2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan

[Oryxslayer]

Michigan

Michigan is one of several states who are changing their redistricting laws this cycle, although Michigan is certainly the state changing their laws the most. With their new commission, Michigan’s previous redistricting history matters very little and instead the history from other commission states deserves greater attention. The rules, influencers, and geographic breakdown of this commission matter more than people’s previous actions and the party’s goals. This examination is therefore going to be a bit different from ones that have come before.

Link to 2010 Atlas Discussion

Redistricting History

Michigan had Republican trifectas in both 2000 and 2010, and both times they drew maps to increase the amount of accessible GOP seats. Both times the GOP kept to redistricting guidelines adopted in the 1990s when control was divided between the parties. They had every reason to stick to them - these guidelines favored the ‘modern’ Republican coalitions geographic breakdown. The times had changed, and what had once been a good-govt proposal now was abused by the GOP. Counties and municipal lines needed to be respected as much as possible, and that various local lines that were smaller than a congressional district needed to be inside a single district. These guidelines incentivize cutting the larger counties and keeping the multitude of GOP rural counties whole.

Michigans 15 Congressional Districts from 2002-2010, Sourced from Wikipedia

Of course, the goals of the two different GOP governments were divergent because the various entrenched democratic interests were in different parts of the state. Bart Stupak was locked into the northern first district, which in the 1990s resembled its present incarnation and contained the GOP stronghold of Traverse City. The Detroit region and its suburbs were also carved up to favor to democrats, particularly in Macomb and the near side of Oakland. That needed to change. The big 1st was made into a new rural pack for the north of the state to free up what GOP suburbs were in the region. This 10th was entirely new based out of the red rural thumb and Republican suburbs. The 12th was designed explicitly to pack in the near-side spillover from Detroit and make the suburban seats safer. The rest of the map was pushed around to maximize Republican safety.

Now, the Democrats won a special election on the old map, but that special was held concurrent with a new election on the new map which the Republicans won. David Curson’s 2-month tenure is one of the shortest in congressional history, since he had only been elected to fill a vacancy.

Michigans 14 Congressional Districts since 2010, Sourced from Wikipedia

2010 was an entirely different beast. The previous map had held up well until the democratic waves came crashing through, and the democrats flipped control of the state delegation. The 9-6 was back in 2010 though, only this time Stupak had been traded for the 9th in Oakland. Once again, the GOP moved against the Detroit region, but the rest of the map was reinforced to protect their incumbents. The AA Detroit seats now tentacled out into the suburbs to pack in growing minority communities. The 5th packed in even more of the Tri-Cities, but also cracked the upstate in case rural Dems came back. The 1st got Traverse city back out of a similar desire to lock down the peninsula against a potential working-class democratic comeback. Like before, the rest of the state was carved up in order to spread out democratic cities and ensure no seat would ever truly be in danger.

Since 2011

I won’t really bother with much here because the previous process is changing. The democrats tried to crack the old map where Obama was strongest, and they consistently failed. It required the 2018 wave for the democrats to break through the gerrymander and make the map 7-7. However, the gerrymanders have held at the legislative level, even as the democrats win the statewide vote.

The most important thing to happen this decade around redistrict was addressed in the header. In 2018 Michigan overwhelmingly passed proposal 2, which creates an independent commission responsible for future redistricting efforts. The GOP keeps mounting legal challenges, but so far, the commission remains intact and appears to have full authority next year. The whims of legislators will no longer directly decide Michigan’s maps.

2021

So, let’s talk about this Michigan commission. The commission has 13 members: 4, Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 5 Independents. These commissioners cannot be employed or connected to any government employee or lobbyist. The test for these commissioners is adequate self-identification with one of the three relevant groups. Now, self-identification would normally be a problem especially when compared to measurable tests of partisanship like party ID or past vote records. However, Michigan appears to have anticipated these fears. At the start of the process, the Michigan SOS (Jocelyn Benson, Democrat) will randomly mail at least 10K voters to select them for the commission. The SOS has stated she sent invitations to 250K voters, and already over 1,000 have been successfully processed their application. This is random selection, not self-selection like in California. From here, the SOS will select 60 partisans of each color and 80 independents of adequate quality to potentially serve on the commission. The majority and minority leaders of each chamber can strike up to 5 candidates from the pool of 200 each (reducing it to 180), in order to remove visible turncoats. From there, the rest of the applicants will be put in their individual pools and randomly drawn to fill the four/four/five seats for that pool.

Michigan’s entire process is steeped in random selection to ensure the commission is legitimate. Even if that fails, the passage requirements should prevent malicious actors. The maps need only be passed by a simple majority (unlike a supermajority in some commission states), but that majority needs to include at least two Republicans, two Democrats, and two unaffiliated. Therefore, it is clear that the partisan commissioners need to work together. Rather than partisan infiltrators or malicious actors, we should perhaps fear ignorance instead. The shear amount of randomness means that we may end up with uninformed or sheepish commissioners who will follow the brash personalities of parochialists or a single commission clique. We don’t know, and frankly, that’s just part of the commission process.

Looking at California, Washington, Arizona, and other states that cared about public input in 2010, we get a general idea of the process to a commission-drawn map. The committee will schedule public hearings to meet with citizens across the state. Through this process, hypothetical maps may be released to guide the discussion on potential pairings of COIs. Protecting communities of interest, race, and local geography is important under the mandate of the law. Sometimes discussion may be guided by the media or outside influencers trying to ‘push’ the commission towards a particular outcome. Republicans for instance got the idea of a <50% white district in Washington into the public discourse, and the California commission was famously lobbied unsuccessfully by an “soundproofed neighborhood group” which was designed to twist LA districts to an incumbent’s benefit. Eventually, they will hire a firm and give them guidelines on what should go where and what things to look for in their lines. The map will then be presented before the public, and may face subsequent changes depending on public demands. One such call that came up a bit ago was the pairing of the rural thumb with upstate, along the shores of Lake Huron through Bay City.

ACS Michigan Population Change, map credits to Cinyc. It is a projection though, and the county lines will not be as stark in the final count.

So, what might this new map look like? The first question that needs to be addressed is that of the lost district. Taking a look at the current growth estimates, things are rather patchy. Detroit is shrinking, as usual, but her suburbs are growing. Outside of the metro area we see that while some rural and small-town communities are losing population, others are gaining. The western shore, Grand Rapids, and Lansing in that regard are doing well for themselves. Now, for the past two decades the GOP forced the cut district upon Detroit. This makes sense in the context of their partisan goals, and when you consider the regions population losses, but the side effect is that the whole area ends up with less districts than its pop would normally demand. It is partially why on the present map you have multiple GOP districts grabbing random parts of the metro area. Perhaps therefore the 2020 cut will be forced upon the rest of the state outside of the Detroit metro area, though this is a commission so who knows.

What a Hypothetical 'Huron coast' district could look like

We then move on to the more interesting discussion: Communities of Interest. Michigan has a lot of them, and they will likely be bickering about who deserves to go where and why. I’m just going to list off some of these communities, some are obvious, others are less so. The two AA districts are likely to shrink into Wayne for compactness reasons and drop below 50% AA (but still high enough to dominate a primary) but what communities will go in said districts are a open question. Is Ann Arbor going to be paired with Wayne or it’s more college educated neighbors in the suburbs? Do North Macomb and Oakland constitute a COI (potentially shared with other areas) even though it crossed county line? Should the Grosse Pointe’s go with their more likeminded brothers in Macomb, rather than their natural neighbors in Wayne? Should there be an ‘arab access’ district with areas like Plymouth, Livonia, Dearborn, and Hamtramck? Should the shores of Lake Michigan and Huron be considered huge COIs?  If they do, they conflict with other COIs like the Flint/Saginaw/Midland/Bay City ‘tri-cities’ region in the east and the Grand Rapids metro region in the west. Is the tri-cities even a good region since some cities have strong AA presences and others do not? What about Mount Pleasant – should it go with the nearest similar university in Lansing? How about Kalamazoo and Battle Creek? These questions and countless more will be answered during public hearing.

What’s left to Decide

N/A. The committee does not directly consider incumbent residencies or incumbent partisanship as part of their mandate. It’s very likely some representatives will have to change their address if they want to continue to have a chance at serving in Washington.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I've been working on some potential state legislative maps for Michigan, as those are reasonably easy to predict if you're following good government grounds of minimising city and county splits. I'll try to type those up and put them here.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ottawa County under 2010 numbers is sufficient for one SD by itself but under 2016 block estimates it is no longer so.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats. 

[EastAnglianLefty]

I think it's pretty clear that no Democratic-favouring map is going to seek to put Washtenaw and Wayne in the same district. Based off the 2018 population numbers, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland have a combined entitlement to only just over 5 congressional districts, which frees up Washtenaw to soak up Republican turf in South East Michigan.

Alternatively, if that's not happening then I would expect Flint to be paired with Saginaw and Bay in a Democratic map, given that Kildee doesn't look to be vulnerable on the present lines.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats. 

As the Arizona independent commission has proved, independent commissions actually don't draw bipartisan gerrymanders or give any consideration to the political interests of the parties. The Michigan Independent Commission has very clear criteria which they must abide by in this order:
Equal Population, Geographical Contiguity, Communities of Interest, Partisan Fairness, favouring or disfavouring incumbents, respecting county and municipal boundaries and compactness.
And I'll just quote the Michigan Constitution on the fourth criteria

(d) Districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party. A disproportionate advantage to a political party shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness.

The commission will draw a map similar to those the AZ commission draws. Prioritising COIs, Compactness and Partisan Fairness (so an 8-5 map is clearly not acceptable) and not giving any consideration to the concerns and demands of political parties.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I had a quick go at designing what a Democratic congressional map might look like. The places where the thumb is put on the scale are pretty obvious, but some of them are probably things that could be justified in an actual map. I've used the population estimates for counties and county sub-divisions for 2018. They don't quite match up to what the figures will be for 2020, but it's probably close enough.





MI-1: C 35.6% T 58.8% - safe R.
MI-2: C 37.5% T 56.5% - safe R. Probably more Moolenaar's district than Huizenga's, though neither lives there.
MI-3: C 42.9% T 50.2% - likely R. Maybe you could make this competitive if you combined Grand Rapids with Muskegon or Kalamazoo and stripped out the suburbs, but that's never realistically going to happen.
MI-4: C 47.8% T 46.1% - lean D. A Lansing-based central Michigan district ought to exist under any fair map, but if you top it out with counties to its south then Democratic prospects are much better than if you go north.
MI-5: C 48% T 46.9% - likely D. Possibly a worry if the competitiveness on the presidential level starts to manifest itself at a congressional level, but if that happens Democrats are screwed in Michigan anyway.
MI-6: C 38.9% T 54.9% - safe R. A more aggressive gerrymander would strip out Kalamazoo, but I wanted halfway clean lines away from Detroit.
MI-7: C 53% T 41.6% - safe D. Possibly only likely, but the Democratic base here is pretty inflexible. Keeping Washtenaw and Wayne separate ought to be a key Democratic objective.
MI-8: C 47.7% T 47.6% - lean D/toss-up. Livingston is drowned out with Democratic-trending bits of Oakland. Very vulnerable if Republicans improve their performance in highly-educated areas, but as it is Slotkin has nothing to complain about.
MI-9: C 52.9% T 42.6% - likely D. The most obviously gerrymandered district, because I didn't want to concede a seat in Macomb. If it drops Southfield to bolster MI-11 or MI-13 then you could make it less obvious, but it would be much more competitive.
MI-10: C 32.6% T 62% - safe R.
MI-11: C 61.8% T 34.8% - safe D. 50.1% white, 42.8% black. It's perhaps pushing it whether this counts as a VRA district, but the Democratic primary is certainly black-majority so it's probably OK.
MI-12: C 54.3% T 40.8% - safe D. This is designed as the white Wayne County district, so I can send both the VRA districts across county lines to soak up white Republican voters.
MI-13: C 65.9% T 30.6% - safe D. 46.7% white, 40.6% black, 9.8% Hispanic.

[Oryxslayer]

I think something similar, albeit likely less gerrymandered to your MI-11 could be one of the focal points of discussion. Sending one of the VRA seats north into Macomb to grab the near suburbs does wonders to ease the burden of the map when it comes to partisan balance, at least in PA-2018 style of thinking. There however are  two big problems with it. First, it prevents macomb from having a seat nested out of the county, which could be a swing seat - especially if you consider the Grosse Pointe's extensions of Macomb culturally. Second, 8-mile road is arguably the clearest COI divider in the state and we should probably avoid cracking it whenever possible.

[EastAnglianLefty]

8 Mile Road has certainly been a COI divider historically, but is that still true to the same extent? Eastpointe isn't far off an African-American plurality at this point and similar changes can be seen in the south of Warren, so it's arguable that that dam has finally broken there.

[Tintrlvr]

I tried out a light D-favoring map as well and came up with the below. It's still only a 7D-6R map, and the 7D seats aren't all super-safe. Sort of a tough map for the Democrats to get something good out of, especially given the constraints on map-drawing. I ended up with a very different approach from the map above, and maybe that map is better. I felt bad about stranding Saginaw in a Safe R district, e.g. Might try fiddling around with this more.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/96a9fba0-1c69-4fea-bec5-d31421ca6b6f

Edit: Actually, inspired by other maps on here, here's what I think is a much better map. This one could be 9D-4R if the Democrats are lucky (the Grand Rapids district voted for Trump by less than 1,000 votes) and has 8 Clinton districts:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/96a9fba0-1c69-4fea-bec5-d31421ca6b6f

[Nyvin]

I tried to make the most "plain" map that I could.  I really didn't favor either party or take PVI into account at all (except I guess the Detroit Metro).  I'd think the commission would go with something close to this, if they favor COI's and not splitting counties and so on.





https://davesredistricting.org/join/86c3575b-47c5-455b-bdef-ba4557967108

What would actually really help is only drawing one majority AA district in the Detroit metro.   It allows the remaining AA vote to be distributed much more efficiently.   Other than that just a typical map where each major metro gets it's own district.

I actually really like the MI-2 (purple) district here.  I grew up in the area and the west coast area does have it's own community.  It has way more in common than the MI-1 area (dark green), which is more country-bumpkinish.   Both are safe R though.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats. 

As the Arizona independent commission has proved, independent commissions actually don't draw bipartisan gerrymanders or give any consideration to the political interests of the parties. The Michigan Independent Commission has very clear criteria which they must abide by in this order:
Equal Population, Geographical Contiguity, Communities of Interest, Partisan Fairness, favouring or disfavouring incumbents, respecting county and municipal boundaries and compactness.
And I'll just quote the Michigan Constitution on the fourth criteria

(d) Districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party. A disproportionate advantage to a political party shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness.

The commission will draw a map similar to those the AZ commission draws. Prioritising COIs, Compactness and Partisan Fairness (so an 8-5 map is clearly not acceptable) and not giving any consideration to the concerns and demands of political parties.
[/quote
a map with partisan fairness won't always have a partisan breakdown identical to the state due to political geography.  Ironically doing so could be a gerrymander for one party. 

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats. 

As the Arizona independent commission has proved, independent commissions actually don't draw bipartisan gerrymanders or give any consideration to the political interests of the parties. The Michigan Independent Commission has very clear criteria which they must abide by in this order:
Equal Population, Geographical Contiguity, Communities of Interest, Partisan Fairness, favouring or disfavouring incumbents, respecting county and municipal boundaries and compactness.
And I'll just quote the Michigan Constitution on the fourth criteria

(d) Districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party. A disproportionate advantage to a political party shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness.

The commission will draw a map similar to those the AZ commission draws. Prioritising COIs, Compactness and Partisan Fairness (so an 8-5 map is clearly not acceptable) and not giving any consideration to the concerns and demands of political parties.

a map with partisan fairness won't always have a partisan breakdown identical to the state due to political geography.  Ironically doing so could be a gerrymander for one party. 

You are talking about drawing a map without consideration of partisanship. Partisan fairness means drawing a map that represents the politics of the state, and it does mean drawing lines to achieve that, as Independent Commissions already do. Trump 7-6 Clinton seems like a reasonable assumption, with one competitive D seat and one or two competitive R seats.

[Idaho Conservative]

I tried to make the most "plain" map that I could.  I really didn't favor either party or take PVI into account at all (except I guess the Detroit Metro).  I'd think the commission would go with something close to this, if they favor COI's and not splitting counties and so on.





https://davesredistricting.org/join/86c3575b-47c5-455b-bdef-ba4557967108

What would actually really help is only drawing one majority AA district in the Detroit metro.   It allows the remaining AA vote to be distributed much more efficiently.   Other than that just a typical map where each major metro gets it's own district.

I actually really like the MI-2 (purple) district here.  I grew up in the area and the west coast area does have it's own community.  It has way more in common than the MI-1 area (dark green), which is more country-bumpkinish.   Both are safe R though.

Illegal map, need 2 AA seats in Detroit.

[Nyvin]

I tried to make the most "plain" map that I could.  I really didn't favor either party or take PVI into account at all (except I guess the Detroit Metro).  I'd think the commission would go with something close to this, if they favor COI's and not splitting counties and so on.





https://davesredistricting.org/join/86c3575b-47c5-455b-bdef-ba4557967108

What would actually really help is only drawing one majority AA district in the Detroit metro.   It allows the remaining AA vote to be distributed much more efficiently.   Other than that just a typical map where each major metro gets it's own district.

I actually really like the MI-2 (purple) district here.  I grew up in the area and the west coast area does have it's own community.  It has way more in common than the MI-1 area (dark green), which is more country-bumpkinish.   Both are safe R though.

Illegal map, need 2 AA seats in Detroit.

I don't think it'll even be possible to draw two AA majority seats in Detroit anymore,  the numbers aren't there anymore.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats. 

As the Arizona independent commission has proved, independent commissions actually don't draw bipartisan gerrymanders or give any consideration to the political interests of the parties. The Michigan Independent Commission has very clear criteria which they must abide by in this order:
Equal Population, Geographical Contiguity, Communities of Interest, Partisan Fairness, favouring or disfavouring incumbents, respecting county and municipal boundaries and compactness.
And I'll just quote the Michigan Constitution on the fourth criteria

(d) Districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party. A disproportionate advantage to a political party shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness.

The commission will draw a map similar to those the AZ commission draws. Prioritising COIs, Compactness and Partisan Fairness (so an 8-5 map is clearly not acceptable) and not giving any consideration to the concerns and demands of political parties.

a map with partisan fairness won't always have a partisan breakdown identical to the state due to political geography.  Ironically doing so could be a gerrymander for one party. 

You are talking about drawing a map without consideration of partisanship. Partisan fairness means drawing a map that represents the politics of the state, and it does mean drawing lines to achieve that, as Independent Commissions already do. Trump 7-6 Clinton seems like a reasonable assumption, with one competitive D seat and one or two competitive R seats.

But once you account for COIs, 2 vra seats in Detroit, ect it's difficult to get 6  Clinton seats. It is possible with 4 in Detroit, 1 in Flint, and 1 in Lansing, but it's risky for Dems because margins in the Detroit and Lansing seats would be razor thin.  In order to pass a bipartisan commission, you can't draw a Dem gerrymander.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats. 

As the Arizona independent commission has proved, independent commissions actually don't draw bipartisan gerrymanders or give any consideration to the political interests of the parties. The Michigan Independent Commission has very clear criteria which they must abide by in this order:
Equal Population, Geographical Contiguity, Communities of Interest, Partisan Fairness, favouring or disfavouring incumbents, respecting county and municipal boundaries and compactness.
And I'll just quote the Michigan Constitution on the fourth criteria

(d) Districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party. A disproportionate advantage to a political party shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness.

The commission will draw a map similar to those the AZ commission draws. Prioritising COIs, Compactness and Partisan Fairness (so an 8-5 map is clearly not acceptable) and not giving any consideration to the concerns and demands of political parties.

a map with partisan fairness won't always have a partisan breakdown identical to the state due to political geography.  Ironically doing so could be a gerrymander for one party. 

You are talking about drawing a map without consideration of partisanship. Partisan fairness means drawing a map that represents the politics of the state, and it does mean drawing lines to achieve that, as Independent Commissions already do. Trump 7-6 Clinton seems like a reasonable assumption, with one competitive D seat and one or two competitive R seats.

But once you account for COIs, 2 vra seats in Detroit, ect it's difficult to get 6  Clinton seats. It is possible with 4 in Detroit, 1 in Flint, and 1 in Lansing, but it's risky for Dems because margins in the Detroit and Lansing seats would be razor thin.  In order to pass a bipartisan commission, you can't draw a Dem gerrymander.

Once again, it isn't a bipartisan commission. It's an independent commission. There is a difference between them that you don't seem to understand.

[Idaho Conservative]

I tried to make the most "plain" map that I could.  I really didn't favor either party or take PVI into account at all (except I guess the Detroit Metro).  I'd think the commission would go with something close to this, if they favor COI's and not splitting counties and so on.




They don't have to be a majority, just in the high 40s so the black candidate of choice is likely to win.  Your map screws black voters in Detroit and Republicans would oppose it as a Dem gerrymander.  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/86c3575b-47c5-455b-bdef-ba4557967108

What would actually really help is only drawing one majority AA district in the Detroit metro.   It allows the remaining AA vote to be distributed much more efficiently.   Other than that just a typical map where each major metro gets it's own district.

I actually really like the MI-2 (purple) district here.  I grew up in the area and the west coast area does have it's own community.  It has way more in common than the MI-1 area (dark green), which is more country-bumpkinish.   Both are safe R though.

Illegal map, need 2 AA seats in Detroit.

I don't think it'll even be possible to draw two AA majority seats in Detroit anymore,  the numbers aren't there anymore.

doesn't have to be a majority, look at southeast VA.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/21a90af8-a1a5-4a7f-b51c-ef28e70cbfe6
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db73d662-b1fc-4fb4-acf6-905ad66fef2a
2 potential maps.  Detroit area gets shifted a lot once drawing a map based on compactness rather than tendrils for partisan reasons.  The only main difference between my 2 maps is whether Flint and Lansing are in the same district.  A decade ago that would've been seen as a Dem pack but looking forward it makes a Clinton+14 (ideal margin, enough to be safe but not so lopsided it wastes Dem votes) seat outside of Detroit metro.  Without combining the 2 cities, it's difficult to create a safe dem district outside of Detroit, due to political geography.  My second map gives Flint and Lansing each their own districts, but both districts are competitive, one leaning R one leaning D.  It is true Trump wins a majority of seats on both maps, but that is basically inevitable due to political geography on any fair map.  Dems are heavily packed into Wayne County (which can't be cracked due to the VRA) and sprinkled out throughput the rest of the state.  Any map where Clinton wins 7 or even 6 seats is probably a Dem gerrymander, compensating for Dem's geographical disadvantage rather than drawing fair lines.  The real debate will on exactly what each side wants to compromise on, and whether each side values more safe seats or more competitive seats.  

As the Arizona independent commission has proved, independent commissions actually don't draw bipartisan gerrymanders or give any consideration to the political interests of the parties. The Michigan Independent Commission has very clear criteria which they must abide by in this order:
Equal Population, Geographical Contiguity, Communities of Interest, Partisan Fairness, favouring or disfavouring incumbents, respecting county and municipal boundaries and compactness.
And I'll just quote the Michigan Constitution on the fourth criteria

(d) Districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party. A disproportionate advantage to a political party shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness.

The commission will draw a map similar to those the AZ commission draws. Prioritising COIs, Compactness and Partisan Fairness (so an 8-5 map is clearly not acceptable) and not giving any consideration to the concerns and demands of political parties.

a map with partisan fairness won't always have a partisan breakdown identical to the state due to political geography.  Ironically doing so could be a gerrymander for one party.  

You are talking about drawing a map without consideration of partisanship. Partisan fairness means drawing a map that represents the politics of the state, and it does mean drawing lines to achieve that, as Independent Commissions already do. Trump 7-6 Clinton seems like a reasonable assumption, with one competitive D seat and one or two competitive R seats.

But once you account for COIs, 2 vra seats in Detroit, ect it's difficult to get 6  Clinton seats. It is possible with 4 in Detroit, 1 in Flint, and 1 in Lansing, but it's risky for Dems because margins in the Detroit and Lansing seats would be razor thin.  In order to pass a bipartisan commission, you can't draw a Dem gerrymander.

Once again, it isn't a bipartisan commission. It's an independent commission. There is a difference between them that you don't seem to understand.

There are members of both parties, and people from each party need to agree on a map.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/1d117936-4d28-4a7a-9dfe-529e010bef54
Ok I actually was able to make a 7-6 map that isn't a blatant Dem gerrymander (like cracking Macomb) and follows the VRA (unlike a certain other map).  It also maintains COIs well.  Some Dem commission members might not like the Clinton margins in the western MI seats, but with a fair map you can draw either 1 solid dem seat or 2 tilt dem seats in western MI.  In this map I chose the latter.

[Former President tack50]

Not sure how likely the commission is to draw a map like this but here is my attempt.



It somehow ended up as quite a Republican gerrymander (even if I did not look at partisan data and tried to generally keep counties whole). However most of the R leads are quite small. Only 4 districts are decided by more than 11 points. So it can also work as an R dummymander maybe.

Also, this map keeps 2 VRA districts in Detroit, at 53 and 48% black VAP

[Nyvin]

I think this map is perfection:





https://davesredistricting.org/join/86c3575b-47c5-455b-bdef-ba4557967108

Two AA districts now (I doubt the population numbers by 2020 will be correct though,  probably both very under-populated).

MI-3 (Red) really should go west from Grand Rapids, not east,  the metro itself extends west into Ottawa, makes the most sense.

Love the Flint and Lansing seats, both competitive, both respect COI's in the area.

Tons of competitive seats on the map overall,  only five seats were won by either party by more than 10% (including the two AA ones),  with 3 within 5%.

This is my favorite so far.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f1e1bee7-6029-41ce-b898-8ba4e67cd46f
1 - R+10
2 - R+3
3 - R+15
4 - D+3
5 - R+2
6 - R+11
7 - D+2
8 - R+13
9 - R+2
10 - D+1
11 - D+10
12 - D+31 (49% Black)
13 - D+24 (49% Black)

If the Commission decides to prioritise partisan fairness and competitiveness. COIs still respected. 6 seats have a D PVI, 7 seats have a R PVI. 6 seats voted Clinton, 7 seats voted Trump. 4 seats are safe R, 3 seats are Safe D, and the remaining 6 are competitive, with 3 leaning left and 3 leaning right. Only 3 townships + Detroit are split.

[Tintrlvr]

Not sure how likely the commission is to draw a map like this but here is my attempt.



It somehow ended up as quite a Republican gerrymander (even if I did not look at partisan data and tried to generally keep counties whole). However most of the R leads are quite small. Only 4 districts are decided by more than 11 points. So it can also work as an R dummymander maybe.

Also, this map keeps 2 VRA districts in Detroit, at 53 and 48% black VAP

There should only be 13 districts in a 2020 map. You may also be using outdated population totals. That would explain why the two black districts are possible if you are using 2010 data and 14 districts.

[Tintrlvr]

I think this map is perfection:





https://davesredistricting.org/join/86c3575b-47c5-455b-bdef-ba4557967108

Two AA districts now (I doubt the population numbers by 2020 will be correct though,  probably both very under-populated).

MI-3 (Red) really should go west from Grand Rapids, not east,  the metro itself extends west into Ottawa, makes the most sense.

Love the Flint and Lansing seats, both competitive, both respect COI's in the area.

Tons of competitive seats on the map overall,  only five seats were won by either party by more than 10% (including the two AA ones),  with 3 within 5%.

This is my favorite so far.

I think double-splitting Wayne and Oakland between MI-9 and MI-12 as on this map is illegal under the Michigan rules. You can't have two districts that both split the same two counties.

Should be solvable by putting Pontiac in MI-09 and pushing MI-12 down through Mexicantown, allowing MI-13 to take up the rest of Wayne from MI-09.