My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
Hickory
Loading geometries...
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
District 8
District 9
District 10
District 11
District 12
District 13
District 14
District 15
District 16
District 17
District 18
District 19
District 20
District 21
District 22
District 23
District 24
District 25
District 26
District 27
District 28
District 29
District 30
District 31
District 32
District 33
District 34
District 35
District 36
District 37
District 38
District 39
District 40
District 41
District 42
District 43
District 44
District 45
District 46
District 47
District 48
District 49
District 50
District 51
District 52
District 53
District 54
District 55
District 56
District 57
District 58
District 59
District 60
District 61
District 62
District 63
District 64
District 65
District 66
District 67
District 68
District 69
District 70
District 71
District 72
District 73
District 74
District 75
District 76
District 77
District 78
District 79
District 80
District 81
District 82
District 83
District 84
District 85
District 86
District 87
District 88
District 89
District 90
District 91
District 92
District 93
District 94
District 95
District 96
District 97
District 98
District 99
District 100
District 101
District 102
District 103
District 104
District 105
District 106
District 107
District 108
District 109
District 110
2020 Census PL 94.171 Data
Loading...
Joel Ibbotson
Just like I commented on the Pine V5 and Magnolia maps, I dislike that this map splits Barry County into 3 districts. The people of Barry County are very much like minded with many of the same goals. We should be represented as such. We should be represented in a way we can unify our voice to implement effective change the way we have been.
Frederick Beiermeister
943738646596981061091101071081031041059987951008688919297101102899093666768697071778081828384853639404142791112303435434452535559606263727475767845507346272822931323315242526473484914567891013141617181920212223515456575861 Frederick Beiermeister Farmington and Farmington Hills should be connected fin a District. We share many civic assets and nothing is gained by separating our representation. Hickory is the best for us of a weak lot.
Drew Beckman
While I do not like the fact that Sterling Heights is split up into three different districts, this map is the fairest when it comes to proportionality of seats. This map is probably the best House map, although it is far from perfect.
Robin Knaack
Don’t chop up Allegan county like this it makes no sense unless some gerrymandering is going on.
Sharon Houck
Hickory is a BAD Map. As with the other maps, it does not keep Jackson County whole and combines us to Ann Arbor. Please DO NOT choose this map.
John Chapman
No good choice for house, not this one.
Chris Wingate
Too much splitting in order to get more votes for Dems. The only map in this category to get my approval is Magnolia.
Jennifer Rosenberg
None of these maps have achieved a fair and balanced solution.
Nathan Halder
This district is clearly Gerrymandered to favor dems. Albion and Battle Creek have nothing in common. Including the Battle Creek suburb of Emmett Township instead would make so much more sense. I have lived in Battle Creek my entire life and have only gone to Albion twice.
Kim K Lindsey
This map is flawed in so many ways. Please use the Magnolia map.
Josephine Rood
Please keep working to draw state house maps that are truly fair. Hickory is the best so far, but still gives an undue advantage to the Republican Party. Thank you so much for all your efforts, Commissioners! I hope that MICRC's work will be a model for the nation.
Stephen J Young
Allegan County belongs all together, not diced up into multiple parts and pieces.
Penny K Wingate
This terribly splits my neighboring counties and does not keep communities of interest together. Go with Magnolia.
Jay R Taylor
Terrible split of Oakland County just to please and reward Democrat strongholds. Need to keep large cities intact and have smaller townships intact.
M. Radtke
This map is a terrible gerrymander. Sterling Heights is the 4th largest city in the state and is sliced and diced beyond all recognition. This makes no sense.
Constance Lippert
Sadly, this is the best of the worse when attempting to get maps for the State House that don't favor one political party over the other. All of the House maps need more work and I hope that we can get to a better 50/50 split of political parties so that the minority of voters don't continue to dominate the Michigan House.
Abbie Egherman
This map like the other state house maps unfairly distorts the legislative body in Lansing by giving an unfair advantage to a single party and makes our state appear much more partisan than it actually is. We live in a purple state and our legislative body should reflect that.
Marunur R Choudhury
On behalf of APIA Vote-MI, we ask the commission to spend more time revising the state house maps. We recognize that the MICRC has already worked very hard, but we need to spend more time to ensure fairness as we will be stuck with these maps for 10 years
Nancy M Howk
Same as Magnolia. Battle Creek has nothing in common with the district identified. Should have expanded directly around Battle Creek Area and combined the balance into an area. Feels like cancelling voices here! Please DO NOT Support this map. Thank you.
Carol A Sullivan
I urge the commission to resume work on these maps to get them closer to zero political bias. None of the state house maps meets partisan fairness standards. The map with the most partisan fairness is Szetela's map and the Midland-Bay City district makes sense. If this map is not available for the initial vote, and the commission refuses to improve the partisan fairness scores of the maps, I reluctantly support Hickory as it has the best partisan fairness scores of the 3 collaborative maps.
Suzanne L Eastman
This is so unfair. Go back to the drawing board.
Sarah T
On behalf of APIA Vote-MI, we urge the commission to spend more time on the house maps to ensure that they are as fair as possible. The MICRC was established in part to right the wrongs that gerrymandering has caused to Michigan, and if we proceed further with the state house maps as is, then gerrymandering will continue to damage the political process in our state for at least 10 more years (with the impact being felt the most in our communities of color). I know that the commission has worked very hard on these maps, but we need to spend more time. Continued effort to ensure fairness is absolutely worth the extra effort, because, again, we will have to live with these maps for 10 years.
Sarah Torres
This map is not fair to the tri-cities at all! Please follow most other maps and keep all parts of Midland, Bay City, and Saginaw together where they belong. Otherwise, you are giving into the gerrymandering of the past. This map does NOT represent partisan fairness!
Susan H. Gross
The MOST important goal of redistricting is to make sure that the party getting more votes in an election gets more seats. This is not the case for the maps drawn for the Michigan House of Representatives based on 2020 election data.
Betty Jane Palm
This map is unfair because it does not give equal weight to all people voting - it should provide partisan fairness and fair weight.
Melanie A Kurdys
It is so disappointing to see the obvious gerymandering in these maps. Allegan County is again split into 6 districts, breaking up our community of interest into fragments. Please go back to the drawing board. Surely you can do better.
Donni Steele
Although it is appreciated that Orion Township and Village are kept whole, taking pieces of Oakland Twp, Auburn Hills Bloomfield Hills and Bloomfield is converging "un-like" communities together. Orion community aligns most similarly to whole communities to the North, East and West not South.
Mark A Evans
Please don’t create a Lake Shore districts. I understand the Lake shore has unique challenges. however, everyone in the Allegan County has a stake in this lakeshore. Allegan County is very cut up. County lines need to be respected as best they can be. (All these maps have same issue for Allegan)
Chuck Wright
District 48 being in Livingston county and Ann Arbor make no sense. Only some of these people have thoughts and actions that are a polar opposite of normal common sense. There is no way that this group can have fair representation.
Molly Morrissey
Of the three collaborative maps this one is the best because it has the best overall partisian fairness BUT I would encourage you to continue to work on the House maps. This map does a good job in the Detroit area because it contains the changes that Kellom and Curry suggested but in Midland it will just be a safe Republican seat and will not lead to good representation.
Sylvia Jania
Please listen to the voters.
sylvia Jania
Please make fair the maps that you are changing.
Frank L Armock
None of the maps are fair especially when we the people voted for partisan fairness.
Frank L Armock
This map doesn't seem fair. Let's make it truly bipartisan
Frank L Armock
This map is not fair since it gives a minority of voters a majority voice in voting.
Bryan Yakel
I support the Magnolia map. I did not choose to live in Ann Arbor, Novi, Wixom or any of the other places the Hickory map includes. There is no rational that can be given for breaking up Livingston county into multiple pieces. Livingston county has had a unique identity that goes back many years and it is that has kept a large number of long time residences. I am in favor of the Magnolia map.
Carol Yakel
We moved into our community because we liked just the way it was. I would prefer that it never change. That being said, I do not like that Hickory version for our future.
Pamela S. Ovshinsky
I have lived in the 107th for over 32 years and I was very hopeful that a nonpartisan redistricting commission would redraw Michigan’s districts in a principled manner that would reflect the needs of the residents in our various geographic areas in our state without bias and/or giving advantage to one political party over another. This map for the 107th does not seem to meet these standards and deserves to be reworked. This is a complicated and nuanced strategic effort since one district cannot be redrawn with it not affecting the boundaries of the surrounding districts. I’m wondering if the commission had access to professional map planners and demographic analysts to look at the whole state and identify factors such as population, geographic features etc. and then also took each district individually and identified the issues that needed to be addressed in each district and how they can better be redressed. It does not seem to be clear what they were attempting to redress in any of the new redistricting map as evidenced by the redrawn 107th district. What were the principles and goals in play when they continued to include the both the areas below the bridge and over the bridge in this district when there is little connection among residents in these areas in our daily lives? Again, this is a monumental process and at this stage should be considered only a first draft. After the comment period is over, I urge the commission to take into consideration the various pertinent concerns and redraw the districts with new or clarified goals and principles in mind. I think we can and must do better for the people of our great state! Thank you.
April Sanders
The districts need to continue to be refined. Combining portions of the UP and LP is not a good idea. The UP has their own challenges and Northern Lower have our challenges. Petoskey as the highest populated city in the district should not overshadow rural needs. Please work at further separating the areas. Thank you! April
Allen Salyer
Keep all of Troy, Michigan together, not split and not any part of Troy in Macomb County.
Cheryl Staats
this map is not fair since it gives a minority of voters a majority voice in voting
Cheryl Staats
this map is not fair since it gives a minority of voters a majority voice in voting
Cheryl Staats
this map is not fair since it gives a minority of voters a majority voice in voting
Cheryl Staats
this map is not fair since it gives a minority of voters a majority voice in voting
Audrey McMullen
District 107 seems to represent a lot of water, then a lot of rural area over two different peninsulas, and two major population centers: Petoskey and Harbor Springs. Issues affecting urban areas are often at odds with rural issues. The UP really is very far distant from the LP in miles, demographics, and culture. Representation is deeply complicated by our geography. The urban-rural divide also makes representation problematic. This map could use tweaking.
DAVID H FERRIS
Stop the gerrymandering because it contributes to political extremism and infighting. Use regular shaped boundaries regardless of party affiliation.
DAVID H FERRIS
Stop the gerrymandering because it contributes to political extremism and infighting. Use regular shaped boundaries regardless of party affiliation.
DAVID H FERRIS
Stop the gerrymandering because it contributes to political extremism and infighting. Use regular shaped boundaries regardless of party affiliation.
DAVID H FERRIS
Stop the gerrymandering because it contributes to political extremism and infighting. Use regular shaped boundaries regardless of party affiliation.
DAVID H FERRIS
Stop the gerrymandering because it contributes to political extremism and infighting. Use regular shaped boundaries regardless of party affiliation.
Carolyn L. Bourland
District 107 should all be below the bridge. It is very difficult for any Representative to campaign and represent citizens above and below the bridge. Each area has many of its own problems. Many of these Districts look very much the same as before we worked so hard to get signatures and the issue on the ballot. The Commission MUST make changes to insure the same political party does not continue to dominate in these Districts while they are the minority party. The minority should not be able to CONTINUE with the same control as before this issue was voted on by the people of Michigan. We voted for VOTERS NOT POLITICIANS to choose their Representatives! We want a free and fair election every time!
Edwin Coy Jr
Why is Chelsea getting combined with Jackson? If you live in the area around Chelsea, you consider yourself living in Chelsea. Chelsea should go in District 47 and take Ann Arbor out of 47.
Edwin Coy Jr
Why is Ann Arbor Split up? They should be their own District. Instead it looks like you're trying to spread Ann Arbor Residents influence into the surrounding rural areas.
Edwin Coy Jr
This district is primarily Rural. Putting in part of Ann Arbor is Clearly trying to influence the outcome. To have a representative that lives in the City represent this rural district is no better than how the maps that were used in the past.
Kelly Jones
Troy is the largest and most diverse city in Oakland County. This is a terrible map - that would split a portion of Troy into Macomb County. This is not representative of our city. This is not fairly drawn for the community of Troy
Cheryl D Hayes
Hickory is the best of the State House maps however it favors the Republican party, which is unacceptable. Please give us a House map that eliminates partisan bias.
David Gruner
this mapping gives a minority of voters a majority voice
David Gruner
this mapping gives a minority of voters a majority voice
David Gruner
this mapping gives a minority of voters a majority voice
David Gruner
this mapping gives a minority of voters a majority voice
David Gruner
this mapping gives a minority of voters a majority voice
David Gruner
this mapping gives a minority of voters a majority voice
Amy Vail
All the house maps are unfair. This is the best of the lot, but less unfair is still unfair. Please redraw better maps that do not give majority voice to minority voters.
Gretchen Gruner
This map is not fair. It gives a majority voice to a minority of voters. Please redraw this map.
Jessica
This map makes no sense for Livingston county. Splitting the community up is not in the best interest of its residents.
John E Lewis
The magnolia map is a better plan of consolidated communities.
Carrie Hatcher-Kay
Hickory Map is the least of the bad maps for the House, but we beg you to pause and start over on the House maps. We do not want unfair maps. The party with the least votes will get the most seats. This is not the purpose of your commission. PLEASE start over on the House maps!!
Carol Bardenstein
While this map is an improvement on previous ones, it is still disproportionate to 'one person, one vote', and as long as we are going to all the trouble of redrawing these maps, for this one time in a decade, we should do it right to make maps with no bias.
Richard Burney
Unacceptable. Continues current maldistribution rather than undoing the gerrymandering of the last 10 years.
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"!
Dave Morgan
Why would a school district be split is two? Marshall and Albion share the same school district. Why would they not be kept together? Also Battle Creek, Emmett, Pennfield, Bedford, and Springfield share Police and Fire with Mutual Aid, they all are members of BCATS, and AMASA, share the same Library, Sewer system, Chamber of Commerce and on and on. Albion and Battle Creek share nothing in common including having separate Chambers of Commerce, Separate NAACP Branches, not to mention with this map you have to drive through another district to get from one side to the other. This map is obviously gerrymandered and stretched and is no different than what currently exist which says enough sing the district was one used as an example of a gerrymandered district and a reason why this commission was needed.
Allison McFarland Wilcox
This map is the best of a bad lot. Partisan fairness overall is better than the other proposed maps, but none of them are really good enough. And keeping Midland county whole, with part of Gladwin, makes district 95 a secure Republican seat, not a competitive district. Of the the three maps, though, this one (Hickory) has the best districts for the Detroit area and improves representation for minority voters in that area. However, please consider trying again to improve partisan fairness overall.
Sue Macrellis
Seems a tired refrain at this point, but here is yet another map slicing and dicing Jackson County and reaching its tentacles into Ann Arbor. And again it gives the residents of Jackson County four representatives. I do not like this map.
Carrie Hatcher-Kay
This is the least bad of the House Maps. It does NOT have partisan fairness. You did some good things unpacking Ann Arbor and Lansing here, but it's not fair for the rest of the state. PLEASE take your time and draw another map. I am sorry that means it will activate another 45 days when you are eager to be done, but it is important we work hard now to get partisan fairness for 10 years. Thank you!
Virginia Preuss
This is the best of a really bad set of choices for the House map. Maps that are less unfair, are still unfair. This map (and all other house maps) lack partisan fairness. Seat count of 53D to 57R gives the majority of seats to the minority of voters
Nomi Joyrich
This is the best of the House maps, but it still has no partisan fairness. I like that it unpacks Lansing and Ann Arbor. I like that it has VRA districts, This does the best job with COI, but still needs to be reworked.
Adam Nash
After due consideration, and with respect to the commissioners, all of the proposed state house maps suck. Please give it another try, and please bear in mind the efficiency gap metric when interpreting "A disproportionate advantage to a political party shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness."
Sally Beyer
This is Gerrymandering in the allegan county. The entire chicago owned lakeshore is pulled together. This needs to stop. This will break up the Allegan county unfairly. This is carving out and I do not agree with this catepillaring method of the lakeshore district. We belong together as we have always done well before.
Bill Zdeblick
Allegan County belongs together. I do not agree with the 'caterpillar' district down the lakeshore. This does not represent my community. Looks like the Chicago owners on the lake have the power.
Ciara Lowe
This is the most fair map of the State House maps but it still has partisan bias. Work still needs to be done especially in the Detroit area.
Judy Oake
Dislike this map. It assumes that the COIs of Chelsea are more aligned with Jackson County. After living in this community for over 40 years, I'd argue Chelsea is more aligned with the COIs in your proposed district 47. Please reconsider so Chelsea is more accurately reflected.
Karen J Obits
It's hard to enthusiastically endorse any of the commission's collaborative House maps because none come close enough to achieving the goal of holding in healthy tension your constitutional criteria of COIs and partisan fairness. This map does result in the best partisan fairness scores of your collaborative House maps so it gets my "OK but it could/should be better" comment on the partisan fairness criterion. From a review of the comments on this map I think I see some thumbs-up approving comments from various COIs that are representative of historically marginalized communities - which is a very high priority for me even though I can't speak intelligently on their behalf as I am not part of one of those marginalized communities. My Big Ask is that the Commission find a way to incorporate comments that honor these 2 goals I speak to here in this comment into your final House map(s).
Victoria Gutowski
This map does not meet the criteria for partisan fairness required by the Michigan Constitution. Please keep working. Other groups like the AFL and Promote the Vote have submitted maps that are much fairer. Please make my vote count in the next election and make politicians work for citizenry and not big money.
Marie J Schwan
Delta Township is a suburb of Lansing, and we share interests with that voting block. Do not include us with rural areas such as Charlotte, Vermontville, etc. This makes no sense.
Paula McCloy
Eaton County cannot have more than 2 state reps to represent us. This is not manageable with a Barry-Eaton Health Dept. We need to be linked with Barry County in some way, and NOT include regions like Delta Township who have completely different demographics and needs.
Nomi Joyrich
ALL of the House maps are inherently unfair and desperately need to be reworked. That being said, Hickory is the BEST OF THE BAD.
Marla Weber
Allegan County belongs together. I do not agree with the 'caterpillar' district down the lakeshore. This does not represent my community.
Tamilyn Poll
Allegan County needs to be kept as one district. Carving it into different districts isn't in the best interest of our residents. Leave the lakeshore in the Allegan County district. We don't want other districts representing our valuable lakeshore resource. Carving up our county for political gain is gerrymandering and we won't accept that.
Tamilyn Poll
Allegan County needs to remain as one district. We need our lakeshore to be included. Carving up counties into multiple districts is gerrymandering.
Cherylyn Conklin-Reed
This map does not keep Allegan county together. Existing geographical lines and counties should be kept together as much as possible. Spreading districts across multple counties and creating fingerling districts like the one at the lakeshore of Allegan county is purely political and gerrymandering. Keep Allegan county together!
Ruth A Kell
The only acceptable House Map for my district is Pine V5, because it does not split the city of Troy. Troy is a COI and should not be divided, least of all to be combined with part of Macomb County, which has different business needs.
Sara Fink
I appreciate how difficult meeting all the criteria is for each kind of map, but fairness is a vital criterion which none of these House maps meet. The MICRC has met that criterion in its State Senate and Congressional map proposals, but none of the proposed State House maps are fair in apportioning the most House seats to the party which wins the most votes, based on the last two Presidential elections. Instead all of the maps have a strong lean toward one party, though that lean is slightly less pronounced than currently enacted maps. I'm sure the Commission can do better.
Elizabeth Buckner
I’m so disappointed that this is the best anyone could come up with. Why would anyone think dividing a community is a good idea. Farmington and Farmington Hills is one community.
VANESSA MULNIX
Ridiculous dissection of Jackson County. Not based on COI.
James Bantjes Jr.
The commission is intentionally carving up counties into multiple districts for political gain. This is gerrymandering! Leave it alone!
Denise Thornton
This is not good for Livingston County.
Katharine Shishkovsky
The purpose of the Commission was to draw maps that were fair and as close to being 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats as possible. It can be done. House Representative elections in 2018 and 2020 and the Mayoral race in 2019 had very narrow margins, which indicate to me that Livonia is a purple city. Keep Livonia in one House District! Please work to make these maps with partisan fairness as a primary goal.
Ronald Emaus
This map does not represent the voices of the people. It is partisan and non-competitive in its district compositions. None of the house district maps are balanced. A new map should be constructed to provide batter balance. It can be done.
Katharine Shishkovsky
I have testified before the Commission twice in person, at least twice on Zoom, and written several comments over the last few months. I have been ignored. I am not too concerned about the State Senate Districts, but I am very unhappy with Livonia being split into three House Districts for several reasons: the citizens in Livonia will be confused about who their Representatives are; the Mayor will have a problem trying to work out problems with House Reps, especially if they don't agree on an issue; the City Clerk will have a hell of a time trying to make sure that all citizens get accurate ballots at election time, much less make sure enough ballots are printed and are accurate. In addition, Livonia has little in common with the City of Detroit -- particularly the Brightmoor neighborhood of Detroit. How are the Brightmoor residents going to be fairly represented? The Brightmoor residents deserve representation. Where do you think candidates and electeds will come from? From the places with resources, that is where, and that means Livonia and Redford, whose residents will have the money and volunteers to support candidates. The residents of the City of Detroit will not be represented adequately in all of these House Districts where Districts are being gerrymandered with suburban and city populations. Who do you think the elected Representatives will listen to? The people with the money, that's who. And that does not mean the people in Brightmoor and other blighted areas of Detroit that are drawn into districts with suburban areas. I want partisan fairness as well -- but the people of Detroit deserve representation which focuses on their issues.
Dan and Chris Davis
• Allegan County belongs together. I do not agree with the 'caterpillar' district down the lakeshore. This does not represent my community.
Anna Hicks
This map is blatantly partisan. So much for being impartial. This is a ridiculous carve out of Jackson County. Shame. Please select the Magnolia map as it is the least partisan.
Lori Ross
The revised house map does not serve the City of Flint well, as our city should not be placed in a single district. Today, Flint has two districts (the 34th and the 49th) with the 34th guaranteeing Flint representation and the 49th allowing a second opportunity for representation. The map proposed here completely forecloses the chance for two representatives, instead packing all of Flint into a single district which also would have the effect of creating a clear partisan gerrymander since Flint is an overwhelmingly Democratic city. The commission should look to submitted map P7273 which would allow for Flint to have confidence in one seat with the opportunity for a second seat. Flint should not have to suffer another decade in a partisan gerrymander. Please do not pack all of our city into a single district.
Essence Wilson
Flint should not be grouped into one single district. Doing so creates a clear partisan gerrymander that packs Democratic voters into a single district, something that this commission was created to prevent. “Keeping Flint Whole” did not and does not mean to keep the city in a single state house district. Rather, it means ensuring that the city has a chance to elect a representative of its own. This can be accomplished in submitted map P7273 while also allowing for an opportunity for a second seat as Flint has today. Please, revise this map to ensure that Flint has a clear opportunity for representation with a chance for a second representative as we have today, and please do not pack Flint into a single district. We don’t need 10 more years of a partisan gerrymander.
Janice Sovak
All of the State House maps are unfair. This one (Hickory) is better than the others, but still unfair from partisan perspective. Commissioners, please keep working on this to achieve real fairness. You can do it, as you've done with US Congressional and Mich State Senate maps.
Russell Jennings
I dislike this map.
Gregory Newman, City Clerk
A section of the City of Grand Ledge is separated from the rest of the City. This will create a precinct split in Ward 3. Please consider placing the entire City of Grand Ledge in a single State House district.
Mary Anne Hohmann
Thank you for your work on the US Congressional and State Senate maps! Please continue working on the State House maps for as long it takes to make them too as fair and non-partisan as the Congressional and State House maps. It is so important that for the next 10 years, Michigan citizens can be confident that when they vote, their candidate for the State House has an fair shot at winning. Thank you in advance for your time and continued hard work on the State House maps.
Steve Revor
The only reason to break up Allegan County is for explicit, partisan reason and is the definition of gerrymandering. Keep Allegan Co. as one district.
Katie Juros
Breaking up Allegan County is a partisan way to gerrymander
Leah Folkert
Keep Allegan Co. together!!
David Tharp
The Hickory map is definitely not one which supports the interest of our community. My family does not see how this map could possibly be the right one. Our interests and activities are in Brighton area, we do nothing in the city of Ann Arbor. Genoa Township is supported by the Brighton Fire Department and attends the Brighton Area Schools. This map does not represent our needs or interests and would separate us from our true community.
Lisa
There have been numerous requests from the residents of Pontiac, Waterford and Auburn Hills regarding this messed up district, why have you not fixed it? Pontiac and AH residents have asked that they be combined and Waterford has asked to remain whole, with all communities noting that the current layout does NOT reflect any of the local COIs. Why are you splitting the communities and combining them in unusual and ineffectual ways? Appears to be laziness or partisanship, either way needs to be corrected. Fix this!
Jason B Negri
As I said in the Zoom meeting itself, Hamburg Township should properly be placed with the rest of Livingston County and not combined with Ann Arbor. This map seems more politically motivated than anything else. Use the Magnolia map!
Leslie Baker
I am strongly opposed to the Hickory Map, and I strongly support the Magnolia Map. Please keep our community whole and do not intermingle us with the city of Ann Arbor and the county of Washtenaw. We have very little in common with Ann Arbor on multiple fronts and it is not part of my Community of Interest. Furthermore, this map actually ignores my Community of Interest, which I've described in previous comments, and this current map is totally unacceptable! Again: YES to the Magnolia Map and NO to the Hickory Map! Thank you.
Aaron Haury
Among the collaborative maps, this one is the best. However, the commission is encouraged to vote to accept a new submission because each proposed House map gives the majority of seats to the minority of voters! Please Keep Working! None reflect Communities of Interest adequately.
Kevin Miedema
I really don't think having these Lake Shore districts makes sense. I understand the Lake shore has unique challenges. however everyone in the County has a stake in this lakeshore. Allegan County is very cut up. County lines need to be respected as best they can be. This map has my district being a hour + drive wide - meanwhile my neighbors in laketown township are not represented by same person. (haven't seen anything different for my distict on any of these so far)
Paul Hauglie
I dislike this map. It does not keep Jackson county whole and needlessly divides it. How do you justify Jackson county going from 2 representatives to 4? Jackson county should never be lumped into the same district as Ann Arbor, unless gerrymandering is the goal.
Paul Hauglie
I dislike this map. It does not keep Jackson county whole and needlessly divides it. How do you justify Jackson county going from 2 representatives to 4? Jackson county should never be lumped into the same district as Ann Arbor, unless gerrymandering is the goal.
Paul Hauglie
I dislike this map. It does not keep Jackson county whole and needlessly divides it. How do you justify Jackson county going from 2 representatives to 4? Jackson county should never be lumped into the same district as Ann Arbor, unless gerrymandering is the goal.
Paul Hauglie
I dislike this map. It does not keep Jackson county whole and needlessly divides it. How do you justify Jackson county going from 2 representatives to 4? Jackson county should never be lumped into the same district as Ann Arbor, unless gerrymandering is the goal.
Jared Boot
Among the collaborative maps, this one is the best. However, the commission is encouraged to vote to accept a new submission because each proposed House map gives the majority of seats to the minority of voters! Please Keep Working! None reflect Communities of Interest adequately.
Tyler Hammock
This map must be voted down, this does not keep our community whole and places us with washtenaw County and the Ann arbor area, we have absolutely nothing in common with either community. This map does not respect our community of interest. We share absolutely zero services like fire, EMS, or police with Ann arbor or washtenaw County. This map is no good, the City of Brighton, Brighton twp and Genoa must remain as one community as many who live if not most are in the Brighton school district and receive service from the Brighton Area Fire Authority. Ann Arbor has nothing in common with us.
Regina Hastings
This map makes no sense. The I 94 corridor is not a community. But that interstate highway is all this map has in common. Instead, leave Jackson Co alone.
Richard Wochoski
I'm not seeing any difference between this and the Szetlana House Map. I've spot checked 10 districts and the two maps seem the same. Splitting Troy seems like a bad idea, as does the splitting of other cities. How can a community agree on what it takes to grow and prosper when half the community is represented by different people? Every effort should be made to keep a city whole. Then use parcelling out to make up the discrepancies. I agree with most respondents to this map: try, try again.
Lindsey Brayton
This map is not balanced and unfairly represents urban areas
Katie Valencia
I do not agree with this re-districting. The 'caterpillar' district down the lakeshore does not keep Allegan county together and does not represent my community. No this is not good.
Mark Forbes
Keep Allegan County together! Preserve and respect geographical boundaries, specifically county lines The commission is intentionally carving up counties into multiple districts for political gain. This is gerrymandering! Allegan County belongs together. I do not agree with the 'caterpillar' district down the lakeshore. This does not represent my community. The only reason to break up Allegan County is for explicit, partisan reason and is the definition of gerrymandering.
Mary L Stull
The commission is intentionally carving up counties into multiple districts for political gain. This is gerrymandering!
melissa vandermeulen
Keep Allegan County together.
Cynthia Richardson
I do not like the Hickory State House map. It combines RURAL Waterloo Township/ Jackson County with much of eastern of Ann Arbor, Pinckney and west Brighton(???) which absolutely makes NO sense. Parks do not need THAT much legislation attention over day to day resident needs which is clearly the point of this map. Ann Arbor and Brighton communities have more public service offerings, widely available broadband, and public transportation. Most rural areas, like Waterloo Township, have none of these things. Rural communities, like Waterloo Township, have VERY different needs and require different legislative representation. Please use the SZETELA State House map. It better represents my community. Thank you.
Brian Boyer
This proposed map unnecessarily combines Jackson County with other neighboring areas, greatly splitting up our current Community of Interest. Please do adopt this map.
Lisa S
Please Keep Working! There are no fair MI House maps to choose from!
Doug Swartz
The Hickory State House map does not keep the counties whole. It instead combines the eastern portion of Jackson County with Washtenaw County. Magnolia and this map were the worst for Jackson County. Please do not adopt this map. The alternate Pine State House map is the better map to go with please. Thank you.
Denzel A McCampbell
You must recognize the historic imbalance of putting Detroit communities in a district with Livonia. With this map, it seems a like a great possibility that interests of Detroiters will be ignored. This is not a good map.
Kristine Yeutter
I don't agree with this map. You have gerrymandered our little county to get your "correct" number of voters at the cost of splitting communities of interest previously submitted. This violates the constitutional rules the committee agreed to abide by.
JEFFREY YEUTTER
You have split our county (Lenawee) into four house districts. This will be a nightmare for elections and our county clerk. This undermines the principle of communities of interest when you take small portions of our county and place them with other counties. This is especially true when you place townships in our rural northeast with metropolitan Washtenaw County. This map looks more gerrymandered than when the House did the redistricting,
Jonathan Levine
This map fails criterion d, no disproportionate advantage to any political party. Please ensure that the State House maps distribute representatives in line line the parties' statewide vote.
Jackie Leslie
Not a good map for Jackson County
Jennifer Biddinger
The I-94 corridor is not a community! It is an interstate Hwy that connects the community of Jackson to the community of Ann Arbor. We do not have common interests with Ann Arbor.
Allison L Brink
Allegan County belongs together. I do NOT agree with the carving out of the lakeshore. This does not represent our community, and appears to be for explicit, partisan reasons. Preserve and respect geographic boundaries, specifically by keeping county lines.
Naomi Ludman
Cass County has just received a raw deal on all these maps. Dowagiac is the only city in the county. This map carves it out and separates it from the community college in the county that is located just outside the city limits; it separates the elder housing for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians from the land that houses their administrative tribal headquarters--it's just a travesty. District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9 District 10 District 11 District 12 District 13 District 14 District 15 District 16 District 17 District 18 District 19 District 20 District 21 District 22 District 23 District 24 District 25 District 26 District 27 District 28 District 29 District 30 District 31 District 32 District 33 District 34 District 35 District 36 District 37 District 38 District 39 District 40 District 41 District 42 District 43 District 44 District 45 District 46 District 47 District 48 District 49 District 50 District 51 District 52 District 53 District 54 District 55 District 56 District 57 District 58 District 59 District 60 District 61 District 62 District 63 District 64 District 65 District 66 District 67 District 68 District 69 District 70 District 71 District 72 District 73 District 74 District 75 District 76 District 77 District 78 District 79 District 80 District 81 District 82 District 83 District 84 District 85 District 86 District 87 District 88 District 89 District 90 District 91 District 92 District 93 District 94 District 95 District 96 District 97 District 98 District 99 District 100 District 101 District 102 District 103 District 104 District 105 District 106 District 107 District 108 District 109 District 110 2020 Census PL 94.171 Data Color # Name Target Deviation Total Population NH White (Combo) NH Black (Combo) NH Native (Combo) NH Asian (Combo) NH Pac Islander (Combo) NH Other (Combo) Hispanic Voting Age Population VAP NH White (Combo) VAP NH Black (Combo) VAP NH Native (Combo) VAP NH Asian (Combo) VAP NH Pac Islander (Combo) VAP NH Other (Combo) VAP Hispanic 0 Unassign 0 0 (0%) 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 District 1 91,612 244 (0.27%) 91,856 17,678 (19.25%) 34,199 (37.23%) 1,025 (1.12%) 726 (0.79%) 120 (0.13%) 874 (0.95%) 40,347 (43.92%) 65,520 13,664 (20.85%) 26,018 (39.71%) 757 (1.16%) 540 (0.82%) 82 (0.13%) 610 (0.93%) 25,875 (39.49%) 2 District 2 91,612 -1,990 (-2.17%) 89,622 60,697 (67.73%) 11,940 (13.32%) 2,048 (2.29%) 1,443 (1.61%) 97 (0.11%) 1,207 (1.35%) 16,653 (18.58%) 69,719 49,662 (71.23%) 8,392 (12.04%) 1,593 (2.28%) 1,114 (1.6%) 63 (0.09%) 835 (1.2%) 10,881 (15.61%) 3 District 3 91,612 1,919 (2.09%) 93,531 51,430 (54.99%) 32,555 (34.81%) 993 (1.06%) 3,520 (3.76%) 68 (0.07%) 1,431 (1.53%) 7,678 (8.21%) 66,030 36,757 (55.67%) 22,470 (34.03%) 730 (1.11%) 2,603 (3.94%) 43 (0.07%) 953 (1.44%) 5,043 (7.64%) 4 District 4 91,612 -709 (-0.77%) 90,903 39,937 (43.93%) 49,368 (54.31%) 686 (0.75%) 1,442 (1.59%) 106 (0.12%) 1,184 (1.3%) 1,562 (1.72%) 64,833 26,645 (41.1%) 37,091 (57.21%) 512 (0.79%) 939 (1.45%) 50 (0.08%) 749 (1.16%) 1,041 (1.61%) 5 District 5 91,612 1,132 (1.24%) 92,744 36,414 (39.26%) 53,565 (57.76%) 979 (1.06%) 2,097 (2.26%) 81 (0.09%) 1,088 (1.17%) 1,815 (1.96%) 71,629 28,738 (40.12%) 40,782 (56.94%) 744 (1.04%) 1,444 (2.02%) 65 (0.09%) 752 (1.05%) 1,219 (1.7%) 6 District 6 91,612 2,017 (2.2%) 93,629 36,462 (38.94%) 54,902 (58.64%) 1,074 (1.15%) 1,698 (1.81%) 77 (0.08%) 1,031 (1.1%) 1,897 (2.03%) 73,324 29,956 (40.85%) 41,455 (56.54%) 814 (1.11%) 1,271 (1.73%) 45 (0.06%) 736 (1%) 1,311 (1.79%) 7 District 7 91,612 1,336 (1.46%) 92,948 44,163 (47.51%) 45,392 (48.84%) 1,209 (1.3%) 2,233 (2.4%) 105 (0.11%) 1,126 (1.21%) 2,599 (2.8%) 75,856 38,175 (50.33%) 34,791 (45.86%) 958 (1.26%) 1,758 (2.32%) 81 (0.11%) 828 (1.09%) 1,908 (2.52%) 8 District 8 91,612 1,058 (1.15%) 92,670 42,304 (45.65%) 44,853 (48.4%) 1,756 (1.89%) 4,537 (4.9%) 78 (0.08%) 1,102 (1.19%) 2,743 (2.96%) 76,299 36,434 (47.75%) 34,847 (45.67%) 1,410 (1.85%) 3,940 (5.16%) 51 (0.07%) 803 (1.05%) 1,994 (2.61%) 9 District 9 91,612 -794 (-0.87%) 90,818 28,890 (31.81%) 46,988 (51.74%) 872 (0.96%) 15,529 (17.1%) 95 (0.1%) 960 (1.06%) 1,425 (1.57%) 66,200 20,465 (30.91%) 35,242 (53.24%) 641 (0.97%) 10,738 (16.22%) 64 (0.1%) 612 (0.92%) 977 (1.48%) 10 District 10 91,612 -1,078 (-1.18%) 90,534 50,615 (55.91%) 36,037 (39.8%) 1,043 (1.15%) 2,591 (2.86%) 85 (0.09%) 936 (1.03%) 2,511 (2.77%) 74,475 41,318 (55.48%) 29,950 (40.21%) 786 (1.06%) 2,080 (2.79%) 62 (0.08%) 699 (0.94%) 1,752 (2.35%) 11 District 11 91,612 -467 (-0.51%) 91,145 44,809 (49.16%) 44,312 (48.62%) 1,269 (1.39%) 1,167 (1.28%) 68 (0.07%) 887 (0.97%) 2,000 (2.19%) 70,700 37,830 (53.51%) 31,139 (44.04%) 945 (1.34%) 884 (1.25%) 39 (0.06%) 621 (0.88%) 1,288 (1.82%) 12 District 12 91,612 -982 (-1.07%) 90,630 45,812 (50.55%) 42,705 (47.12%) 1,864 (2.06%) 1,616 (1.78%) 70 (0.08%) 1,213 (1.34%) 2,219 (2.45%) 68,955 37,599 (54.53%) 29,356 (42.57%) 1,435 (2.08%) 1,073 (1.56%) 48 (0.07%) 880 (1.28%) 1,435 (2.08%) 13 District 13 91,612 -1,219 (-1.33%) 90,393 46,238 (51.15%) 39,325 (43.5%) 1,499 (1.66%) 4,249 (4.7%) 81 (0.09%) 992 (1.1%) 1,963 (2.17%) 69,812 38,244 (54.78%) 27,757 (39.76%) 1,109 (1.59%) 3,039 (4.35%) 53 (0.08%) 688 (0.99%) 1,320 (1.89%) 14 District 14 91,612 -1,057 (-1.15%) 90,555 38,739 (42.78%) 41,339 (45.65%) 1,437 (1.59%) 9,784 (10.8%) 81 (0.09%) 1,080 (1.19%) 2,221 (2.45%) 69,140 31,958 (46.22%) 29,515 (42.69%) 1,111 (1.61%) 6,822 (9.87%) 59 (0.09%) 777 (1.12%) 1,478 (2.14%) 15 District 15 91,612 689 (0.75%) 92,301 78,211 (84.73%) 7,968 (8.63%) 1,267 (1.37%) 2,608 (2.83%) 76 (0.08%) 1,258 (1.36%) 4,831 (5.23%) 69,652 59,523 (85.46%) 5,506 (7.91%) 979 (1.41%) 1,944 (2.79%) 60 (0.09%) 916 (1.32%) 3,271 (4.7%) 16 District 16 91,612 1,423 (1.55%) 93,035 35,347 (37.99%) 54,949 (59.06%) 1,407 (1.51%) 1,354 (1.46%) 62 (0.07%) 1,019 (1.1%) 2,668 (2.87%) 72,066 29,101 (40.38%) 40,749 (56.54%) 1,055 (1.46%) 1,001 (1.39%) 45 (0.06%) 695 (0.96%) 1,759 (2.44%) 17 District 17 91,612 -875 (-0.96%) 90,737 44,621 (49.18%) 42,462 (46.8%) 1,632 (1.8%) 2,241 (2.47%) 53 (0.06%) 1,082 (1.19%) 2,812 (3.1%) 71,354 36,901 (51.72%) 31,426 (44.04%) 1,214 (1.7%) 1,713 (2.4%) 38 (0.05%) 791 (1.11%) 1,882 (2.64%) 18 District 18 91,612 557 (0.61%) 92,169 36,415 (39.51%) 50,028 (54.28%) 1,207 (1.31%) 4,577 (4.97%) 58 (0.06%) 1,177 (1.28%) 2,499 (2.71%) 75,714 30,199 (39.89%) 40,907 (54.03%) 945 (1.25%) 3,522 (4.65%) 47 (0.06%) 894 (1.18%) 1,817 (2.4%) 19 District 19 91,612 -681 (-0.74%) 90,931 57,939 (63.72%) 23,667 (26.03%) 761 (0.84%) 8,186 (9%) 59 (0.06%) 1,183 (1.3%) 2,544 (2.8%) 72,930 46,390 (63.61%) 19,111 (26.2%) 559 (0.77%) 6,361 (8.72%) 40 (0.05%) 842 (1.15%) 1,704 (2.34%) 20 District 20 91,612 1,405 (1.53%) 93,017 73,509 (79.03%) 10,327 (11.1%) 918 (0.99%) 7,900 (8.49%) 82 (0.09%) 1,328 (1.43%) 2,489 (2.68%) 74,684 59,288 (79.39%) 8,069 (10.8%) 640 (0.86%) 6,093 (8.16%) 58 (0.08%) 1,000 (1.34%) 1,684 (2.25%) 21 District 21 91,612 2,264 (2.47%) 93,876 56,658 (60.35%) 7,884 (8.4%) 863 (0.92%) 27,235 (29.01%) 79 (0.08%) 1,347 (1.43%) 3,266 (3.48%) 71,599 44,604 (62.3%) 6,053 (8.45%) 633 (0.88%) 19,086 (26.66%) 57 (0.08%) 899 (1.26%) 2,198 (3.07%) 22 District 22 91,612 42 (0.05%) 91,654 80,969 (88.34%) 2,563 (2.8%) 1,100 (1.2%) 6,170 (6.73%) 45 (0.05%) 1,128 (1.23%) 2,920 (3.19%) 75,487 67,337 (89.2%) 1,940 (2.57%) 873 (1.16%) 4,463 (5.91%) 28 (0.04%) 848 (1.12%) 2,072 (2.74%) 23 District 23 91,612 -893 (-0.97%) 90,719 68,125 (75.09%) 5,258 (5.8%) 864 (0.95%) 15,427 (17.01%) 127 (0.14%) 1,453 (1.6%) 4,003 (4.41%) 76,266 57,508 (75.4%) 4,364 (5.72%) 665 (0.87%) 12,544 (16.45%) 111 (0.15%) 1,148 (1.51%) 3,158 (4.14%) 24 District 24 91,612 -132 (-0.14%) 91,480 59,653 (65.21%) 10,313 (11.27%) 1,233 (1.35%) 19,685 (21.52%) 68 (0.07%) 1,286 (1.41%) 3,377 (3.69%) 69,996 46,524 (66.47%) 7,419 (10.6%) 900 (1.29%) 14,245 (20.35%) 47 (0.07%) 896 (1.28%) 2,302 (3.29%) 25 District 25 91,612 -1,050 (-1.15%) 90,562 62,363 (68.86%) 20,595 (22.74%) 2,120 (2.34%) 5,059 (5.59%) 73 (0.08%) 1,297 (1.43%) 4,044 (4.47%) 73,216 51,558 (70.42%) 15,347 (20.96%) 1,619 (2.21%) 4,020 (5.49%) 58 (0.08%) 1,003 (1.37%) 2,799 (3.82%) 26 District 26 91,612 111 (0.12%) 91,723 50,877 (55.47%) 37,410 (40.79%) 2,176 (2.37%) 1,477 (1.61%) 113 (0.12%) 1,286 (1.4%) 3,853 (4.2%) 70,678 41,012 (58.03%) 26,693 (37.77%) 1,677 (2.37%) 1,152 (1.63%) 72 (0.1%) 946 (1.34%) 2,549 (3.61%) 27 District 27 91,612 -1,155 (-1.26%) 90,457 80,114 (88.57%) 3,642 (4.03%) 2,173 (2.4%) 1,601 (1.77%) 80 (0.09%) 1,266 (1.4%) 5,757 (6.36%) 73,737 66,158 (89.72%) 2,577 (3.49%) 1,680 (2.28%) 1,145 (1.55%) 60 (0.08%) 939 (1.27%) 3,939 (5.34%) 28 District 28 91,612 -14 (-0.02%) 91,598 73,097 (79.8%) 10,188 (11.12%) 2,329 (2.54%) 3,636 (3.97%) 82 (0.09%) 1,336 (1.46%) 5,716 (6.24%) 71,385 58,165 (81.48%) 7,053 (9.88%) 1,813 (2.54%) 2,591 (3.63%) 63 (0.09%) 990 (1.39%) 3,827 (5.36%) 29 District 29 91,612 971 (1.06%) 92,583 71,752 (77.5%) 14,189 (15.33%) 2,420 (2.61%) 1,721 (1.86%) 87 (0.09%) 1,459 (1.58%) 6,184 (6.68%) 72,381 58,007 (80.14%) 9,367 (12.94%) 1,874 (2.59%) 1,243 (1.72%) 59 (0.08%) 1,118 (1.54%) 4,065 (5.62%) 30 District 30 91,612 1,848 (2.02%) 93,460 86,030 (92.05%) 3,497 (3.74%) 2,289 (2.45%) 984 (1.05%) 52 (0.06%) 1,388 (1.49%) 3,799 (4.06%) 73,606 68,643 (93.26%) 2,105 (2.86%) 1,650 (2.24%) 686 (0.93%) 37 (0.05%) 960 (1.3%) 2,365 (3.21%) 31 District 31 91,612 1,366 (1.49%) 92,978 72,203 (77.66%) 16,705 (17.97%) 2,306 (2.48%) 1,757 (1.89%) 109 (0.12%) 1,320 (1.42%) 3,748 (4.03%) 73,558 57,729 (78.48%) 12,451 (16.93%) 1,733 (2.36%) 1,243 (1.69%) 68 (0.09%) 994 (1.35%) 2,605 (3.54%) 32 District 32 91,612 480 (0.52%) 92,092 54,496 (59.18%) 29,351 (31.87%) 1,903 (2.07%) 4,685 (5.09%) 176 (0.19%) 1,608 (1.75%) 6,601 (7.17%) 73,449 45,443 (61.87%) 21,210 (28.88%) 1,511 (2.06%) 3,688 (5.02%) 128 (0.17%) 1,199 (1.63%) 4,564 (6.21%) 33 District 33 91,612 1,118 (1.22%) 92,730 68,306 (73.66%) 8,963 (9.67%) 1,314 (1.42%) 12,500 (13.48%) 135 (0.15%) 1,468 (1.58%) 5,469 (5.9%) 74,822 55,740 (74.5%) 6,712 (8.97%) 992 (1.33%) 9,607 (12.84%) 99 (0.13%) 1,051 (1.4%) 3,915 (5.23%) 34 District 34 91,612 759 (0.83%) 92,371 80,641 (87.3%) 3,464 (3.75%) 2,100 (2.27%) 863 (0.93%) 38 (0.04%) 1,106 (1.2%) 8,205 (8.88%) 73,142 64,847 (88.66%) 2,504 (3.42%) 1,595 (2.18%) 576 (0.79%) 25 (0.03%) 856 (1.17%) 5,321 (7.27%) 35 District 35 91,612 1,411 (1.54%) 93,023 86,715 (93.22%) 1,910 (2.05%) 2,031 (2.18%) 853 (0.92%) 70 (0.08%) 1,118 (1.2%) 3,903 (4.2%) 71,335 66,994 (93.91%) 1,423 (1.99%) 1,524 (2.14%) 583 (0.82%) 45 (0.06%) 805 (1.13%) 2,344 (3.29%) 36 District 36 91,612 -1,978 (-2.16%) 89,634 79,465 (88.65%) 3,781 (4.22%) 1,930 (2.15%) 1,020 (1.14%) 71 (0.08%) 1,437 (1.6%) 6,274 (7%) 68,621 61,927 (90.24%) 2,434 (3.55%) 1,428 (2.08%) 689 (1%) 39 (0.06%) 1,025 (1.49%) 3,732 (5.44%) 37 District 37 91,612 -156 (-0.17%) 91,456 76,665 (83.83%) 7,502 (8.2%) 2,765 (3.02%) 2,283 (2.5%) 146 (0.16%) 1,585 (1.73%) 5,983 (6.54%) 71,787 61,262 (85.34%) 5,225 (7.28%) 1,930 (2.69%) 1,716 (2.39%) 105 (0.15%) 1,173 (1.63%) 3,715 (5.18%) 38 District 38 91,612 1,810 (1.98%) 93,422 66,844 (71.55%) 19,142 (20.49%) 1,753 (1.88%) 2,165 (2.32%) 73 (0.08%) 1,379 (1.48%) 6,196 (6.63%) 73,770 55,467 (75.19%) 13,187 (17.88%) 1,271 (1.72%) 1,506 (2.04%) 49 (0.07%) 1,017 (1.38%) 3,824 (5.18%) 39 District 39 91,612 -1,342 (-1.46%) 90,270 77,535 (85.89%) 2,674 (2.96%) 2,803 (3.11%) 765 (0.85%) 84 (0.09%) 1,347 (1.49%) 9,692 (10.74%) 69,482 61,492 (88.5%) 1,640 (2.36%) 2,037 (2.93%) 486 (0.7%) 58 (0.08%) 1,021 (1.47%) 5,699 (8.2%) 40 District 40 91,612 -1,401 (-1.53%) 90,211 74,645 (82.74%) 8,142 (9.03%) 1,578 (1.75%) 5,088 (5.64%) 93 (0.1%) 1,299 (1.44%) 4,124 (4.57%) 69,763 58,712 (84.16%) 5,411 (7.76%) 1,151 (1.65%) 3,543 (5.08%) 63 (0.09%) 853 (1.22%) 2,691 (3.86%) 41 District 41 91,612 260 (0.28%) 91,872 60,253 (65.58%) 23,809 (25.92%) 2,033 (2.21%) 2,769 (3.01%) 119 (0.13%) 1,457 (1.59%) 7,955 (8.66%) 72,876 50,227 (68.92%) 16,009 (21.97%) 1,537 (2.11%) 2,330 (3.2%) 81 (0.11%) 1,117 (1.53%) 5,390 (7.4%) 42 District 42 91,612 -420 (-0.46%) 91,192 83,153 (91.18%) 4,460 (4.89%) 2,270 (2.49%) 1,500 (1.64%) 58 (0.06%) 1,400 (1.54%) 3,106 (3.41%) 70,454 65,010 (92.27%) 2,770 (3.93%) 1,667 (2.37%) 1,025 (1.45%) 44 (0.06%) 1,018 (1.44%) 1,892 (2.69%) 43 District 43 91,612 906 (0.99%) 92,518 85,434 (92.34%) 1,456 (1.57%) 2,038 (2.2%) 900 (0.97%) 79 (0.09%) 1,319 (1.43%) 5,105 (5.52%) 70,016 65,440 (93.46%) 682 (0.97%) 1,433 (2.05%) 548 (0.78%) 52 (0.07%) 939 (1.34%) 3,207 (4.58%) 44 District 44 91,612 -1,638 (-1.79%) 89,974 65,814 (73.15%) 16,598 (18.45%) 2,206 (2.45%) 3,849 (4.28%) 103 (0.11%) 1,199 (1.33%) 5,998 (6.67%) 68,782 51,986 (75.58%) 11,074 (16.1%) 1,618 (2.35%) 2,594 (3.77%) 60 (0.09%) 852 (1.24%) 3,804 (5.53%) 45 District 45 91,612 -1,000 (-1.09%) 90,612 85,414 (94.26%) 2,021 (2.23%) 2,147 (2.37%) 847 (0.93%) 48 (0.05%) 1,041 (1.15%) 2,795 (3.08%) 71,054 67,567 (95.09%) 1,141 (1.61%) 1,542 (2.17%) 545 (0.77%) 32 (0.05%) 779 (1.1%) 1,759 (2.48%) 46 District 46 91,612 -571 (-0.62%) 91,041 73,699 (80.95%) 13,785 (15.14%) 2,023 (2.22%) 1,550 (1.7%) 63 (0.07%) 1,217 (1.34%) 4,202 (4.62%) 71,551 58,812 (82.2%) 9,650 (13.49%) 1,547 (2.16%) 1,096 (1.53%) 52 (0.07%) 847 (1.18%) 2,534 (3.54%) 47 District 47 91,612 -310 (-0.34%) 91,302 80,312 (87.96%) 4,068 (4.46%) 1,587 (1.74%) 4,966 (5.44%) 108 (0.12%) 1,451 (1.59%) 3,811 (4.17%) 73,378 65,001 (88.58%) 2,888 (3.94%) 1,168 (1.59%) 3,757 (5.12%) 87 (0.12%) 1,000 (1.36%) 2,520 (3.43%) 48 District 48 91,612 761 (0.83%) 92,373 80,901 (87.58%) 2,368 (2.56%) 1,614 (1.75%) 7,422 (8.03%) 70 (0.08%) 1,361 (1.47%) 2,774 (3%) 74,656 65,476 (87.7%) 1,696 (2.27%) 1,248 (1.67%) 5,953 (7.97%) 44 (0.06%) 1,024 (1.37%) 1,912 (2.56%) 49 District 49 91,612 1,635 (1.78%) 93,247 79,419 (85.17%) 6,168 (6.61%) 1,494 (1.6%) 4,748 (5.09%) 112 (0.12%) 1,436 (1.54%) 3,758 (4.03%) 74,267 63,795 (85.9%) 4,712 (6.34%) 1,152 (1.55%) 3,519 (4.74%) 70 (0.09%) 1,023 (1.38%) 2,508 (3.38%) 50 District 50 91,612 1,527 (1.67%) 93,139 88,613 (95.14%) 886 (0.95%) 2,084 (2.24%) 1,194 (1.28%) 145 (0.16%) 1,269 (1.36%) 2,808 (3.01%) 72,160 68,956 (95.56%) 495 (0.69%) 1,529 (2.12%) 821 (1.14%) 103 (0.14%) 883 (1.22%) 1,836 (2.54%) 51 District 51 91,612 -105 (-0.11%) 91,507 85,418 (93.35%) 1,765 (1.93%) 1,890 (2.07%) 1,864 (2.04%) 61 (0.07%) 1,544 (1.69%) 3,123 (3.41%) 72,488 68,159 (94.03%) 1,153 (1.59%) 1,445 (1.99%) 1,301 (1.79%) 50 (0.07%) 1,126 (1.55%) 1,960 (2.7%) 52 District 52 91,612 -514 (-0.56%) 91,098 81,237 (89.18%) 3,386 (3.72%) 1,702 (1.87%) 2,229 (2.45%) 43 (0.05%) 1,344 (1.48%) 5,252 (5.77%) 72,818 65,728 (90.26%) 2,328 (3.2%) 1,345 (1.85%) 1,535 (2.11%) 37 (0.05%) 961 (1.32%) 3,506 (4.81%) 53 District 53 91,612 1,444 (1.58%) 93,056 41,820 (44.94%) 34,111 (36.66%) 1,574 (1.69%) 2,622 (2.82%) 83 (0.09%) 1,110 (1.19%) 16,376 (17.6%) 71,476 35,147 (49.17%) 24,532 (34.32%) 1,187 (1.66%) 1,954 (2.73%) 67 (0.09%) 813 (1.14%) 10,519 (14.72%) 54 District 54 91,612 1,337 (1.46%) 92,949 72,184 (77.66%) 7,385 (7.95%) 1,213 (1.31%) 9,996 (10.75%) 68 (0.07%) 1,435 (1.54%) 4,793 (5.16%) 73,853 57,877 (78.37%) 5,721 (7.75%) 920 (1.25%) 7,583 (10.27%) 49 (0.07%) 1,029 (1.39%) 3,199 (4.33%) 55 District 55 91,612 193 (0.21%) 91,805 71,134 (77.48%) 3,833 (4.18%) 1,039 (1.13%) 13,782 (15.01%) 69 (0.08%) 1,404 (1.53%) 4,303 (4.69%) 71,848 56,609 (78.79%) 2,881 (4.01%) 777 (1.08%) 9,898 (13.78%) 46 (0.06%) 969 (1.35%) 2,857 (3.98%) 56 District 56 91,612 -1,202 (-1.31%) 90,410 64,371 (71.2%) 3,730 (4.13%) 927 (1.03%) 20,561 (22.74%) 70 (0.08%) 1,122 (1.24%) 3,060 (3.38%) 71,737 52,740 (73.52%) 2,811 (3.92%) 666 (0.93%) 14,628 (20.39%) 52 (0.07%) 756 (1.05%) 2,107 (2.94%) 57 District 57 91,612 -1,919 (-2.09%) 89,693 69,777 (77.8%) 5,336 (5.95%) 856 (0.95%) 13,481 (15.03%) 82 (0.09%) 997 (1.11%) 2,332 (2.6%) 71,864 56,628 (78.8%) 3,828 (5.33%) 635 (0.88%) 10,454 (14.55%) 49 (0.07%) 698 (0.97%) 1,629 (2.27%) 58 District 58 91,612 -1,158 (-1.26%) 90,454 74,192 (82.02%) 8,442 (9.33%) 1,245 (1.38%) 6,704 (7.41%) 88 (0.1%) 1,177 (1.3%) 2,460 (2.72%) 73,423 60,923 (82.98%) 6,246 (8.51%) 948 (1.29%) 5,112 (6.96%) 62 (0.08%) 862 (1.17%) 1,771 (2.41%) 59 District 59 91,612 -2,276 (-2.48%) 89,336 80,624 (90.25%) 2,894 (3.24%) 1,036 (1.16%) 4,161 (4.66%) 61 (0.07%) 1,117 (1.25%) 2,602 (2.91%) 70,271 63,886 (90.91%) 2,061 (2.93%) 768 (1.09%) 2,944 (4.19%) 47 (0.07%) 767 (1.09%) 1,755 (2.5%) 60 District 60 91,612 1,130 (1.23%) 92,742 79,311 (85.52%) 7,647 (8.25%) 1,244 (1.34%) 4,088 (4.41%) 66 (0.07%) 1,281 (1.38%) 2,994 (3.23%) 72,453 62,510 (86.28%) 5,579 (7.7%) 913 (1.26%) 2,889 (3.99%) 37 (0.05%) 888 (1.23%) 1,949 (2.69%) 61 District 61 91,612 1,544 (1.69%) 93,156 72,733 (78.08%) 15,994 (17.17%) 1,570 (1.69%) 3,229 (3.47%) 64 (0.07%) 1,167 (1.25%) 2,870 (3.08%) 75,006 60,133 (80.17%) 11,194 (14.92%) 1,165 (1.55%) 2,416 (3.22%) 49 (0.07%) 841 (1.12%) 1,890 (2.52%) 62 District 62 91,612 -1,073 (-1.17%) 90,539 73,822 (81.54%) 13,502 (14.91%) 1,901 (2.1%) 1,944 (2.15%) 82 (0.09%) 1,193 (1.32%) 2,564 (2.83%) 74,114 61,714 (83.27%) 9,634 (13%) 1,438 (1.94%) 1,457 (1.97%) 65 (0.09%) 900 (1.21%) 1,745 (2.35%) 63 District 63 91,612 -974 (-1.06%) 90,638 84,114 (92.8%) 3,677 (4.06%) 1,967 (2.17%) 1,237 (1.36%) 57 (0.06%) 1,195 (1.32%) 2,399 (2.65%) 72,589 67,923 (93.57%) 2,478 (3.41%) 1,421 (1.96%) 850 (1.17%) 33 (0.05%) 903 (1.24%) 1,543 (2.13%) 64 District 64 91,612 -552 (-0.6%) 91,060 82,637 (90.75%) 5,077 (5.58%) 2,101 (2.31%) 936 (1.03%) 70 (0.08%) 1,237 (1.36%) 3,711 (4.08%) 71,638 65,734 (91.76%) 3,087 (4.31%) 1,488 (2.08%) 667 (0.93%) 47 (0.07%) 879 (1.23%) 2,364 (3.3%) 65 District 65 91,612 1,280 (1.4%) 92,892 85,170 (91.69%) 2,771 (2.98%) 1,892 (2.04%) 689 (0.74%) 88 (0.09%) 1,251 (1.35%) 4,674 (5.03%) 73,184 67,711 (92.52%) 2,013 (2.75%) 1,396 (1.91%) 432 (0.59%) 58 (0.08%) 939 (1.28%) 3,018 (4.12%) 66 District 66 91,612 1,402 (1.53%) 93,014 85,769 (92.21%) 1,786 (1.92%) 1,708 (1.84%) 2,182 (2.35%) 54 (0.06%) 1,394 (1.5%) 4,098 (4.41%) 71,767 66,869 (93.18%) 1,089 (1.52%) 1,236 (1.72%) 1,460 (2.03%) 34 (0.05%) 957 (1.33%) 2,576 (3.59%) 67 District 67 91,612 1,204 (1.31%) 92,816 85,390 (92%) 3,858 (4.16%) 2,475 (2.67%) 784 (0.84%) 59 (0.06%) 1,495 (1.61%) 3,301 (3.56%) 73,721 68,490 (92.9%) 2,772 (3.76%) 1,917 (2.6%) 503 (0.68%) 40 (0.05%) 1,105 (1.5%) 1,991 (2.7%) 68 District 68 91,612 1,453 (1.59%) 93,065 81,046 (87.09%) 7,154 (7.69%) 2,250 (2.42%) 2,143 (2.3%) 92 (0.1%) 1,323 (1.42%) 3,831 (4.12%) 73,273 64,510 (88.04%) 5,017 (6.85%) 1,656 (2.26%) 1,592 (2.17%) 60 (0.08%) 980 (1.34%) 2,466 (3.37%) 69 District 69 91,612 86 (0.09%) 91,698 67,355 (73.45%) 21,168 (23.08%) 2,215 (2.42%) 1,194 (1.3%) 81 (0.09%) 1,158 (1.26%) 3,324 (3.62%) 71,476 53,723 (75.16%) 14,994 (20.98%) 1,686 (2.36%) 847 (1.19%) 40 (0.06%) 919 (1.29%) 2,252 (3.15%) 70 District 70 91,612 -874 (-0.95%) 90,738 37,335 (41.15%) 50,480 (55.63%) 2,021 (2.23%) 773 (0.85%) 89 (0.1%) 1,099 (1.21%) 4,417 (4.87%) 68,117 29,589 (43.44%) 35,769 (52.51%) 1,521 (2.23%) 583 (0.86%) 60 (0.09%) 730 (1.07%) 2,976 (4.37%) 71 District 71 91,612 354 (0.39%) 91,966 87,551 (95.2%) 1,269 (1.38%) 2,083 (2.26%) 742 (0.81%) 99 (0.11%) 1,272 (1.38%) 2,816 (3.06%) 72,963 69,916 (95.82%) 709 (0.97%) 1,573 (2.16%) 485 (0.66%) 69 (0.09%) 958 (1.31%) 1,835 (2.51%) 72 District 72 91,612 1,232 (1.34%) 92,844 83,181 (89.59%) 5,592 (6.02%) 2,121 (2.28%) 1,810 (1.95%) 77 (0.08%) 1,177 (1.27%) 3,295 (3.55%) 72,890 65,856 (90.35%) 3,987 (5.47%) 1,611 (2.21%) 1,278 (1.75%) 44 (0.06%) 878 (1.2%) 2,097 (2.88%) 73 District 73 91,612 -69 (-0.08%) 91,543 74,629 (81.52%) 6,332 (6.92%) 1,380 (1.51%) 7,786 (8.51%) 112 (0.12%) 1,110 (1.21%) 3,976 (4.34%) 75,397 61,411 (81.45%) 5,387 (7.14%) 1,060 (1.41%) 6,144 (8.15%) 86 (0.11%) 800 (1.06%) 2,868 (3.8%) 74 District 74 91,612 -830 (-0.91%) 90,782 58,994 (64.98%) 20,079 (22.12%) 2,119 (2.33%) 4,626 (5.1%) 116 (0.13%) 1,333 (1.47%) 10,006 (11.02%) 70,233 47,755 (68%) 13,599 (19.36%) 1,595 (2.27%) 3,394 (4.83%) 81 (0.12%) 956 (1.36%) 6,596 (9.39%) 75 District 75 91,612 1,942 (2.12%) 93,554 78,335 (83.73%) 5,424 (5.8%) 1,613 (1.72%) 6,496 (6.94%) 89 (0.1%) 1,309 (1.4%) 4,791 (5.12%) 75,207 63,558 (84.51%) 3,869 (5.14%) 1,227 (1.63%) 5,128 (6.82%) 70 (0.09%) 960 (1.28%) 3,215 (4.27%) 76 District 76 91,612 742 (0.81%) 92,354 76,152 (82.46%) 8,934 (9.67%) 1,879 (2.03%) 2,875 (3.11%) 102 (0.11%) 1,083 (1.17%) 5,780 (6.26%) 73,043 61,330 (83.96%) 6,316 (8.65%) 1,399 (1.92%) 2,047 (2.8%) 64 (0.09%) 796 (1.09%) 3,783 (5.18%) 77 District 77 91,612 982 (1.07%) 92,594 69,343 (74.89%) 12,772 (13.79%) 1,994 (2.15%) 2,617 (2.83%) 113 (0.12%) 1,508 (1.63%) 9,822 (10.61%) 72,106 55,686 (77.23%) 8,531 (11.83%) 1,505 (2.09%) 1,961 (2.72%) 89 (0.12%) 1,044 (1.45%) 6,597 (9.15%) 78 District 78 91,612 652 (0.71%) 92,264 83,977 (91.02%) 4,031 (4.37%) 1,693 (1.83%) 781 (0.85%) 65 (0.07%) 1,079 (1.17%) 3,977 (4.31%) 71,687 65,266 (91.04%) 3,482 (4.86%) 1,254 (1.75%) 464 (0.65%) 46 (0.06%) 728 (1.02%) 2,490 (3.47%) 79 District 79 91,612 -660 (-0.72%) 90,952 78,382 (86.18%) 5,099 (5.61%) 1,470 (1.62%) 3,941 (4.33%) 123 (0.14%) 1,119 (1.23%) 4,590 (5.05%) 67,213 58,810 (87.5%) 3,203 (4.77%) 1,010 (1.5%) 2,636 (3.92%) 86 (0.13%) 758 (1.13%) 2,787 (4.15%) 80 District 80 91,612 738 (0.81%) 92,350 65,801 (71.25%) 12,803 (13.86%) 1,098 (1.19%) 8,535 (9.24%) 81 (0.09%) 1,170 (1.27%) 7,053 (7.64%) 69,344 51,095 (73.68%) 8,531 (12.3%) 793 (1.14%) 5,923 (8.54%) 49 (0.07%) 736 (1.06%) 4,380 (6.32%) 81 District 81 91,612 -96 (-0.1%) 91,516 75,731 (82.75%) 8,673 (9.48%) 1,468 (1.6%) 3,846 (4.2%) 119 (0.13%) 1,136 (1.24%) 5,026 (5.49%) 71,975 60,877 (84.58%) 5,760 (8%) 1,051 (1.46%) 2,638 (3.67%) 75 (0.1%) 780 (1.08%) 3,329 (4.63%) 82 District 82 91,612 -393 (-0.43%) 91,219 49,224 (53.96%) 26,805 (29.39%) 1,310 (1.44%) 3,839 (4.21%) 107 (0.12%) 1,096 (1.2%) 13,338 (14.62%) 70,814 41,646 (58.81%) 18,632 (26.31%) 1,015 (1.43%) 2,811 (3.97%) 75 (0.11%) 786 (1.11%) 8,520 (12.03%) 83 District 83 91,612 -271 (-0.3%) 91,341 50,800 (55.62%) 10,378 (11.36%) 1,409 (1.54%) 3,006 (3.29%) 86 (0.09%) 1,022 (1.12%) 28,823 (31.56%) 67,461 40,842 (60.54%) 6,703 (9.94%) 1,036 (1.54%) 2,297 (3.4%) 49 (0.07%) 698 (1.03%) 18,188 (26.96%) 84 District 84 91,612 278 (0.3%) 91,890 73,240 (79.7%) 7,482 (8.14%) 1,866 (2.03%) 2,395 (2.61%) 118 (0.13%) 1,105 (1.2%) 10,341 (11.25%) 73,379 60,536 (82.5%) 4,754 (6.48%) 1,371 (1.87%) 1,823 (2.48%) 83 (0.11%) 792 (1.08%) 6,833 (9.31%) 85 District 85 91,612 -1,485 (-1.62%) 90,127 81,556 (90.49%) 1,810 (2.01%) 1,123 (1.25%) 2,572 (2.85%) 97 (0.11%) 1,043 (1.16%) 5,138 (5.7%) 66,158 60,625 (91.64%) 994 (1.5%) 707 (1.07%) 1,662 (2.51%) 77 (0.12%) 627 (0.95%) 3,073 (4.64%) 86 District 86 91,612 -1,037 (-1.13%) 90,575 62,892 (69.44%) 3,363 (3.71%) 1,065 (1.18%) 5,494 (6.07%) 146 (0.16%) 911 (1.01%) 20,099 (22.19%) 70,221 51,416 (73.22%) 2,056 (2.93%) 797 (1.13%) 3,994 (5.69%) 94 (0.13%) 684 (0.97%) 13,125 (18.69%) 87 District 87 91,612 -236 (-0.26%) 91,376 61,329 (67.12%) 24,353 (26.65%) 2,453 (2.68%) 875 (0.96%) 111 (0.12%) 1,345 (1.47%) 6,240 (6.83%) 70,829 49,357 (69.68%) 17,189 (24.27%) 1,794 (2.53%) 601 (0.85%) 67 (0.09%) 953 (1.35%) 3,934 (5.55%) 88 District 88 91,612 -712 (-0.78%) 90,900 83,407 (91.76%) 2,117 (2.33%) 1,736 (1.91%) 1,887 (2.08%) 84 (0.09%) 1,249 (1.37%) 4,199 (4.62%) 71,051 66,009 (92.9%) 1,297 (1.83%) 1,208 (1.7%) 1,225 (1.72%) 52 (0.07%) 896 (1.26%) 2,613 (3.68%) 89 District 89 91,612 1,522 (1.66%) 93,134 84,646 (90.89%) 2,663 (2.86%) 1,876 (2.01%) 1,262 (1.36%) 92 (0.1%) 1,246 (1.34%) 5,165 (5.55%) 71,969 66,000 (91.71%) 1,848 (2.57%) 1,371 (1.9%) 896 (1.24%) 49 (0.07%) 884 (1.23%) 3,294 (4.58%) 90 District 90 91,612 -63 (-0.07%) 91,549 83,474 (91.18%) 2,348 (2.56%) 1,495 (1.63%) 1,498 (1.64%) 77 (0.08%) 1,306 (1.43%) 5,205 (5.69%) 68,467 63,359 (92.54%) 1,359 (1.98%) 1,018 (1.49%) 897 (1.31%) 43 (0.06%) 886 (1.29%) 3,080 (4.5%) 91 District 91 91,612 -262 (-0.29%) 91,350 86,446 (94.63%) 1,117 (1.22%) 1,873 (2.05%) 728 (0.8%) 84 (0.09%) 1,339 (1.47%) 3,465 (3.79%) 70,036 66,908 (95.53%) 542 (0.77%) 1,354 (1.93%) 429 (0.61%) 50 (0.07%) 981 (1.4%) 2,113 (3.02%) 92 District 92 91,612 908 (0.99%) 92,520 79,038 (85.43%) 5,229 (5.65%) 4,034 (4.36%) 1,734 (1.87%) 92 (0.1%) 1,002 (1.08%) 5,400 (5.84%) 73,959 63,756 (86.2%) 4,311 (5.83%) 2,864 (3.87%) 1,301 (1.76%) 68 (0.09%) 766 (1.04%) 3,526 (4.77%) 93 District 93 91,612 -2,202 (-2.4%) 89,410 79,803 (89.26%) 3,906 (4.37%) 1,323 (1.48%) 1,354 (1.51%) 64 (0.07%) 914 (1.02%) 4,694 (5.25%) 72,182 64,700 (89.63%) 3,236 (4.48%) 943 (1.31%) 1,008 (1.4%) 41 (0.06%) 701 (0.97%) 3,250 (4.5%) 94 District 94 91,612 -1,174 (-1.28%) 90,438 45,697 (50.53%) 33,014 (36.5%) 1,414 (1.56%) 1,454 (1.61%) 105 (0.12%) 1,103 (1.22%) 11,982 (13.25%) 69,020 37,474 (54.29%) 23,182 (33.59%) 1,085 (1.57%) 1,093 (1.58%) 72 (0.1%) 758 (1.1%) 7,811 (11.32%) 95 District 95 91,612 -173 (-0.19%) 91,439 85,090 (93.06%) 1,722 (1.88%) 2,009 (2.2%) 2,240 (2.45%) 129 (0.14%) 1,432 (1.57%) 2,844 (3.11%) 71,873 67,440 (93.83%) 1,015 (1.41%) 1,468 (2.04%) 1,560 (2.17%) 86 (0.12%) 1,050 (1.46%) 1,782 (2.48%) 96 District 96 91,612 -1,068 (-1.17%) 90,544 82,384 (90.99%) 2,805 (3.1%) 1,830 (2.02%) 838 (0.93%) 39 (0.04%) 1,094 (1.21%) 5,563 (6.14%) 72,724 67,230 (92.45%) 1,622 (2.23%) 1,376 (1.89%) 616 (0.85%) 16 (0.02%) 791 (1.09%) 3,521 (4.84%) 97 District 97 91,612 1,547 (1.69%) 93,159 86,220 (92.55%) 2,810 (3.02%) 1,897 (2.04%) 669 (0.72%) 42 (0.05%) 1,357 (1.46%) 3,751 (4.03%) 73,355 68,426 (93.28%) 1,965 (2.68%) 1,443 (1.97%) 452 (0.62%) 24 (0.03%) 971 (1.32%) 2,424 (3.3%) 98 District 98 91,612 437 (0.48%) 92,049 87,889 (95.48%) 648 (0.7%) 1,644 (1.79%) 468 (0.51%) 56 (0.06%) 1,024 (1.11%) 3,084 (3.35%) 72,801 69,982 (96.13%) 345 (0.47%) 1,172 (1.61%) 304 (0.42%) 33 (0.05%) 720 (0.99%) 2,010 (2.76%) 99 District 99 91,612 -2,237 (-2.44%) 89,375 86,134 (96.37%) 791 (0.89%) 2,177 (2.44%) 538 (0.6%) 63 (0.07%) 1,107 (1.24%) 1,867 (2.09%) 72,792 70,531 (96.89%) 437 (0.6%) 1,685 (2.31%) 383 (0.53%) 28 (0.04%) 873 (1.2%) 1,195 (1.64%) 100 District 100 91,612 139 (0.15%) 91,751 87,368 (95.22%) 1,907 (2.08%) 2,364 (2.58%) 703 (0.77%) 58 (0.06%) 1,312 (1.43%) 2,010 (2.19%) 72,641 69,415 (95.56%) 1,212 (1.67%) 1,789 (2.46%) 549 (0.76%) 39 (0.05%) 990 (1.36%) 1,370 (1.89%) 101 District 101 91,612 992 (1.08%) 92,604 84,910 (91.69%) 2,184 (2.36%) 2,317 (2.5%) 740 (0.8%) 108 (0.12%) 1,390 (1.5%) 5,072 (5.48%) 72,534 66,976 (92.34%) 1,435 (1.98%) 1,702 (2.35%) 485 (0.67%) 64 (0.09%) 1,045 (1.44%) 3,491 (4.81%) 102 District 102 91,612 274 (0.3%) 91,886 82,415 (89.69%) 1,830 (1.99%) 2,887 (3.14%) 684 (0.74%) 81 (0.09%) 1,398 (1.52%) 6,712 (7.3%) 72,924 66,621 (91.36%) 1,166 (1.6%) 2,126 (2.92%) 449 (0.62%) 43 (0.06%) 1,048 (1.44%) 4,142 (5.68%) 103 District 103 91,612 1,814 (1.98%) 93,426 87,474 (93.63%) 1,121 (1.2%) 2,810 (3.01%) 1,224 (1.31%) 127 (0.14%) 1,450 (1.55%) 3,141 (3.36%) 76,458 72,316 (94.58%) 639 (0.84%) 2,018 (2.64%) 794 (1.04%) 58 (0.08%) 1,082 (1.42%) 2,057 (2.69%) 104 District 104 91,612 -2,146 (-2.34%) 89,466 85,215 (95.25%) 780 (0.87%) 2,769 (3.1%) 754 (0.84%) 128 (0.14%) 1,310 (1.46%) 2,307 (2.58%) 71,871 68,963 (95.95%) 442 (0.61%) 2,012 (2.8%) 518 (0.72%) 78 (0.11%) 949 (1.32%) 1,406 (1.96%) 105 District 105 91,612 -2,071 (-2.26%) 89,541 86,341 (96.43%) 743 (0.83%) 2,290 (2.56%) 591 (0.66%) 89 (0.1%) 1,203 (1.34%) 1,899 (2.12%) 72,736 70,590 (97.05%) 387 (0.53%) 1,711 (2.35%) 377 (0.52%) 53 (0.07%) 944 (1.3%) 1,135 (1.56%) 106 District 106 91,612 -737 (-0.8%) 90,875 87,815 (96.63%) 782 (0.86%) 3,103 (3.41%) 572 (0.63%) 86 (0.09%) 1,177 (1.3%) 1,218 (1.34%) 75,466 73,255 (97.07%) 402 (0.53%) 2,315 (3.07%) 395 (0.52%) 63 (0.08%) 905 (1.2%) 796 (1.05%) 107 District 107 91,612 1,089 (1.19%) 92,701 82,472 (88.97%) 1,659 (1.79%) 10,443 (11.27%) 785 (0.85%) 138 (0.15%) 1,119 (1.21%) 1,644 (1.77%) 75,875 68,262 (89.97%) 1,309 (1.73%) 7,411 (9.77%) 554 (0.73%) 122 (0.16%) 870 (1.15%) 1,081 (1.42%) 108 District 108 91,612 -2,246 (-2.45%) 89,366 80,445 (90.02%) 2,404 (2.69%) 8,128 (9.1%) 624 (0.7%) 90 (0.1%) 872 (0.98%) 1,510 (1.69%) 72,443 65,888 (90.95%) 2,072 (2.86%) 5,392 (7.44%) 434 (0.6%) 65 (0.09%) 700 (0.97%) 904 (1.25%) 109 District 109 91,612 -2,202 (-2.4%) 89,410 82,523 (92.3%) 2,516 (2.81%) 5,327 (5.96%) 842 (0.94%) 75 (0.08%) 1,075 (1.2%) 1,648 (1.84%) 73,187 67,639 (92.42%) 2,102 (2.87%) 3,767 (5.15%) 615 (0.84%) 34 (0.05%) 774 (1.06%) 1,191 (1.63%) 110 District 110 91,612 -824 (-0.9%) 90,788 86,453 (95.23%) 918 (1.01%) 2,608 (2.87%) 1,490 (1.64%) 108 (0.12%) 1,163 (1.28%) 1,545 (1.7%) 74,036 70,842 (95.69%) 573 (0.77%) 1,837 (2.48%) 1,192 (1.61%) 62 (0.08%) 834 (1.13%) 1,045 (1.41%) Naomi Ludman Cass County has just received a raw deal on all these maps. Dowagiac is the only city in the county. This map carves it out and separates it from the community college in the county that is located just outside the city limits; it separates the elder housing for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians from the land that houses their
Naomi Ludman
Cass County has just received a raw deal on all these maps. Dowagiac is the only city in the county. This map carves it out and separates it from the community college in the county that is located just outside the city limits; it separates the elder housing for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians from the land that houses their administrative tribal headquarters--it's just a travesty.
Bernard Allore
City folks don't understand the issues and needs of farming communities. This map lumps urban and rural areas together and this will leave farmers without a voice because there is such a lack of ties to agriculture today. Please keep Jackson County together in one district. I am a senior citizen and I rely on services in my community of Jackson. Thank you.
Lisa S Kamil
The House maps are ALL unfair. Please use your time to redo the House maps. Thank you
Yalcin Yanikoglu
None of the house maps are Politically fair. Please fix that.
Barbara Dame
This maps splits up Jackson County and the community of interest it serves! Priority should be based on community of interest. This is partisan gerrymandering. Please remember that the law states that districts should not provide a disproportionate advantage for any political party.
John Sauter
I can't understand why all these maps split up Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor is a fairly homogenous population and it should be represented as such, not diluted with neighboring areas with very different makeup. It has very little in common with the neighboring communities. Ypsilanti was kept together and a lot of other areas, Why is Ann Arbor split up?
Bill Richardson
I do not like the Hickory State House map. It combines rural Waterloo Township in Jackson County with much of the city of Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor has public utilities, widely available broadband, and public transportation. Waterloo Township has none of these things. These different communities have different needs and require different legislative representation. Please adopt instead the “Szetela” State House map. It does a much better job of satisfying the ‘communities of interest’ objective for Jackson County. Thank you.
Ann
We support the Magnolia map as it keeps our community of interest together. We oppose the Hickory map as it splits where we live away from the rest of our community. We live in Genoa Township. We have a Brighton address and live in the Brighton school district. We are part of the Brighton fire authority. We live near the Brighton Recreation Area. We go to church in Brighton. We shop in Brighton. We belong in the same district as Brighton and not with Ann Arbor. Thank you.
TIMOTHY B DEBLAEY
Again, ignoring the economic opportunities of the southwestern shoreline communities.
Justin Voss
This map makes no sense. Rural areas of Clinton County should be with other like communities in Ionia, Montcalm, and Gratiot County rather than with urban areas of Lansing which have different interests.
Jazmine Early
WHAT A MESS! As an immigrant I am disappointed that our state has spent so much time with this and this is what you come out with? You make things works for our community. NO WAY JOSE your should accept this map.
Jazmine Early
WHAT A MESS! As an immigrant I am disappointed that our state has spent so much time with this and this is what you come out with? You make things works for our community. NO WAY JOSE your should accept this map.
Jazmine Early
WHAT A MESS! As an immigrant I am disappointed that our state has spent so much time with this and this is what you come out with? You make things works for our community. NO WAY JOSE your should accept this map.
Luke Dornon
Splitting Zeeland from Holland looks like packing to me.
Joel Arnold
This map does not serve the needs of Flint well, and it certainly does not advance the goals of partisan fairness. For most of the last decade, Flint has had not one but two representatives in the state house. Rather than follow the example provided by map P7273 which provided for Flint to have one district that would clearly be represented by a Flint resident with a chance for a second seat as exists today, this map ensures that Flint will have only one representative with no chance for a second. Additionally, this map does not advance partisan fairness and packs Democratic voters into a single, overwhelmingly Democratic district. This kind of mapping is the very definition of partisan gerrymandering. Please change this district line to allow for two chances for a Flint representative, following the example of map P7273.
Joel Arnold
This map does not serve the needs of Flint well, and it certainly does not advance the goals of partisan fairness. For most of the last decade, Flint has had not one but two representatives in the state house. Rather than follow the example provided by map P7273 which provided for Flint to have one district that would clearly be represented by a Flint resident with a chance for a second seat as exists today, this map ensures that Flint will have only one representative with no chance for a second. Additionally, this map does not advance partisan fairness and packs Democratic voters into a single, overwhelmingly Democratic district. This kind of mapping is the very definition of partisan gerrymandering. Please change this district line to allow for two chances for a Flint representative, following the example of map P7273.
Md. Asif Hasan
It’s not okay for our community.
Patrick D Maguire
This one gets it close, but not quite. Salem Twp. needs to be with South Lyon AND Lyon Twp. as all of it is really part of the greater "South Lyon" area and share the same school district, mailing address, shopping, dining, etc. This is really considered one community and should not be split up.
Robert
There is no valid justification or explanation for carving, inexplicably, the Emerald Lakes neighborhood out of Troy. First, Troy should be kept as one district, and the commission should not rely on an arbitrary line of John R. However, to the extent the commission relies on John R as a boundary, there is no explanation for why the map should reach across the road and carve out the Emerald Lakes. The neighborhood is closely related to the rest of Troy and I can imagine no reason to distinguish it from other areas west of John R. No rhyme or reason for this change, which was not included in the original maps. It constitutes an unnecessary division of basic communities of interest, municipal and county boundaries.
Steve Haag
I dislike this map, because it splits my Detroit neighborhood, East English Village, into two districts.
Joe Fresard
This map looks very gerrymandered. People voted for an amendment that prioritized COI's over many other factors, and also looked at compactness and municipal boundaries. This map doesn't seem to consider any of those and is not what people voted for. Don't slice up SCS into so many districts, and keep Harper Woods with the Grosse Pointes, they are a community of interest.
merlin steffes
If one goes to districtr.org and plugs in the districts for Kent County, they will find out that the democrat controlled "Independent Commission" has created 5 democrat leaning districts and the equivalent of 2 republican leaning districts. Kent County is a republican leaning county but an uniformed person who views the district majorities would think Kent County is just like Wayne County. Now the democrat controlled "Independent Commission" has been creating this type of districting around the whole state. Actually the democrat controlled "Independent Commission" hired a company with democrat party connections to create these districts. The democrat controlled "Independent Commission" just gives the maps created their stamp of approval. Gerrymandering it is called.
Chris Roosen
This map is the worst because it splits the Western Wayne County Northville Community in two, and places half of our Township with Ann Arbor. All of this was caused by you ignoring the concerns of Detroit Voters, and "unpacking" Detroit into the suburbs. Go back, listen to Detroit voices, and give them what they want. You can then keep Livonia in one district and Northville in one district. There is NO REASON to split these communities, which already have very competitive House Districts 19 and 20 in the present State House.
Kelly Jones
Please do NOT split Troy as a city we are the largest city in Oakland County. We should NOT be split, and should not be represented with Macomb County residents. We are a distinct community and should remain represented within Oakland County
Ehsan Taqbeem
Bad map, doesn't serve the COI, please delete
merlin steffes
Badly gerrymandered to gift the democrats permanent control and silencing the voices of opposition to the left wingers. Do not use.
Zach Rudat
At the very least I would understand a Lansing or East Lansing based seat dipping into Bath or DeWitt, but anything beyond that into Clinton County makes no sense from a COI standpoint. The Clinton County/Grand Ledge district you guys initially had maintained the County COI and created a competitive seat. Had you kept that, took Delta Township and the western part of Lansing Township into the rest of Eaton County, you still would have ended up with 4 dem seats and a swing seat like you have on this. If we're going to accept that cities can be COIs we should be doing the same with counties too. Please take Capital region COIs into more consideration.
Terri McCormick
Disagreeing with Daniel Grams, Troy is a solidly cohesive community. This map unnecessarily splits the east edge into Sterling Heights, which dilutes the votes of Troy's diverse demographic blocs. Please keep Troy whole!
Lisa
Districts 52,53 and 54 are still bad, no matter what number you give them. You have not, in months, addressed the concerns of the Waterford, Auburn Hills, Pontiac, Oxford, Lake Orion and Bloomfield residents, who have asked that these districts be corrected. The comment I heard several times was it was too much work. All these residents will be stuck with inadequate representation for 10 YEARS using these districts; FIX THIS!
Angelo D Guarnieri
Separating Allen Park and Melvindale does a HUGE disservice to the children that attend school in the Mel-NAP school district. Having two Reps wouldn't help them when one would be mainly focused on Dearborn issues.
Dan Wholihan
This map needs to get voted down as the partisan gerrymander that it is. This isn't partisan fairness, but exactly the opposite of any real definition. Ann Arbor, A city of 125,000 should not have four representatives, and should not be representing its cultural opposite. This map splits Ann Arbor four ways at the expense of rural Livingston, rural/suburban Jackson, and far suburban Oakland Counties. It also has nothing in common with the Brighton area of Livingston County, especially Genoa Township. I can walk outside, go across the street to state land and shoot my firearms legally. Ann Arbor politicians would ban firearms completely. In addition, the Brighton area is split, with Genoa and Hamburg in a district with Waterloo and Lyndon Twp (Chelsea north) and Ann Arbor, but not its neighbors of Brighton, Brighton Township, and Green Oak which is our own community of interest. All we have in common with Waterloo is a rec area and rural character. The City of Brighton, Brighton Twp, and Green Oak on the other hand are in a district with part of split Lyon Township which isn't too crazy, but also with Wixom and Eastern Commerce? Livingston County doesn't belong with Oakland County east of Napier Road for a State House District. Nothing against Wixom and Eastern Commerce, but I'm sure it has a lot more in common with Novi, the rest of Commerce, or West Bloomfield near Haggerty than with parts west of Napier and in another county. The Brighton area needs to be kept together. Ann Arbor should be split once for State House. Both rural and urban areas should have representation for our own different communities.