2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan

[Idaho Conservative]

Should the tri-cities area be considered a COI?

[EastAnglianLefty]

I just drew a new version of a MI map, and I'm extremely satisfied with it. The goal was to keep very close to the rule of minimizing county and municipal splits while keeping COIs together, and I think this map does an excellent job of both while also coming out with a very fair partisan balance of 6-6-1. It also has two seats that are majority or nearly majority black (and you could fiddle around with the edges to get them both to majority black, such as by switching Hamtramck). The UP-Traverse City district has no county splits at all (!!!), and the Lansing and Flint-Saginaw districts share a de minimis county split but have no splits with any other districts. The Detroit metro has two majority/near-majority black Detroit+ districts, one district entirely in Wayne, one district entirely in Oakland, one district covering the exurban parts of Oakland and Macomb and one district containing the western/southern exurbs+Ann Arbor, which I think is the best possible COI arrangement in the Detroit area. The three counties of the Lansing metro are also kept together without combining them with any other major metro (no combination with Flint, Saginaw, Livingston County, Kalamazoo, etc.)

Without further ado, the map:




MI-01 (Upper Peninsula, Traverse City): 37-59 Trump, Safe R
MI-02 (Holland, Muskegon): 37-57 Trump, Safe R
MI-03 (Grand Rapids): 41-52 Trump, Likely R
MI-04 (Bay City, Port Huron): 32-63 Trump, Safe R
MI-05 (Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor): 42-52 Trump, Likely R
MI-06 (Lansing, Battle Creek, Jackson): 48-46 Clinton, Lean D
MI-07 (Flint, Saginaw, Midland): 48-47 Clinton, Toss-up
MI-08 (Ann Arbor, Monroe, Howell): 50-45 Clinton, Likely D
MI-09 (Pontiac, Royal Oak, Novi): 53-42 Clinton, Safe D
MI-10 (Oxford, Sterling Heights, New Baltimore): 36-59 Trump, Safe R
MI-11 (Dearborn, Livonia, Romulus): 51-44 Clinton, Likely D
MI-12 (Detroit West, Southfield, Inkster): 78-19 Clinton, Safe D (51% black)
MI-13 (Detroit East, Warren, Mount Clemens): 69-28 Clinton, Safe D (49% black)

Total: 6R (4 Safe, 2 Likely), 6D (3 Safe, 2 Likely, 1 Lean), 1 Toss-up

https://davesredistricting.org/join/28069751-857c-44d0-8e44-8abde1dc2f25

Edit: I realized I had an unintentional extra municipal split in Macomb County. I've fixed that on the DRA version, and it actually increased the black percentage in MI-13 just a hair (nearly to the point of rounding up to 50%!).

I think that's probably the best effort I've seen yet in this thread.

I particularly like that MI-2 - it's very hard to make a doughnut seat that doesn't look incredibly awkward, but you pulled it off and it's a good Grand Rapids exurbs seat.

[Tintrlvr]

I just drew a new version of a MI map, and I'm extremely satisfied with it. The goal was to keep very close to the rule of minimizing county and municipal splits while keeping COIs together, and I think this map does an excellent job of both while also coming out with a very fair partisan balance of 6-6-1. It also has two seats that are majority or nearly majority black (and you could fiddle around with the edges to get them both to majority black, such as by switching Hamtramck). The UP-Traverse City district has no county splits at all (!!!), and the Lansing and Flint-Saginaw districts share a de minimis county split but have no splits with any other districts. The Detroit metro has two majority/near-majority black Detroit+ districts, one district entirely in Wayne, one district entirely in Oakland, one district covering the exurban parts of Oakland and Macomb and one district containing the western/southern exurbs+Ann Arbor, which I think is the best possible COI arrangement in the Detroit area. The three counties of the Lansing metro are also kept together without combining them with any other major metro (no combination with Flint, Saginaw, Livingston County, Kalamazoo, etc.)

Without further ado, the map:




MI-01 (Upper Peninsula, Traverse City): 37-59 Trump, Safe R
MI-02 (Holland, Muskegon): 37-57 Trump, Safe R
MI-03 (Grand Rapids): 41-52 Trump, Likely R
MI-04 (Bay City, Port Huron): 32-63 Trump, Safe R
MI-05 (Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor): 42-52 Trump, Likely R
MI-06 (Lansing, Battle Creek, Jackson): 48-46 Clinton, Lean D
MI-07 (Flint, Saginaw, Midland): 48-47 Clinton, Toss-up
MI-08 (Ann Arbor, Monroe, Howell): 50-45 Clinton, Likely D
MI-09 (Pontiac, Royal Oak, Novi): 53-42 Clinton, Safe D
MI-10 (Oxford, Sterling Heights, New Baltimore): 36-59 Trump, Safe R
MI-11 (Dearborn, Livonia, Romulus): 51-44 Clinton, Likely D
MI-12 (Detroit West, Southfield, Inkster): 78-19 Clinton, Safe D (51% black)
MI-13 (Detroit East, Warren, Mount Clemens): 69-28 Clinton, Safe D (49% black)

Total: 6R (4 Safe, 2 Likely), 6D (3 Safe, 2 Likely, 1 Lean), 1 Toss-up

https://davesredistricting.org/join/28069751-857c-44d0-8e44-8abde1dc2f25

Edit: I realized I had an unintentional extra municipal split in Macomb County. I've fixed that on the DRA version, and it actually increased the black percentage in MI-13 just a hair (nearly to the point of rounding up to 50%!).

I think that's probably the best effort I've seen yet in this thread.

I particularly like that MI-2 - it's very hard to make a doughnut seat that doesn't look incredibly awkward, but you pulled it off and it's a good Grand Rapids exurbs seat.

Thanks! I will say it's definitely not necessary to draw the Grand Rapids area that way, though I personally think this is the best COI version because it keeps the Grand Rapids urban+suburban areas together with also keeping rural/small city western Michigan together. I often like donut maps because they allow you to keep a clear separation of urban/suburban areas from rural areas, which have very different interests.

[Oryxslayer]

I just drew a new version of a MI map, and I'm extremely satisfied with it. The goal was to keep very close to the rule of minimizing county and municipal splits while keeping COIs together, and I think this map does an excellent job of both while also coming out with a very fair partisan balance of 6-6-1. It also has two seats that are majority or nearly majority black (and you could fiddle around with the edges to get them both to majority black, such as by switching Hamtramck). The UP-Traverse City district has no county splits at all (!!!), and the Lansing and Flint-Saginaw districts share a de minimis county split but have no splits with any other districts. The Detroit metro has two majority/near-majority black Detroit+ districts, one district entirely in Wayne, one district entirely in Oakland, one district covering the exurban parts of Oakland and Macomb and one district containing the western/southern exurbs+Ann Arbor, which I think is the best possible COI arrangement in the Detroit area. The three counties of the Lansing metro are also kept together without combining them with any other major metro (no combination with Flint, Saginaw, Livingston County, Kalamazoo, etc.)

Without further ado, the map:

MI-01 (Upper Peninsula, Traverse City): 37-59 Trump, Safe R
MI-02 (Holland, Muskegon): 37-57 Trump, Safe R
MI-03 (Grand Rapids): 41-52 Trump, Likely R
MI-04 (Bay City, Port Huron): 32-63 Trump, Safe R
MI-05 (Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor): 42-52 Trump, Likely R
MI-06 (Lansing, Battle Creek, Jackson): 48-46 Clinton, Lean D
MI-07 (Flint, Saginaw, Midland): 48-47 Clinton, Toss-up
MI-08 (Ann Arbor, Monroe, Howell): 50-45 Clinton, Likely D
MI-09 (Pontiac, Royal Oak, Novi): 53-42 Clinton, Safe D
MI-10 (Oxford, Sterling Heights, New Baltimore): 36-59 Trump, Safe R
MI-11 (Dearborn, Livonia, Romulus): 51-44 Clinton, Likely D
MI-12 (Detroit West, Southfield, Inkster): 78-19 Clinton, Safe D (51% black)
MI-13 (Detroit East, Warren, Mount Clemens): 69-28 Clinton, Safe D (49% black)

Total: 6R (4 Safe, 2 Likely), 6D (3 Safe, 2 Likely, 1 Lean), 1 Toss-up

https://davesredistricting.org/join/28069751-857c-44d0-8e44-8abde1dc2f25

Edit: I realized I had an unintentional extra municipal split in Macomb County. I've fixed that on the DRA version, and it actually increased the black percentage in MI-13 just a hair (nearly to the point of rounding up to 50%!).

I think that's probably the best effort I've seen yet in this thread.

I particularly like that MI-2 - it's very hard to make a doughnut seat that doesn't look incredibly awkward, but you pulled it off and it's a good Grand Rapids exurbs seat.

Thanks! I will say it's definitely not necessary to draw the Grand Rapids area that way, though I personally think this is the best COI version because it keeps the Grand Rapids urban+suburban areas together with also keeping rural/small city western Michigan together. I often like donut maps because they allow you to keep a clear separation of urban/suburban areas from rural areas, which have very different interests.

I also like most of the map, though I personally think Donuts don't really work on the congressional level. That said, another advantage of the map is CD's 2 and 3 are in a 'closed ecosystem' so if you have different goals for the seat you can adjust as needed. If you want another cooperative (GOP leaning) seat to counteract the weaker Clinton seats in the east, you could do Muskegon+Newaygo +Grand  Rapids part of Kent. If you just don't like Donuts you could put all of Ottawa or Montcalm+Ionia+Gratiot and then cut away the redder parts of Kent to compensate. It's a great map and template to base future work off of.

[Tintrlvr]

I just drew a new version of a MI map, and I'm extremely satisfied with it. The goal was to keep very close to the rule of minimizing county and municipal splits while keeping COIs together, and I think this map does an excellent job of both while also coming out with a very fair partisan balance of 6-6-1. It also has two seats that are majority or nearly majority black (and you could fiddle around with the edges to get them both to majority black, such as by switching Hamtramck). The UP-Traverse City district has no county splits at all (!!!), and the Lansing and Flint-Saginaw districts share a de minimis county split but have no splits with any other districts. The Detroit metro has two majority/near-majority black Detroit+ districts, one district entirely in Wayne, one district entirely in Oakland, one district covering the exurban parts of Oakland and Macomb and one district containing the western/southern exurbs+Ann Arbor, which I think is the best possible COI arrangement in the Detroit area. The three counties of the Lansing metro are also kept together without combining them with any other major metro (no combination with Flint, Saginaw, Livingston County, Kalamazoo, etc.)

Without further ado, the map:

MI-01 (Upper Peninsula, Traverse City): 37-59 Trump, Safe R
MI-02 (Holland, Muskegon): 37-57 Trump, Safe R
MI-03 (Grand Rapids): 41-52 Trump, Likely R
MI-04 (Bay City, Port Huron): 32-63 Trump, Safe R
MI-05 (Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor): 42-52 Trump, Likely R
MI-06 (Lansing, Battle Creek, Jackson): 48-46 Clinton, Lean D
MI-07 (Flint, Saginaw, Midland): 48-47 Clinton, Toss-up
MI-08 (Ann Arbor, Monroe, Howell): 50-45 Clinton, Likely D
MI-09 (Pontiac, Royal Oak, Novi): 53-42 Clinton, Safe D
MI-10 (Oxford, Sterling Heights, New Baltimore): 36-59 Trump, Safe R
MI-11 (Dearborn, Livonia, Romulus): 51-44 Clinton, Likely D
MI-12 (Detroit West, Southfield, Inkster): 78-19 Clinton, Safe D (51% black)
MI-13 (Detroit East, Warren, Mount Clemens): 69-28 Clinton, Safe D (49% black)

Total: 6R (4 Safe, 2 Likely), 6D (3 Safe, 2 Likely, 1 Lean), 1 Toss-up

https://davesredistricting.org/join/28069751-857c-44d0-8e44-8abde1dc2f25

Edit: I realized I had an unintentional extra municipal split in Macomb County. I've fixed that on the DRA version, and it actually increased the black percentage in MI-13 just a hair (nearly to the point of rounding up to 50%!).

I think that's probably the best effort I've seen yet in this thread.

I particularly like that MI-2 - it's very hard to make a doughnut seat that doesn't look incredibly awkward, but you pulled it off and it's a good Grand Rapids exurbs seat.

Thanks! I will say it's definitely not necessary to draw the Grand Rapids area that way, though I personally think this is the best COI version because it keeps the Grand Rapids urban+suburban areas together with also keeping rural/small city western Michigan together. I often like donut maps because they allow you to keep a clear separation of urban/suburban areas from rural areas, which have very different interests.

I also like most of the map, though I personally think Donuts don't really work on the congressional level. That said, another advantage of the map is CD's 2 and 3 are in a 'closed ecosystem' so if you have different goals for the seat you can adjust as needed. If you want another cooperative (GOP leaning) seat to counteract the weaker Clinton seats in the east, you could do Muskegon+Newaygo +Grand  Rapids part of Kent. If you just don't like Donuts you could put all of Ottawa or Montcalm+Ionia+Gratiot and then cut away the redder parts of Kent to compensate. It's a great map and template to base future work off of.

I had drawn Muskegon+Newaygo+Mecosta+City of Grand Rapids as an alternative (definitely favorable to the Democrats) map. That version actually voted for Clinton by a few tenths of a percent. But, agreed, really it's just a matter of fiddling around with those two districts if you don't like the donut.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Slight tweak to get that MI-13 to 49.9% black: strip out St. Clair Shores and the remaining bit of Harrison Township, add in all of Clinton Township bar five precincts in the north-west. It makes the map look a little uglier, but it splits fewer municipalities and it doesn't really look worse on a map than the Dearborn/Dearborn Heights split does.

[Tintrlvr]

Slight tweak to get that MI-13 to 49.9% black: strip out St. Clair Shores and the remaining bit of Harrison Township, add in all of Clinton Township bar five precincts in the north-west. It makes the map look a little uglier, but it splits fewer municipalities and it doesn't really look worse on a map than the Dearborn/Dearborn Heights split does.

I got it to 50% by cutting into Clinton Township along the west instead of the northwest (as the NW corner actually has a fairly high black population).

As an aside, it's shocking how Republican St Clair Shores is. In some precincts, the white vote has to be nearly 80% Trump given the black population, which is almost unheard of for a suburb outside of the Deep South.

[Idaho Conservative]

yeah weird doughnut districts should be avoided.  Livingston should be paired with North and western Oakland, not Ann Arbor.  Also there should be more of an attempt to make a tri cities district.  This means Flint can be paired with the Thumb or Lansing.  I'd say the Thumb makes more sense overall but pairing it with Lansing created a D district.  Otherwise there won't be a Dem seat out of Detroit, just tossups.

[Water Hazard]

I tried my best to satisfy the important COI considerations that have been discussed.

1: UP and northern LP
2: Northern Lake Michigan coast and interior
3: Grand Rapids and relevant Ottawa County suburbs
4: Lansing metro area and surrounding rural areas
5: Genesee County and the tri-cities
6: Southwestern MI, with Kalamazoo and Battle Creek
7: South Central MI and right-trending Wayne suburbs
8: Livingston and Oakland exurbs/outer suburbs
9: Oakland and Macomb inner/middle suburbs
10: Thumb and exurban Macomb
11: Most of Detroit and nearby suburbs
12: Washtenaw and upscale, left-trending western Wayne
13: Western Detroit and blackest parts of Oakland

Districts 4, 5, and 9 would be highly competitive.

The 7th is sort of the "leftovers" district, but I like the arrangement it allows for the 12th and it's pretty uniformly right-trending areas, at least. You could alternatively put the remainder of Wayne with Monroe (almost exactly a full district) and get another competitive district, but that means putting Ann Arbor with rural areas and that's something I wanted to avoid.

[Oryxslayer]

I tried my best to satisfy the important COI considerations that have been discussed.

1: UP and northern LP
2: Northern Lake Michigan coast and interior
3: Grand Rapids and relevant Ottawa County suburbs
4: Lansing metro area and surrounding rural areas
5: Genesee County and the tri-cities
6: Southwestern MI, with Kalamazoo and Battle Creek
7: South Central MI and right-trending Wayne suburbs
8: Livingston and Oakland exurbs/outer suburbs
9: Oakland and Macomb inner/middle suburbs
10: Thumb and exurban Macomb
11: Most of Detroit and nearby suburbs
12: Washtenaw and upscale, left-trending western Wayne
13: Western Detroit and blackest parts of Oakland

Districts 4, 5, and 9 would be highly competitive.

The 7th is sort of the "leftovers" district, but I like the arrangement it allows for the 12th and it's pretty uniformly right-trending areas, at least. You could alternatively put the remainder of Wayne with Monroe (almost exactly a full district) and get another competitive district, but that means putting Ann Arbor with rural areas and that's something I wanted to avoid.

And this my friends is what you get if you try to preserve the gerrymandered lines as best as possible. I applaud your efforts to update them, but they are still tainted.

[Idaho Conservative]

2012/2016 composite data

1 Detroit Exurbs, Livingston+outer Oakland
2 WWC suburbs, Macomb
3 Highly Educated suburbs, southeast Oakland+northwest Wayne
4 VRA Urban Detroit
5 VRA Inner suburbs
6 Lansing, Mount Pleasant, and rural central MI
7 UP and northern mitten, Traverse City
8 Southwest Coast, Muskegon and Holland
9 Ann Arbor, southern Wayne, Monroe County
10 Grand Rapids and eastern Ottowa County
11 Flint and thumb
12 Tri Cities area, rural central and western MI
13 Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Jackson. rural southern MI

I like how I keep most COIs together throughout the state. Flint gets its own district without competing with another city, Tri Cities get their own district, Lansing metro is kept whole and the Northern suburbs of Detroit don't get ripped apart by being put with urban or rural areas.  I get that the thin strip in district 8 is ugly, but after the 2010 census it will be thicker, taking up the western half of Ottawa County.  I've seen too many maps doing weird stuff like doughnuts, half of Macomb with Detroit, cutting Oakland county 10 ways 'til Sunday, pairing Flint with the Detroit suburbs, an Oakland county to western MI seat YUCK!.  I see way more concern for the exact partisan makeup of the seats and less for MI communities.  

[EastAnglianLefty]

"Flint gets its own district" is a particularly euphemistic way of describing a fairly obvious attempt at cracking.

[cvparty]

why is half this thread just idaho conservative posting gerrymanders/praising himself for “keeping COIs together”

[Tintrlvr]

"Flint gets its own district" is a particularly euphemistic way of describing a fairly obvious attempt at cracking.

Imagine seriously defending the idea that Saginaw has more of a COI with the west coast of Michigan than with Flint.

[Nyvin]

I think more than anything what this thread really needs is a definition of what exactly the "CoI's" in Michigan really are supposed to be. 

Because looking over the maps here they seem to be all over the place.

[Water Hazard]

I tried my best to satisfy the important COI considerations that have been discussed.

1: UP and northern LP
2: Northern Lake Michigan coast and interior
3: Grand Rapids and relevant Ottawa County suburbs
4: Lansing metro area and surrounding rural areas
5: Genesee County and the tri-cities
6: Southwestern MI, with Kalamazoo and Battle Creek
7: South Central MI and right-trending Wayne suburbs
8: Livingston and Oakland exurbs/outer suburbs
9: Oakland and Macomb inner/middle suburbs
10: Thumb and exurban Macomb
11: Most of Detroit and nearby suburbs
12: Washtenaw and upscale, left-trending western Wayne
13: Western Detroit and blackest parts of Oakland

Districts 4, 5, and 9 would be highly competitive.

The 7th is sort of the "leftovers" district, but I like the arrangement it allows for the 12th and it's pretty uniformly right-trending areas, at least. You could alternatively put the remainder of Wayne with Monroe (almost exactly a full district) and get another competitive district, but that means putting Ann Arbor with rural areas and that's something I wanted to avoid.

And this my friends is what you get if you try to preserve the gerrymandered lines as best as possible. I applaud your efforts to update them, but they are still tainted.

Michigan has changed so much in the last decade that a 2010 gerrymander looks nothing like a 2020 one. The biggest similarity I see here- the 5/9/10 arrangement- was advantageous for the GOP last decade but is likely now Dem-favoring. The Flint district is drawn about as favorably for Dems as it can be (it could easily be split into two double digit Trump districts via the Thumb), and doing so limits the ways 9 and 10 can be compactly drawn, so that's why that portion ends up looking similar. Besides that, many of these districts have a significantly different character than the current ones.

Overall, I think it ends up being pretty fair from a partisan standpoint, at least relative to a reasonable gerrymander for either side.

[jimrtex]

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.

The constitution prioritizes the criteria:

(1) Equal Population.
(2) Contiguity
(3) COI " Districts shall reflect the state's diverse population and communities of interest. Communities of interest may include, but shall not be limited to, populations that share cultural or historical characteristics or economic interests."
(4) Political fairness.
(5) Not favoring/disfavoring incumbent or candidate.
(6) Reflect consideration of county, city, and township boundaries.
(7) Reasonably compact.

I would read that as requiring political boundaries to be ignored if necessary to reflect communities of interest.

COI and fairness are contradictory. If it is a community of interest, it will have political coherence.

[Tintrlvr]

I think more than anything what this thread really needs is a definition of what exactly the "CoI's" in Michigan really are supposed to be.  

Because looking over the maps here they seem to be all over the place.

Here's a rough attempt at defining COIs. First group are county groupings that should never be split apart because they form a clear combined COI. There are only four of these, standing alone:

Detroit Metro (Wayne, Monroe, Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw, Livingston): There should be six seats entirely contained in these six counties with no overlap with the rest of the state (other than needing to pull in just a few thousand voters from somewhere else on the 2016 numbers)

Lansing Metro (Ingham, Eaton, Clinton): These counties should all be in the same district and treated as one county.

The Thumb (Saint Clair, Lapeer, Tuscola, Sanilac, Huron): These counties should all be in the same district and treated as one county.

The Upper Peninsula: These counties should all be in the same district and treated as one county (this maybe goes without saying, haven't seen anyone propose splitting it up).

After those groupings, it becomes a bit harder because you're talking about metro areas that are mostly self-contained in one county so could go a few different directions. But there are still obvious groups, like Genessee with Saginaw, Calhoun with Jackson (which forms almost exactly one district with the Lansing metro described above so is ideal; also see my map that shows that this grouping with Genessee/Saginaw/Shiawassee/Midland is a perfect pair of two districts, population-wise, needing only one de minimis split), Kent probably best paired with eastern Ottawa to keep Grand Rapids suburbs with the city, etc.

[Idaho Conservative]

"Flint gets its own district" is a particularly euphemistic way of describing a fairly obvious attempt at cracking.

Imagine seriously defending the idea that Saginaw has more of a COI with the west coast of Michigan than with Flint.

Not with western MI, with the tri-cities area.  Saginaw-Flint breaks up the tri-cities area.

[Idaho Conservative]

"Flint gets its own district" is a particularly euphemistic way of describing a fairly obvious attempt at cracking.

No, cracking would be splitting Gennesee county.  Saginaw and Flint being in different districts is not cracking, they are not a metro or COI.  The tri cities are much more of a community than Flint and Saginaw are.

[Tintrlvr]

"Flint gets its own district" is a particularly euphemistic way of describing a fairly obvious attempt at cracking.

Imagine seriously defending the idea that Saginaw has more of a COI with the west coast of Michigan than with Flint.

Not with western MI, with the tri-cities area.  Saginaw-Flint breaks up the tri-cities area.

What's so special about that grouping in particular? They don't have anything more in common with each other than Saginaw has with Flint. Less, generally, as there are significant demographic differences. For example, Bay City and Midland are nearly 100% white while Saginaw has a large black population. Saginaw is also historically an industrial city while Bay City is a shipping center and Midland is more high tech and services.

[Idaho Conservative]

why is half this thread just idaho conservative posting gerrymanders/praising himself for “keeping COIs together”

because you don't

[Idaho Conservative]

"Flint gets its own district" is a particularly euphemistic way of describing a fairly obvious attempt at cracking.

Imagine seriously defending the idea that Saginaw has more of a COI with the west coast of Michigan than with Flint.

Not with western MI, with the tri-cities area.  Saginaw-Flint breaks up the tri-cities area.

What's so special about that grouping in particular? They don't have anything more in common with each other than Saginaw has with Flint. Less, generally, as there are significant demographic differences. For example, Bay City and Midland are nearly 100% white while Saginaw has a large black population. Saginaw is also historically an industrial city while Bay City is a shipping center and Midland is more high tech and services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saginaw,_Midland,_and_Bay_City_metropolitan_area
Tri cities are a region of MI, Flint and Saginaw are two different cities that both happen to have black people.  Race doesn't make a COI, but it matters for VRA purposes in Detroit.

[Tintrlvr]

"Flint gets its own district" is a particularly euphemistic way of describing a fairly obvious attempt at cracking.

Imagine seriously defending the idea that Saginaw has more of a COI with the west coast of Michigan than with Flint.

Not with western MI, with the tri-cities area.  Saginaw-Flint breaks up the tri-cities area.

What's so special about that grouping in particular? They don't have anything more in common with each other than Saginaw has with Flint. Less, generally, as there are significant demographic differences. For example, Bay City and Midland are nearly 100% white while Saginaw has a large black population. Saginaw is also historically an industrial city while Bay City is a shipping center and Midland is more high tech and services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saginaw,_Midland,_and_Bay_City_metropolitan_area
Tri cities are a region of MI, Flint and Saginaw are two different cities that both happen to have black people.  Race doesn't make a COI, but it matters for VRA purposes in Detroit.

It's explicitly not a region based on that link. Midland, Saginaw and Bay City are all separate MSAs. The "Central Michigan" region as defined by the state of Michigan also includes Flint as well as Mount Pleasant and some rural counties.

[Oryxslayer]

The recognized tri-cities community is Saginaw-Midland-Bay City, but most groupers also throw in Flint because of the regions economic ties. They are all oriented along route 85, and all are at least somewhat postindustrial. They all are distinct from the rural thumb, whose most similar cousins are across the bay in upper Michigan (all residents I have chat with want something like this), all distinct from the universities to their west, and distinct from the Detroit suburbs to their south.

The point of keeping counties whole is that counties are the default COI. If there is no better or clearer COI, the the county level is best observed. If there is a better COI, than it comes before the county. If there are lots of counties like in Michigan, you get cross-county COIs that deserve the same respect as inter-county ones. We have cases here where those outside of Wayne have clear cross-county COIs: rural Thumb+Upland, the route 85 tri-cities corridor, the central universities, and the Wayne exurbs.