My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
050724_SD_COL_V2 Dove
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
Comment Toggle
All Comments
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
Number of Comments Displayed (Zoom in to show less): 0
Lauren Lisi
Again, when I circulated the petition it was clear that Michiganders wanted fair maps. This map is not partisanly fair.
Jeanette A LaMere
Dove is an unfair map that adds bias to Republicans
Claire S Vial
This map clearly attempt to isolate democratic voters to give advantages to republicans in surrounding districts
Barbara Faller
Not a good choice for partisan fairness
Aziza Ulaby
This map worsens partisan fairness. The new map should improve, not worsen partisan fairness.
Jason Burbo
This map is too lopsided and lacking in partisan fairness.
Timothy King
Commenting as a District 6 resident, other maps are better in keeping the district within Wayne County borders. The 7th district is a bizarre looking collection of disparate communities running north and south. Detroit to Auburn Hills?! The VRA/Opportunity districts are weak, one district of about 85% majority black voters with two at just 40% majority. Several maps are much stronger in this regard.
Darryl Conliffe
Seriously flawed in splitting significant portions of Farmington and Farmington Hills.
Katie olsson
This map is worse than our current map! We need more partisan fairness and protection of communities of interest and color. No more gerrymandering.
Wendy Steadman
This map has the worst partisan fairness score of all the other maps. This map is unfair, and needs to be rejected.
Judithe Stone
This is an incredibly unfair map and has the single worst score for partisan fairness. This should be a non-starter. Throw this one out.
Ralph Johnson
Dove is very unfair and is one of the worst as far as partisan fairness.
Karen Holman
It is disturbing to me that this unfair map is being proposed.
David R Hopkinson
This map is worse than Linden, the map the court ruled needing replacement, with regard to partisan fairness. We amended the MI Constitution to create the Citizens Redistricting Commission who achieved the fairest maps in the nation. Nationwide people concerned about gerrymandering were impressed with what our Commission accomplished. The purpose was not only to allow election results to reflect the votes of the voters but also to enable anyone eligible to vote to have reason to believe that voting is worthwhile. Please do not go backward on these goals.
Mary Coffey
District 6 does not make much sense to me as a resident of Farmington Hills: it includes parts of Southfield, parts of Farmington/Farmington Hills and some suburban sections of Wayne County. Its mean-median score of 2.9% is considerably worse than that of the current map Linden (1.3%). It also does worse on percent majoritarian outcomes than the current map. It has a few districts in which African American voters are packed which dilutes their influence; form example, district 3 has 85.6% black on the VRA analysis. The purpose of the constitutional amendment was to improve partisan fairness; this map does worse than what we currently have and should be rejected.
Robert Piper
This map is rates poorly on partisan fairness.
Claudia Kraus Piper
This map is worse than the current map for people of color
Linda Kahn Gale
This is the worst partisan map. Do not choose this map.
Laurie Krauth
This map has the worst partisan fairness score of all the maps. It doesn't allow people of color a fair shake. It's significantly worse than the current Linden map. My son who lives in Detroit is appalled by this map and has asked me to share his opinion here.
Laurence Levy
This is a bad map that is too partisan which is not what Michigan residents wanted when they voted to have a citizen redistricting commission. It dilutes non white voters, the efficiency gap score is bad. Please do not select this map.
Nomi joyrich
This map has the worst partisan fairness score of all maps. Do not choose this map.
Lisa Goldstein
This map performs worse on partisan fairness than any of the other options and should not be considered as a final choice. It also is notably less fair on partisanship than the current Linden map on all measures.
David Ware
Not representative
Lisa F Peers
This map doesn't represent the Birmingham community and is very partisan. Please do not use this map.
Peggy Roberts
Of all the maps, this is the one that least meets requisite standards for partisan fairness, which is the reason the Commission was voted into existence in the first place. Please do not use this map.
John E. Roberts
This map is the worst of the bunch based on non-partisan fairness. It obviously does not meet standards set by the Commission or the Court. Please DO NOT USE. Thanks.
Charlotte Jeanne Morton
I don't think this map succeeds in providing the voters what they wanted when they established the commission. It appears to lack proper representation of all communities
Carole Murphy
The Dove Map has an even higher efficiency gap and a higher lopsided margin advantage than the Orton Map; 2 of the factors of partisan fairness. Please kick Dove to the curb! Thank you for your work.
Diane Sue Kinnamon
Like the Cardinal map, Dove is very poor on partisan fairness.
Emily Jernberg
This map is the worst map and the most unfair. It has a poor efficiency score.
Eve Mokotoff
This map has a bad partisan fairness score and discounts non white voters, efficiency gap score is bad and I think it should definitely not be selected.
Cory Joyrich
This map breaks up communities of interest and disenfranchises non-white voters.
Nomi Joyrich
This is the worst map for partisan fairness
Leora Mira Druckman
This is the worst map for partisan fairness. It must be reconsidered.
Jason Behr
This map splits up communities of interest and scores low on partisan fairness
Anna Kristina Johnson
I strongly dislike the Dove map. It has a low partisan fairness score and it dissects my city of Farmington Hills from Farmington. We treat both cities as one community, including our schools and libraries and doesn't make sense to split them up.
Lynda L Pawloski
Analysis of this map shows that the partisan fairness is less than the Linden map. This does not solve the gerrymandering problem. Also, it splits up Farmington and Farmington Hills - communities of interest with the library and the school system.
Tim Sawmiller
Fails at communities of interest and partisan fairness
Tim Sawmiller
Fails at communities of interest and partisan fairness
Janet Prange
Please reject. Southern Commerce should be with Walled Lake and Novi. We have little in common with White Lake and Highland
Sharon McNeil
Don’t see this as a good fair map. Reject please Thanks for all the hard work
Sharon McNeil
Don’t see this as a good fair map. Reject please Thanks for all the hard work
Robert D Thomasson
Dove is an unfair map that favors Republicans
Carol Wilson-Duffy
The Dove and Cardinal maps are very similar, so I am repeating my Cardinal map comment. I'm not in favor of this map as it doesn't seem that the main goal of competitive races will happen with this district mapping. More than anything, we voted to rid ourselves of gerrymandered areas. Please be very cognizant to ensure that the majority vote is represented. I feel that this map will also break up some communities of interest!
John Burow
The clear intent and priority of non-partisan redistricting was fair, non partisan legislative districts. This map fails this most important objective.
Matthew D. Horwitt
Dove is an unfair map that would add bias toward Republicans. Heron is a better map.
Catherine Lippert
This map is not a fair representation of both parties
Holly Eliot
We need to stick with partisan fairness.
Dove clearly violates the intent for partisan fairness. Reject this district - it gives advantage to one party in particular.
Cheryl Ann Huckins
Dove makes partisan fairness worse than the status quo. Also, it breaks up some communities of interest.
Timothy Hughes
This map gives an unfair advantage to Republicans.
Iris Rosen
Not a good map in my opinion
Melany Mack
Dove scores poorly on partisan fairness and should not be adopted.
Nancy Colflesh
Cardinal is an unfair map.....It adds Republicans.
Edward Saunders
Dove also scores poorly on partisan fairness. With a Mean-Median Difference of 2.5 it is actually WORSE than the Linden map.
Ann Rodgers
VRA analysis shows only 2 majority minority districts in this proposal. Please reject it.
Laura J Hunt
This map does not promote partisan fairness which, after all, should be the purpose of redistricting.
jane cissell
my comment was marked as green when it should have been RED. I don't think this map succeeds in providing the voters what they wanted when they established the commission. It appears to lack proper representation of all communities
Peter L Trezise
This map does not meet the fairness standards.
Shannon Falkenhagen
I dislike this map. It does not have partisan fairness and lacks representation of people of color.
Lauren Lisi
I do not think this is a fair map.
Elizabeth Kaufman
Another unfair partisan map. Please vote NO.
Ronald Hoffman
The goal of drawing district maps should be partisan fairness. I do not believe this map does that.
Charlotte Jeanne Morton
This one needs more work as far as being. You have a choice between a better map than Linden in Heron. You will be going back to the drawing board if this map is approved.
Charlotte Jeanne Morton
This is not a fair partisan map. Please reject
james ward leyerle
seems to atomize Sterling Heights into 3 districts
Carol Lessure
This map heavily favors one party over the other in a way that would distort and dilute representation in the state Senate. Please reject it.
Louis J Porter
Partisan fairness is a constitutional mandate. This map fails to meet that constitutional mandate.
Violet E. Anderson
This is the worst map for partisan voting opportunities. It favors the rural counties and splits up neighborhoods and community voting.
Allegra Pitera
While Partisan fairness is not the only criteria to consider, this map has the WORST partisan fairness score and should not be considered.
Shadia Martini
This is completely off when it comes to increasing representation for the African American community. It is way worse than what we currently have.
Nomi Joyrich
This has the worst partisan fairness score of any of the maps. This map should not be considered.
Douglas Floto
I don't like this map. It favors Republicans. By splitting Commerce Township in two and pasting it in to rural areas to the west and north, it breaks up our community interest, which lies to the south and east like other suburban communities.
Susan Vandercook
The commission did an awesome job of developing fair maps initially. It would be a shame to see that be undone with the adoption of this map. It is not fair.
Allen Ralph Wolf
This map is totally off-base as to partisan fairness and should be rejected.
Kathryn Stein
Dove is an unfair map
John Lindstrom
It is very clear this proposal falls short of the intent of the voters who overwhelmingly approved the amendment to end partisan gerrymandering in 2018. The partisan weighting factor is unsatisfactory, meaning one party will have an unfair advantage even when voter intentions are clearly more towards another party.
Jonathan Weinberg
This appears to be a step backwards from the Linden map.
Sherry Trezise
Please do NOT adopt the Dove map. It does not represent state-wide partisan fairness. When we, the voters, chose to remove re-districting from the legislature, and place this responsibility in the hands of a Citizen Commission, state-wide partisan fairness was a major principle. It remains so. Please reject this map.
Christopher Gilmer Hill
COI splits here in detroit make no sense and largely ignore neighborhood boundaries
Barbara A Church
The Dove map is the map that should be rejected. It does not represent partisan fairness.
Charles Hodgman
This map scores poorly in terms of Voting Rights Act partisan fairness and should be rejected.
Jean Gruber
I support the most fair map and Dove is not it. Please do not use it.
Jean Gruber
I support the most fair map and Dove is not it. Please do not use it.
This is the worse map of the area. No partisan fairness. Doesn't reflect us
Jody W Schottenfels
This map does not represent non-partisan fairness. It appears to dilute and split communities of interest.
Voters passed Proposal 2 to ensure that the party with the majority of votes would win the most seats. Shame for even considering this map which would bring back gerrymandering.
Abby Schwartz
Please do not pick this map. There are others that improve racial equity without making partisan fairness worse.
Daniel W. Berland
Not acceptable partisan neutrality; VRA compliance? Attention to COIs/
Rochelle Rubin
This map is not acceptable as an option. It is not sufficiently non-partison and is not meet the need of all communities.
Elizabeth Buckner
This is the ABSOLUTE WORSE map!!! Please DO NOT adopt it.
Jay F Kusler
The DOVE map is an unfair and partisan map. We want fair maps!
Linda Dow
We want a fair map and this does NOT do it.
Eric Schneidewind
This is the least fair map with the most partisan bias.
Mark Jeffrey Hornbeck
The Dove map is absolutely the version that allows for the least amount of partisan fairness and must not be adopted by the commission.
Judith K Putnam
Partisan fairness must be a key goal in the commission's work. This map does a poor job in that regard.
Brian J Bridson
Dove is not a fair map
Brian J Bridson
Dove is not a fair map
Sherry B Trezise
I realize the Commission is under court mandate to address racial equity, in the re-drawing of maps. That does not mean that partisan fairness can be disregarded, in the process, as is the case in this Dove map. We, the people, deserve maps that address BOTH racial equity and partisan fairness. This map does not accomplish that goal. Rather, it moves partisan fairness in the wrong direction, violating the Michigan Constitution, section 13 of Article IV. Please do not adopt this map.
Jeffrey D Padden
The commission has several choices of plans that will comply with the federal court order on racial equity. Among those, some are quite good on partisan fairness, but this one, Dove, is very bad on that score. If the commission adopts it, there is a strong likelihood that it will be challenged in state courts because of noncompliance with Article IV, Section 13 of the Michigan Constitution. The commission should settle for nothing less than addressing *both* racial equity and partisan fairness, not one or the other. Dove does not accomplish that, but instead moves in the wrong direction on partisan fairness.
Jeffrey D Padden
This Dove map is very bad on partisan fairness, and violates Michigan's constitutional requirement on that score.
Mary Brown
This is likely the very worst drawn for partisan fairness. End gerrymandering. Stop packing.
Kenneth OHara
This map shows a great deal of disrespect for communities of interest and lacks partisan fairness.
Chris Andrews
This map is probably the most unfair to Michigan voters of all the collaborative maps. It adds substantially to the pro-Republican bias of Linden. It makes it more likely that the will of the majority will not be reflected in years when Democrats win at the top of the ticket. In Linden, there were no districts in which Democrats were projected to win more than 81% of the vote. In Dove, Districts 1 and 3 massively pack Democrats projecting vote percentages of 97% and 94%. This is anti-Democratic and is racial gerrymandering almost certain to produce more litigation. It does no better than other maps in reflecting communities of interest. It doesn't do better in crossing jurisdictional lines, either, althought this is less important than partisan fairness. You have a choice between a better map than Linden in Heron. This is the worst choice you can make
Lisa Jevens
This map should be eliminated because it scores poorly on partisan fairness and makes things worse than they were before.
Robert Swartz
District 1 is not well balanced politically.
Robert Swartz
This map separates Waterford from the 'greater' regional lakes communities of Auburn Hills, and parts of West Bloomfield to include large parts of the 'upland' regions of Hartland and Howell. Political and cultural balance would be improved by moving District 23 farther northeast and south.
Robert McCraight
This map clearly divides our community and will lessen our voice. Simply stated, we will not be a priority to either of the senators who will represent us. This map will have a disastrous effect on Romulus in the future. Please do not select this map.
Stephen Abbott
on this one i like the idea of keeping macomb and oakland separate but im not crazy about the parts of detroit being included in those upper districts. its a ok map
lori A Boyce
This map is the worst from a partisan fairness perspective / efficiency gap. For this reason, i am totally opposed to this map. The reason MIRC was created was to end gerrymandering. This goes in the wrong direction. Please do not adopt.
John L
This district combines Birmingham with parts of Detroit, a concept the three-judge panel explicitly called out as problematic.
Kevin Krause
The City of Romulus stands out because it has a population of around 25,000 yet serves over 100,000 people daily due to DTW. This leads to unique challenges regarding our representation. Romulus' representation became diluted when our House Districts increased to three, and with two additional Senators, the situation will likely worsen. It's uncommon for a city to have so many representatives. Such a change could be detrimental to a city that supports DTW. The plea is to keep Romulus united.