My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
050924_SD_COL_v1 Cardinal
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
Huntington Woods is together with communities that we have noting in common with, communities that I don't even know how to get to. And the map is not partisanly fair.
Deborah Bohm-Rosenman
I reject the lack of partisan fairness in this map.
Jenni Ring
This map separates Hazel Park from the communities it most closely interacts with as well as the rest of the county it belongs to. Hazel Park and Madison Heights should be in the same district.
Anne E Missavage
The Cardinal proposal is unfair and increases partisan advantage to republicans.
Jeanette A LaMere
Cardinal is an unfair map that adds bias to Republicans
Claire S Vial
this unfairly groups people by voting preferences and gives a partisan advantage to republicans
Carrie Hatcher-Kay
Cardinal has a very low partisan fairness score and should NOT even be considered. Cardinal has lots of problems, but two in particular don't make any sense: First, Northville shouldn't be separated from Plymouth. These communities have tons of cross-collaborations. Similarly, Pontiac and Southfield and Royal Oak Twp. need to be together. They also share tons of COI. Cardinal has a mean-median efficiency of 2.6% while Heron has .3%. Drop it!!!
Jason Burbo
As a Michigan voter, I find this map to be lacking in partisan fairness.
Aziza Ulaby
This map is less, not more fair than the existing (Linden) map.
Timothy King
As a Livonia resident, I find my district, the 6th, meanders too far westward. Northville & Northville Twp. are better connected with communities to the immediate south and north. Livonia fits better with communities to the south, Westland, Garden City, Inkster and incorporating more of the northwest Detroit. This map appears to only weakly meet VRA/Opportunity Districts criteria, with 2 of the districts registering at 43% majority black primary voters. Other maps, Kellom, Szetela and Heron for instance do better. Partisan Fairness is another weakness as 4 of the Democratic majority districts are true toss up districts (50-51% leaning Democratic). There are no toss up Republican districts in this map. The Republican party has a clear advantage given a 50-50% or even slightly majority democratic statewide vote, and I can only speculate that was the priority factor in drawing this map.
Mary Combs
Do not choose the Cardinal map!!! It is skewed totally to the GOP in its partisan scale. It will not reflect everyone having a vote that counts that was passed by the Michigan people.
Lauren Ruth Johnson
Please reject this map because of the low partisan fairness score.
Katie Olsson
This map scores worse on partisan fairness than our current map. It cracks communities of interest and people of color.
Omar Jazaerly
The Cardinal map should be disregarded because it dilutes the voting power of communities of color in Metro Detroit and lacks partisan fairness.
Taaha Najam
The Cardinal Map is NOT a good map and should NOT be used any further. Voters from communities of color will be disenfranchised.
Wendy Steadman
This map is not good. It divides the Black community in Pontiac from Southfield and Royal Oak Township, where they have strong ties. The partisan fairness score is worse than the Heron map.
Ralph Johnson
Cardinal is one of the worst maps and does not support partisan fairness.
Judithe Stone
This map cuts off the Rochester Chaldean community from the rest of the Chaldean community so dilutes the Chaldean vote and weakens their voice.
Karen Holman
I don't like Cardinal because it is even more biased than Linden.
Hafsa Azam
The Cardinal map should not be adopted. It does not protect communities of color in Southeast Michigan and divides communities up. For example, Warren is not kept whole.
David R Hopkinson
This map is worse than 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
This map cuts up Warren without regard to communities of interest. It scores poorly on matters of partisan fairness, with a mean-median difference of 2.6% versus 1.3% on Linden; moving further away from 0 takes us in the wrong direction of what Michigan voters wanted with the anti-gerrymandering amendment. District 3 is an example of a packed district for African-American voters. This map dpes less well at addressing the concerns of African-American voters than some other maps. Please do not move this map forward; there are maps which address the court ruling concerns which do much better on partisan fairness than this map.
Yousif Kaakarli
I believe that the Cardinal map is a bad map for ensuring fair, equitable maps. Communities of interest in Southeastern Michigan, especially communities of color, will have their voices weakened during elections.
Rodney Keteyian
Szetela #404 is a choppy map. It doesn't do a great job in keeping similar communities/cities together.
Lynna Kaucheck
This map dilutes the voices of black voters. Pontiac should not be isolated from cities like Southfield that have large Black communities.
Hibah Khan
The Cardinal map is terrible when it comes to measures of partisan fairness and dilutes the voices of black voters. For example, Pontiac is left isolated from other black communities, such as Southfield.
Christopher Gilmer Hill
These detroit splits totally ignore COIs and neighborhood boundaries. It looks like suburban districts are grabbing random chunks of detroit to meet an arbitrary quota, which is exactly what got the previous maps struck down
Cynthia Gutierrez
Cardinal map will negatively impact the SW-Detroit community of interest.
Rachel Diane Marquez
The cardinal map attempts to diminish the Latino voice in Southwest Detroit
Robert McCraight
The City of Romulus does not approve of this map. This map further divides our community and waters down our voice. The northern part of Romulus is largely African American who already feel disconnected and unheard. The elected officials in this community have voted and passed a resolution to unanimously oppose this map.
Robert Piper
The Northville and Plymouth communities should not be divided. This map does not reflect partisan fairness.
Laurie Krauth
Pontiac leaders have made it clear that this map does not provide Pontiac with a fair shake, particularly for the black vote. It has a much worse partisan fairness core than Heron, despite what some people are saying, on all of the measures, especially the mean/median difference. Pontiac should be with Royal Oak Township and Southfield. Please don't choose this abysmal map.
Claudia Kraus Piper
The Northville and Plymouth communities should not be separated! These two communities work together in many ways. This map is worse than the Heron map for partisan fairness, especially for the mean median difference.
Angela Davenport
Please reject this map. It fails to reflect partisan fairness and does not address the needs of Pontiac residents, instead splitting Pontiac from Southfield and combining it with Rochester. The map cuts up Pontiac, weakening the voices of color. It has the lowest partisan fairness score, likely diluting voices based on party affiliation, and is discriminatory.
Laurence Levy
This map does not give Detroiters their full voice. Putting Highland Park and Hamtramck with Detroit is not a good idea. The partisanship of this map is against the reason we voted for a citizen redistricting commission. An approved map should have a higher mean median score. Don't approve this map.
susan andress
I am concerned that this match does not improve on the partisan fairness fairness of the Linden map. It has a 3.6 lopsided partisan fairness score and a mean of 2.6% I want to see a mean closer to 0
Lisa Goldstein
I do not think the MICRC should adopt this map. It performs significantly worse than the current Linden map on partisan fairness particularly the mean/median difference. In additional district 8 is packed and contributes to the overall partisan unfairness of the map. I strongly encourage the commission to reject this map.
David Ware
Efficiency gap is too high
David Ware
Not representative of constituency
lori A Boyce
although i think this would be fine for my community, I believe this is a bad map overall. 404 and 376 are so much better. This map is worse on partisan fairness than Linden and 404 and 376 are so much better maps. Remember, the MICRC was formed in order to eliminate gerrymandering, and this map goes in the wrong direction. It also splits up Pontiac, giving them little chance of representation (better if with communities such as southfield). Further, it splits up Warren without regard to COI. Could go on, but I urge the committee to reject this map and adopt 504 or 376 with modifications.
Lisa F Peers
This map is too broad and doesn't represent the Birmingham community well. Please do not use this map.
Oscar Castaneda
This map severely damages the SW Detroit COI, pushing it back to what it was before the redistricting process. Terrible for us
David J Solomon
This is a very unfair map in terms of partisanship.
Carole Murphy
The Cardinal Map has a high mean-median advantage; a factor of partisan fairness. Relative to some of the other maps, Cardinal is unacceptable. Thank you for your work.
Eve Mokotoff
This map lumps Highland Park and Hamtramck with Detroit and cuts up Detroit neighborhoods. It will weaken Detroit voices. This map does not meet the requirements of the lawsuit. I want to see a map with a higher mean median score. I worked in Detroit for 3 decades and this community is important to me. Do not approve this map.
Emily Jernberg
I want a map that keeps Rochester Hills and Troy together. This is an unfair map. I want a map with a higher mean median difference score.
Cory Joyrich
This map divides several communities of interest, cuts off areas of Detroit (thereby weakening the voice of voters in that area) and has a poor mean median difference score. Please do not use this map.
Diane Sue Kinnamon
The goal for the Commission is to draw fair maps. The scores poor on partisan fairness.
Leora Druckman
Separates Northville from Plymouth. They should be together. Terrible efficiency gap.
Leora Druckman
Cuts up Pontiac and negatively impacts fair representation. It would be better to combine Pontiac with Southfield and Royal Oak Twp. The voting efficiency numbers are terrible. Please ignore my Like comment, I meant to select Dislike.
Pam Shore
This map has a terrible efficiency gap score, and is not fair to different interests.
Pam Shore
This map splits up Troy and Rochester Hills, even though they are communities with similar interests.
Darryl Conliffe
Unacceptable map.
Jason Behr
This map splits up communities of interest and scores low on partisan fairness
Matthew Boak
Cardinal is an unfair map that adds bias to Republicans.
Anna Kristina Johnson
Please do not consider this map, as it has the lowest partisan score and most likely will dilute the voices based on their chosen party. Given that it is discriminatory, it should not be considered.
Lynda L Pawloski
Having looked at the analysis of this map, it is LESS partisan fair than the current Linden map. Please do not adopt.
Tim Sawmiller
Fails at communities of interest
Gerilyn K Biggs
This map is poor for partisan fairness, of utmost importance to me as a Michigan voter.
Ingrid O Yarbrough
Cardinal is an unfair map. It falls short of being a non partisan ma.
Janet Prange
Don't like this map. Southern Commerce belongs with Walled Lake and Novi.
Robert D Thomasson
Sharon McNeil
Please reject . Falls short of being a non partisan map
Carol Wilson-Duffy
I'm not in favor of the Cardinal map as it doesn't seem that the main goal of competitive races will happen with this map. More than anything, we voted to rid ourselves of gerrymandered areas. Please be very cognizant to ensure that the majority vote is represented.
John Burow
The clear intent and priority of non-partisan redistricting was fair, non partisan legislative districts. This map fails this most important objective. Please reject.
Brian L Burnett
Not good. Please delete.
Brian L Burnett
Not even close. Please limit the choices better.
Beth Bowen
This map is much more biased than the map that currently exists. It goes against the spirit and letter of the laws passed by the people of the state of Michigan in the form of Prop 2 2018.
Matthew D. Horwitt
Cardinal is an unfair map that would add bias toward Republicans. Heron is a much better map.
Catherine Lippert
Cardinal is an extremely unfair map, most unfair of them all
Please reject t his district. It violates the intent of Prop 2 - the voters overwhelmingly want districts that do not favor one party over the other.
Holly Jean Eliot
We need to stick to partisan fairness.
Cheryl Ann Huckins
Cardinal has a poor partisan fairness score. In addition, it breaks up some communities of interest
Timothy Hughes
Cardinal is extraordinarily partisan in favor of Republicans.
Iris Rosen
Not fairly sectioned.
Rena Seltzer
This map has lousy partisan fairness and is worse than the current situation. It should be rejected.
Melany Mack
Cardinal is a very poor map and is significantly flawed in terms of partisan fairness. Cardinal should not be adopted.
Nancy Colflesh
Finch is an unfair map from the perspective of creating fair maps.
Nancy Colflesh
Cardinal is an unfair adds Republicans.
Edward Saunders
Cardinal scores poorly on partisan fairness. With a Mean-Median Difference of 2.6 it is actually WORSE than the Linden map.
Jan Baumgras
Scores worse than other maps.
Jan Baumgras
This map does not score as well as some others. I see quite a few cookie cutter comments "liking" this map, but I believe the MICRC was too smart to fall for the mass commenting tactics promoted by political parties when it created the first final maps so is hopefully too smart to fall for that tactic again.
Christine Samida
This map does not appear to reflect partisan fairness.
Cynthia Vincent
Please reject this map. It doesn't appear to reflect partisan fairness
Ann Rodgers
District 1 is not majority black in this proposal. In fact, there are only 2 majority minority districts. Please reject it.
Laura Hunt
This map does not promote partisan fairness which, after all, should be the purpose of redistricting.
Jane cissell
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 fairness standards and appears less effective in addressing the issues identified by the court.
Shannon Falkenhagen
I dislike this map. It is not fair and lacks representation of BIPOC. I live in Macomb County and I dislike that Warren is being carved out into different districts.
Carol Lessure
I don't think this map does as good a job responding the Voting Rights Act requirements - the commission's own VRA analysis shows that Detroit's black voters are split up so that there are only two majority minority Senate districts, while other maps managed to have three. It is difficult given where populations are clustered to come up with fair maps for Senate districts that keep every municipality and community of interest intact. It is especially concerning that this map doesn't meet VRA as well as some of the others.
Lauren Lisi
I am not a fan of this map. I do not think this is a partisanly fair map.
Korey Morris
There is no need to divide Romulus into separate state senate seats, the commission should do its best to keep cities and townships whole. This is better for residents and the elected officials tasked with representing.
Elizabeth Kaufman
Such a partisan map has no place in this list of possibilities. Please vote NO.
Ronald Hoffman
This is a bad map. It does not provide for partisan fairness nor does it meet the goal of communities of interest.
Charlotte Jeanne Morton
I agree with other red commenters. The original map is better than this one. Do not choose this one. The original map is much more fairly laid out.
Lisa Goldstein
This map scores worse on partisan fairness than the existing map and is a step in the wrong direction. Please do not chose this map. It would be a disservice to the citizens of Michigan who voted to support Prop 2 to eliminate gerrymandering and partisanship in drawing districts.
Lisa Goldstein
This map does worse than the existing map on the criteria of partisan fairness and should not be considered as a final option.
Louis J Porter
Partisan fairness is a constitutional mandate. This map fails to meet that constitutional mandate.
Nomi Joyrich
This carves up Warren in a terrible way. This is one of the very worst maps for Partisan fairness. This provides very few opportunities for non-white representation. This map is so much worse than the status quo and should not be considered.
Violet E. Anderson
This map has very low partisan fairness and should not be adopted. The current map is more partisan. Warren neighborhoods and communities are separated by this map. It does not represent the folks living in this area.
Shadia Martini
This is the worst map when it comes to partisan balance. Please reject.
Allegra Pitera
The worst!! NO!! This is worse than the status quo for partisan fairness. The partisan fairness score is so bad that this should not be considered. Not even remotely.
Frances E Chudnow
This map is unfair and should not be chosen.
Deborah Kraus
I'm not sure I understand how this map made it into the final 12. It is highly partisan, towards republicans and therefore doesn't speak to what we were voting for in 2018. Thank you in advance for rejecting it.
Douglas Floto
Why is Commerce Township split with half going to the rural north and west? Commerce is a bedroom community with more in common with communities to the south and east. This gives an unfair advantage to Republicans.
Nell Kuhnmuench
Cardinal is a very unfair map. It is very biased toward Republicans. It is not the type of map that was envisioned when the Commission was adopted by the voters of Michigan.
Barbara Church
The Cardinal map is unfair. Do not choose this.
Jeffrey Padden
The Cardinal map compromises partisan fairness, which puts the Commission in jeopardy of further lawsuits. Racial equity can be achieved along with partisan fairness through adoption of the Heron plan. Many of the supporters of Cardinal seem to believe that maintaining municipal boundaries is the same as recognizing communities of interest, but this is mistaken. The requirement to consider municipal boundaries is a lower constitutional priority than racial equity and partisan fairness.
Barbara Faller
Barbara Faller
Susan Vandercook
The Commission drew fair maps initially and I would hate to see their hard work go out the window if this map is adopted. It is not fair.
Allen Ralph Wolf
While this map does ok on communities of interest, it does a terrible job of providing for partisan fairness. Thus, it should be rejected.
Rochelle Rubin
I accidentally added a positive comment to the wrong map. Disregard the green comment at this location. I DO NOT support the Cardinal Map at all!
Kathryn Stein
Cardinal is not fair and is favorable towards the republicans.
Jean Gruber
This map is not what was intended when the people of MI voted to have fair non-partisan districts being determined by an independent commission. Please do not consider this map.
John Lindstrom
Again, this plan fails to follow the intent of the voters in approving the 2018 amendment. It is far too partisan in application, which is not at all what the voters demanded. Please reject this proposal.
Jonathan Weinberg
This map packs Black voters into a single district and is a step backward from the Linden map.
Mark Hornbeck
Cardinal is sneaking by, possibly because it’s not the very worst map. But it’s close. Remember, we can be both VRA compliant and have a fair partisan map. This map is among the most unfair of the 12. The Commission should not adopt this map.
Jay F Kusler
I do no think this is a fair map, and it should be rejected
Sherry Trezise
Please do NOT adopt this map. It sacrifices state-wide partisan fairness. When the citizens of this state voted to remove re-districting from the hands of the legislature, and create a Citizens Commission to carry out this function, we expected that districts would be drawn with state-wide partisan fairness as a guiding principle. This map fails in that regard, and should not be adopted.
Michael J. Polzin
This map scores poorly for Voting Rights Act partisan fairness. Please reject it.
Charles Hodgman
This map scores poorly in terms of Voting Rights Act partisan fairness and should be rejected.
This map doesn't reflect my community's make up
Lois Ann Furry
You can do better than this.
Abby Schwartz
Please do not choose this map as there are better maps. This one has less partisan fairness than the current maps.
Daniel W Berland
Not acceptable partisan neutrality; VRA compliance?
Rochelle Rubin
This map is not acceptable as an option. It is not sufficiently non-partison and is not meet the needs of the black community.
Elizabeth Buckner
This map is not fair to all parties, and does not address the needs of black communities
Nomi Joyrich
Please do not adopt this map. It does not have partisan fairness and it's not good for my community.
Sherry B Trezise
Why adopt a map which is less fair on a partisan scale than the currently existing map? Please do NOT consider this map.
Mary Brown
Less fair than the current map. It's worse! Please do NOT consider.
Chris Andrews
This map is less fair than the existing Linden, which should disqualify it. Lisa Handley said at the outset that a fair map improves fairness or at least maintains the status quo. Linden has Republican bias, and it took a combination of the Dobbs decision, and big top-of-ticket Democratic wins to eke out the tiniest of majorities. This map shows the serious flaws in looking at seats-votes ratio. It assumes that 3 redrawn seats go Democratic with 51% or less, and that assumes Democrats get 52 to 53% of the vote. In a 50-50 race, those seats would be Republican. This map does no better in addressing communities of interest. It has fewer municipal splits, but this is a lower priority than partisan fairness in the Constitution.
Lisa Jevens
This map should not be considered because it scores poorly on partisan fairness, and is worse and more gerrymandered than our current maps.
Robert Swartz
District 1 is not well balanced in this Map.
Robert Swartz
Waterford is closely aligned policitally and culturally with West Bloomfield. It would be good to see some combination of the two.
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.
Robert McCraight
Splitting Romulus into smaller districts will only lessen our voice. You have already assigned 3 state representatives to the city of Romulus which has had a negative impact on our representation. Do not split our voice in the State Senate as well.