My Districting | MICHIGAN
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
052124_SD_COL_v3 Finch2
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
Not a fair map. I was a petition circulator and fairness is the reason that people wanted this Commission.
This is a hard no. I have lived in multiple parts of this proposed District 6. Old Redford/Berg, etc.. does NOT belong with Northville. The old maps were better. how is this any kind of fix?.
Jeanette A LaMere
Finch is an unfair map that adds bias to Republicans
Claire S Vial
This map is isolating democratically "safe" districts to try to gain advantage for republicans in surrounding districts
Carrie Hatcher-Kay Ph.D.
Commissioners, PLEASE drop Finch. It is not drawn fairly. It is one of the 3 worst maps for partisan fairness. It carves up Warren without any respect for communities of interest, and all around steps us backward in time. Please ditch this map!
Katie Olsson
Partisan fairness score is too low. Got to do better on VRA criteria.
Wendy Steadman
This is a bad map. It provides fewer opportunities for people of color to have a voice. It divides the Chaldean community. It has an unacceptably low partisan fairness score. This map should absolutely not be chosen.
Judithe Stone
This map offers fewer Voting Rights Act districts for communities of color. It's a terrible map in terms of partisan fairness scoring. Should be rejected.
Ralph Johnson
I think this map does very poorly in relation to partison fairness.
Karen Holman
I agree with the other communities that this map defeats the purpose of fair partisan opportunity.
David R Hopkinson
It is too bad that a better map is having to be replaced and may result in a worse map. I thought the guidance to the Commission by the consultant who suggested that a district needn't have a majority minority population in order for members of that minority to succeed in electing their preferred representative. Unfortunately, clever people with money can sometimes find a way to get what they want. 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
The Finchs map does poorly on measures of partisan fairness. It has a mean-median difference of 2.7% 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. It also has lower scores for percentages of majoritarian outcomes than the current Linden map.This map seems to split Warren in a way that does not match any COI. Please do not accept this map; ; there are maps which address the court ruling concerns which do much better on partisan fairness than this map.
Lisa Goldstein
This map is one of the worst for partisan fairness. Although it does keep my community of interest, Farmington and Farmington Hills together, it splits up other COIs in Warren. I urge the MICRC not to chose this map. It performs worse than the Linden map for partisan fairness.
Robert McCraight
The elected officials in the City of Romulus have voted unanimously to oppose any maps that further divide our community. The north side of Romulus is largely African American and already feel disconnected from our community. This map will substantiate their concerns.
Robert Piper
This map has a low partisan fairness score.
Linda Kahn Gale
Please do not choose this map. This is one of the worst for partisan fairness. It gives few opportunities for non white representation.
Claudia Kraus Piper
This is a terrible map for partisan fairness.
Laurie Krauth
This has a very bad partisan fairness score, and it's much worse than Linden, the status quo. There are very few opportunities for non-white representation.
Emily Jernberg
Very low partisan score. Warren's communities of interest also lose their voice. Please don't use this map.
David Ware
Not a fair representation of the constituents
Lisa F Peers
This map is too broad and doesn't represent the Birmingham community well. Please do not use this map.
John E. Roberts
This map does not meet standards for overcoming partisan gerrymandering, which is the whole purpose of the Commission. I want our maps to be as non-partisan as possible, and this does not measure up.
David J Solomon
This is a very partisan map. Please do not use it. There are better options
David J Solomon
This map has a very poor score in terms of partisanship Please do not use it.
Carole Murphy
The Finch2 Map has a high mean-median advantage; a factor of partisan fairness. Relative to some of the other maps, Finch2 is unacceptable. Thank you for your work.
Eve Mokotoff
This map has a poor partisanship score and should not be selected. We didn't go through this process to select biased maps. It should not be approved.
Cory Joyrich
This map is bad for partisan fairness and divides Warren. It is not a fair map. Do not use.
Diane Sue Kinnamon
This has an unacceptable partisan fairness score. Maps with good partisan fairness is one of the main objectives of Prop 18-2.
Anna Kristina Johnson
This map has a very low partisan fairness score and does not meet the needs of the black community.
Leora Druckman
Poor map. Very low in partisan fairness. Takes away voting rights from Warren residents. No thanks. Redo it please.
Pam Shore
This map is very unfair to my community.
Lynda L Pawloski
This map scores poorly in partisan fairness. The MICRC was created to address gerrymandering. This map does not do it.
Tim Sawmiller
Fails at communities of interest and partisan fairness
Janet Prange
Please reject. This map again cuts out Wolverine Lake and southern Commerce and lumps them in with VERY rural areas like White Lake, Highland etc. We have more in common with Walled Lake and Novi.
Sharon McNeil
I don’t think it is a fair non partisan map drawn up please reject thanks for your work
Robert D Thomasson
Unfair representation by Republicans
John Burow
The clear intent and priority of non-partisan redistricting was fair, non partisan legislative districts. This map fails this most important objective.
Brian L Burnett
Not even close. Please delete.
Catherine Lippert
Not a fair map!!
Numerous bad scores for partisan fairness - reject this map!
Holly Eliot
We need to stick with partisan fairness.
Timothy Hughes
This map is slanted to give partisan advantage to Republicans.
Iris Rosen
Nope. Don’t like this map. Bad options.
Melany Mack
Finch scores poorly on partisan fairness and should not be adopted.
Rena Seltzer
I missed changing from "like" to "dislike" when I first answered this question - but do not see a way to correct that error - please disregard the green "like". I do NOT like this map.
Rena Seltzer
This is one of the worst possible options. It has very low partisan fairness.
Ann Rodgers
Partisan fairness numbers are not as good.
Laura J 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
Shannon Falkenhagen
I dislike this map as it is not a fair map.
Lauren Lisi
I do not think this is a fair map.
Elizabeth Kaufman
This is another unfairly partisan map, certainly worse than the Linden. Please vote NO.
Ronald Hoffman
I do not believe this map provides for partisan fairness.
Charlotte Jeanne Morton
This map is one of the worst maps for partisan and racial balance. Please do not choose this map.
james ward leyerle
Splits SE Oakland CoI 4 ways. Terrible precedent.
Carol Lessure
This map appears to be worse than Linden in terms of voter fairness. It would distort and dilute representation in the state Senate. Please reject it.
Rhonda Najor
This map also protects the Chaldean people. CHALDEANS matter!!!! Our voice matters!
Louis J Porter
Partisan fairness is a constitutional mandate. This map fails to meet that constitutional mandate.
Lori Orel
Terrible map, even worse than what we have now. Very much gerrymandered.
Violet E. Anderson
This splits a Neighborhoods and populated areas to give the rural more economically advantaged a larger voting power. This map does not fairly represent the voters and should be rejected.
Erica Brown Ackerman
This map is considerably worse than the current status quo. It has a very low partisan fairness score and should be rejected.
Allegra Pitera
Carves up Warren without any respect for communities of interest.
Shadia Martini
This is a totally unacceptable map. No Balance and far worse than the current map that we are trying to improve.
Nomi Joyrich
This breaks up Warren in a terrible way. This map is really unfair and has horrible partisan fairness
Deborah Kraus
Please reject this map. It rejects the very point of redistricting so that people get a voice.
Douglas Floto
This map gives an unfair advantage to rural areas to the west and north of Commerce Township. It splits the township in two. Our community is more suburban. The freeways take us to our jobs in Detroit. We are much more suburban than rural.
Nell Kuhnmuench
This is not a fairly drawn map and should not be adopted. It does not strike a balance and brings partisanship into play.
Allen Ralph Wolf
This is not a good map for Partisan Fairness. That is what most voters were looking for in these maps drawn by the Independent Redistricting Commission.
Jonathan Weinberg
This appears to be a step backwards from the Linden map.
Michael J. Polzin
This map has less partisan fairness than the previous one. Please do not use it.
Frances E Chudnow
This map does not allow for partisan fairness and should not be used.
This is one of the 3 worse maps for partisan fairness.
Lois Ann Furry
This map is worse than the current map.
Abby Schwwartz
Please do not accept this map, which has less partisan fairness than the current map. It is possible to improve racial equity without decreasing partisan fairness.
Daniel W. Berland
Not acceptable partisan neutrality.
Alexander J Owski
Totally unacceptable. This map does a terrible job providing fair representation for Detroit, Southfield, and other communities.
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. This map is by far the worst!
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
Please understand the importance of statewide partisan fairness to the people of this state. This map does not address this issue. We, the people, do not want to return to the gerrymandering that existed before we voted to establish the MICRC. This map should not be adopted.
Mary Brown
This maps shows more bias than the original. It's not scoring high enough on partisan fairness. Do not adopt. Thank you.
Kevin Krause
This map is not good as it pertains to partisan fairness. In addition, it splits the City of Romulus into two, which further dilutes the voice of the City just like in the House.
Kenneth OHara
There are way better options than this one.
Chris Andrews
Finch is more biased than Linden, and much more biased than Heron. It makes it likely that Republicans will control the Senate very time they win at the top of the ticket, and many times when they have "respectable losses." Unfair maps damaged Michigan's democracy for 40 years until 2018. It does no better in addressing communities of interest, and you can't treat municipal lines as a COI. Municipal lines are less important in the Constitution than fairness.
Lisa Jevens
This map should not be considered because it has worse scores of partisan fairness than what we had before. Partisan fairness is the most important thing when redistricting to prevent gerrymandering. We do not want to go back to what we had in Michigan before the MICRC!
Robert Swartz
District 1 is not well balanced in this Map.