Comments | MyDistricting

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

Red

Yellow

Green

Your comment has been added to the map.

Census Legend

Counties

Labels visible at zoom level 10.

Townships

Labels visible at zoom level 13.

Voting Precincts

Labels visible at zoom level 15.

Blocks

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.

DianaC

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!

Hanna Jarbour

This map is trying to protect my Chaldean community of interest. Our community thanks you for offering this better alternative.

Justine True

This is better for communities of interest like the Chaldean district that was drawn for them to respect things. It seems to legitimately try to protect other communities of interest, too, unlike many maps that seem to have more partisan goals.

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.

Chaldean Voices Matter

This is a very good representation for the Chaldeans in the whole city of Sterling Heights and the whole city of Troy! There are Chaldeans in Madison heights too so this map is acceptable!

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.

Chaldean Voices Matter

This is a very good map for the Chaldean community in district 10!

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!!

KRIS BUROW

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.

Yousif Y.

This map is also good for Chaldeans just like Cardinal. It includes Troy, Sterling Heights and Madison Heights which has the Chaldean community. Please choose Finch, Cardinal, Crane or Dove! Thank you commissioners for all your hard work! :)

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.

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.

LAURIE KIMMEL

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!

JOHN LEON

THIS MAP IS WAY TOO PARTISAN AND SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Shelia A.B.

Thank you for respecting communities with this finch map. This arabic region, the oakland chaldean area, and other geographic areas are respected here.

Virginia Preuss

This map does not maintain partisan fairness. Please do not select this map.

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.

Stephen Abbott

I've lived all over the three counties involved here. I actually kinda like how this map groups the people and the communities together. Deserves a fair shake

Sarah Abbs

Much like one of the other commission-developed maps, this "Finch" variation does an adequate job of reuniting the Farmingtons, Taylor, Sterling Heights, and other distinct communities of residents and voters.

Fabrice Smieliauskas

The new State Senate district 10 on this map beautifully contains a true broader community of interest with common travel patterns, a middle class resident base, and a rich diversity of racial and ethnic groups. It includes all of Troy, Madison Heights, Utica, and Sterling Heights, not splitting any of these major cities, thus maintaining intact these truest core communities of interest. This area is served by common public transit SMART system routes, and contains many of the shopping and recreational centers used by its residents. It combines a large Asian population in Troy and Madison Heights with a large Middle Eastern/North African population in Troy and the Chaldean community of Sterling Heights, in addition to Eastern European and earlier migrant waves. In its middle section, its boundaries map fairly closely to the current Michigan 56th and 57th State House districts, which will align these areas in a common political community and allow natural movement of political candidates between local government positions, the state House and the state Senate. This will attract better candidates to long-term political careers and foster a vibrant political culture.