of the Ann Arbor community into one district, contrary to the wishes of most of this community. If we want to be true to the purpose of this Commission, we cannot use this map!
Nikkia Hurlbert
I do not support this map. It does not accurately represent democratic votes in Jackson County. It has terrible bipartisan fairness.
Pat Ulanowicz
This map does not reflect fair representation of COI. Do not vote for this map.
Sheila Pedersen
unfair to split the city of Dowagiac
Donna Farris
Fairness of this map is worst for Michigan compared to all the others. This will be just as bad as current Senate district maps. Area around Grand Rapids is divided well. Please do not select this map because of the unfairness for Michigan.
Charise Martin
Vote No of Palm Map. This map is not a representation of partisan fairness. This outline will not benefit all communities involved.
Robert C. Anderson
This Palm Map does not achieve partisan fairness.
Michael Jewell
This map is the worst of the 3. It is complete gerrymandering. I thought the commission was supposed to be bipartisan. Very disappointed
Cary Fleischer
This map is subject to heavy partisan bias. Please do not select this map
Nina Dodge Abrams
Palm map is the most non-partisan, it does not meet the VRA standards, and delibertly packs Washtenaw. District 6 is a poor collection of different community of interests with no comman anything and leaves all towns, cities, religion, and minorities without fair representation.
Teri G Frantz
This looks like a gerrymandered mess. Too many little bits and pieces.
Michael Sklar
This map looks like the product of a traditional gerrymandering expert when it comes to Washtenaw County, where I lived and was active in the community for over a dozen years. It has the highest partisan lean of any of the state Senate maps. And it undermines majority-minority district representation in the state Senate.
Michael Sklar
This map is unacceptable to me. It has the highest partisan bias of any of the state Senate maps. It does not meet the Commission's responsibility to create competitive districts.
Dr. Melanie A. Hartman
This map is the worst partisan fairness measures of any proposed state senate maps.
Mary Ann Fontana
this map is very unfair with regards to partisan fairness.
Emily
Palm is an extremely unfair map. Please VOTE NO on Palm. Palm has the highest Republican bias of all the maps.
lori A Boyce
This is the worst overall map submitted in terms of fairness.
Debbie Rosenman
This map does NOT refelct partisan fairness. Bloomfield Township is also all broken apart as well.
William Asher
I have advocated for partisan fairness in my remarks to commission hearings, and in comments on the commission website. This map fails by all measures of partisan fairness. Please do not approve this map.
Vaughn Derderian
This map the worst partisan fairness measures of any proposed state senate map.
Anne Wallin
While it is nice to see a tir-city district of Midland/Bay City/Saginaw, this map is the most partisan of the choices. I am very interested in competitive districts to drive elected officials to represent voters broadly versus sitting in "safe" seats. Choose the Linden map which is more competitive. I appreciate your work and how well you have listened to comments from the tri-city area, but this map misses the mark.
Karen Weideman
This map looks like it was designed to guarantee Republican majorities. Does not come close to being fair.
Dorothy Munson
Absolutely please vote no on this map. This is the worst of the maps for fairness. Similar to the maps currently being used for the Michigan Senate.
Jennifer Mabrey
Commission was formed to free Michigan of unfair partisan bias, this map is unacceptable.
Francine Darling
This map limits fair voter choice for Senate in our Upper Michigan area. I VOTE NO on Palm map
Asia Pratt
This map is unfair. This outline would not benefit district 1. Vote No on Palm.
Claire Ott
This map does not come close to being fair.
Marie E Giese
This is the worst option. Does not keep Lake MI communities together
ALAN FOX
Very unfair map designed to ensure Republican control of the Senate regardless of vote totals. Exactly what Voters Not Politicians was created to avoid.
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.
CATHERINE BROCKINGTON
This map splits our small school district in two by assigning Allegan County, Laketown Township to Holland City. This map is not suitable.
Art
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
NOT GOOD!
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)
ROBERT T SWICKER
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
ROBERT T SWICKER
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.
n/a
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.
Robert
This map packs Washtenaw County voters together and is a Republican gerrymander. DO NOT ADOPT THIS UNFAIR MAP!!!
Steve
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.
PHILIP F MARTINEZ
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.
KAREN T SANTELLI
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.
Nancy
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.
n/a
1
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.
TIMOTHY DEBLAEY
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.
Ellie
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.
Zinnia
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.
Alice
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.
Stephanie
This map blatantly doubles the partisan bias and is detrimental to communities of interest
Ryan
This map increases partisan bias and hurts communities of interest. The commission needs to prioritize partisan fairness. This map does not do this.
Conner
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.