2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan

[Idaho Conservative]

Going into Bay was mostly a legacy effect - initially I wanted to get Bay City in (on the basis that southern Bay is fairly distinct from much more rural northern Bay) but then I found that based off 2018 population estimates it's not quite big enough. That will probably still be the case on the census figures, but it might be possible to take most of Midland instead (just leaving off the rural fringes.)

While your map doesn't really favor one party,  you split Oakland 5 ways heavily diluting their voice.  It is possible to only split it once, with one district entirely within it (probably a Dem seat) and exurban areas going elsewhere.  Also some dems might be nervous about all those Clinton+5 or less seats.  They are all trending R.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45
https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7
6-1-6 map
4 county breaks

[Idaho Conservative]

https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45
https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7
6-1-6 map
4 county breaks

that looks more like 7 splits. also your number of splits definitely has any significance with regard to redistricting

I only counted a split when a county that could in theory be kept whole wasn't.  Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb will be split no matter what, unles Baker v Carr is overturned.  But regardless let's not get stuck in the weeds.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b89d1b54-490e-4440-b3b6-29d27d0081dd
1 - R+11
2 - R+7
3 - R+7
4 - R+4
5 - R+5
6 - R+5
7 - R+4
8 - R+5
9 - R+6
10 - R+6
11 - D+18
12 - D+28
13 - D+32
The Michigan GOP would like to introduce you to this totally fair map which definitely has no ulterior motives.

how do u directly upload a pic like that?
but it's amazing u could draw a map that lopsided that clean looking.  The only obvious give away is arm reaching into Pontiac.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b89d1b54-490e-4440-b3b6-29d27d0081dd
1 - R+11
2 - R+7
3 - R+7
4 - R+4
5 - R+5
6 - R+5
7 - R+4
8 - R+5
9 - R+6
10 - R+6
11 - D+18
12 - D+28
13 - D+32
The Michigan GOP would like to introduce you to this totally fair map which definitely has no ulterior motives.

how do u directly upload a pic like that?
but it's amazing u could draw a map that lopsided that clean looking.  The only obvious give away is arm reaching into Pontiac.

And the arm reaching to Pontiac can be justified under the VRA without too much effort.
And it's a reminder that just because a map that looks clean doesn't mean it's at all fair. That's why Independent Commissions take into account partisan fairness.

The arm into Pontiac isn't needed to fufill the vra tho, 2 roughly half black districts can be created with limited intrusion into Wayne.  It can be legally justified (but there is an argument it is using race as a predominate factor which isn't legal)  but courts have not struck down a district similar to that so who knows.  My point was that the arm is the one part of your map that looks gerrymandered to the average voter.  How did you upload the photo?

[Idaho Conservative]

Going into Bay was mostly a legacy effect - initially I wanted to get Bay City in (on the basis that southern Bay is fairly distinct from much more rural northern Bay) but then I found that based off 2018 population estimates it's not quite big enough. That will probably still be the case on the census figures, but it might be possible to take most of Midland instead (just leaving off the rural fringes.)

While your map doesn't really favor one party,  you split Oakland 5 ways heavily diluting their voice.  It is possible to only split it once, with one district entirely within it (probably a Dem seat) and exurban areas going elsewhere.  Also some dems might be nervous about all those Clinton+5 or less seats.  They are all trending R.

a) Oakland isn't a single thing - it's a huge county ranging from core bits of the Detroit urban area in the SE, to suburbs in the middle to rural areas in the north. 9 and 11 split the suburban bits and you can reasonably argue that it's better to unit them and then have one district solely in Macomb, but otherwise the map matches up to the different COIs in the county reasonable well.

b) Those seats aren't trending R. The northern bits of 4 are trending R, but the southern bits are trending D and there's more population in the south of the seat (and the south is growing and the north isn't). Also, Saginaw County has a significant non-white population, so there are limits to how much further it can swing unless it goes full Kentucky (in which case Democrats are screwed whatever happens.)

In 8, Washtenaw has about half the electorate and is trending D (although they may be close to tapped out in the east of the county and it's not clear whether the same will happen in the west too.) Livingston is also trending D, so it's only Monroe which is the issue and that's only about a fifth of the electorate.

In 9, most of the Macomb bits are swinging R, but the minority population in south Macomb is growing rapidly, which ought to take the edge off that. In Oakland, the trend is towards Democrats. That said, if you swapped St. Clair Shores for Mt. Clemens and part of Clinton Township (which looks cleaner on a map but splits more townships) then it probably would be an issue.

ok, you can keep kidding yourself.  Sure maybe the massive trends from 2012 to 2016 will stay frozen while d trending areas stay trending D For now those Clinton+4 seats might be somewhat safe but in a Dem midterm your map collapses.  It is clear you spread dems incredibly thin so they still have a chance at winning 7 seats, but your map is too partisan for republicans, funky for independants, and risky for dems.  This is a better alternative in every way: https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45

[Idaho Conservative]

You seem to have the idea that everybody else is biased, whereas you are fair. The former may be true, the latter is frankly delusional. You're just much better at seeing other people's biases than admitting your own.

I would agree it's not necessarily a plan that is likely to be drawn, but that wasn't the point. It was just an experiment to see what happens if you draw a Lansing-Saginaw district. Answer: the Flint and Lansing districts are a bit odd, everything else makes sense in isolation but you split a few more counties than you necessarily need to.

A lot of the decisions on the map seem to come down to how Flint, Saginaw and the Thumb get treated. If you put Flint with the Thumb, you're drawing a Republican gerrymander. If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district and extend it to the Huron coast, you're going to produce a strong Democratic map around Detroit (as you soak up heavily Republican bits of northern Macomb and/or Oakland, allowing Democratic strongholds in the south of those counties to outvote lean-Republican areas further north.) If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district but let the Thumb district head north via Bay, it's more mixed but tends to benefit Republicans as they're going to be favoured to win the Macomb district.

I never claimed not to have biases, but on this map https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45 I turned off partisan data and based it on 538's map keeping counties whole as much as possible.  Not every map I've drawn is fair but that one is as the data shows https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7 6D, 6R, 1 even.    Also I don't think you can get a Flint-Saginaw district all the way to northern Macomb unless you make a weird tendril which the commission isn't doing.  You can get a Flint district to the Huron coast, only if you drop Saginaw.  I think the most fair and straightforward way to divide up the northern suburbs is a solid R district that includes Livingston county, northern and western Oakland, and northern Macomb.  Then a solid D district in the remainder of Oakland, and a tossup in the remainder of Macomb.  The one potential alteration is having a black seat go into southern Oakland to get more black voters, but that doesn't really change the partisan makeup because the Oakland seat still solidly votes Clinton due to Pontiac and places like Royal Oak.  1D-1T-1R is a fair breakdown of the Macomb-Oakland-Livingston area.  Those counties combined voted Trump narrowly and Obama narrowly. 

[Idaho Conservative]

You seem to have the idea that everybody else is biased, whereas you are fair. The former may be true, the latter is frankly delusional. You're just much better at seeing other people's biases than admitting your own.

I would agree it's not necessarily a plan that is likely to be drawn, but that wasn't the point. It was just an experiment to see what happens if you draw a Lansing-Saginaw district. Answer: the Flint and Lansing districts are a bit odd, everything else makes sense in isolation but you split a few more counties than you necessarily need to.

A lot of the decisions on the map seem to come down to how Flint, Saginaw and the Thumb get treated. If you put Flint with the Thumb, you're drawing a Republican gerrymander. If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district and extend it to the Huron coast, you're going to produce a strong Democratic map around Detroit (as you soak up heavily Republican bits of northern Macomb and/or Oakland, allowing Democratic strongholds in the south of those counties to outvote lean-Republican areas further north.) If you put Flint and Saginaw in the same district but let the Thumb district head north via Bay, it's more mixed but tends to benefit Republicans as they're going to be favoured to win the Macomb district.

I never claimed not to have biases, but on this map https://imgur.com/a/pQIkR45 I turned off partisan data and based it on 538's map keeping counties whole as much as possible.  Not every map I've drawn is fair but that one is as the data shows https://imgur.com/7d7Ddl7 6D, 6R, 1 even.    Also I don't think you can get a Flint-Saginaw district all the way to northern Macomb unless you make a weird tendril which the commission isn't doing.  You can get a Flint district to the Huron coast, only if you drop Saginaw.  I think the most fair and straightforward way to divide up the northern suburbs is a solid R district that includes Livingston county, northern and western Oakland, and northern Macomb.  Then a solid D district in the remainder of Oakland, and a tossup in the remainder of Macomb.  The one potential alteration is having a black seat go into southern Oakland to get more black voters, but that doesn't really change the partisan makeup because the Oakland seat still solidly votes Clinton due to Pontiac and places like Royal Oak.  1D-1T-1R is a fair breakdown of the Macomb-Oakland-Livingston area.  Those counties combined voted Trump narrowly and Obama narrowly.  

could you link me the map plz?

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bf7fe969-7260-4079-9fba-713e5eb41629
I looked at presidential results and down-ballot tendencies and it would be like this:
4 safe R (6, 9, 10, 11)
2 lean R (7, 13)
2 tossups (1, 8)
1 lean D (12)
4 safe D (2, 3, 4, 5)
Based on the '12+'16 composite it's 6R-1T-6D
In addition to keeping counties whole, I tried my best to keep metros whole too.  MI has a lot of mid sized metros like Flint, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, ect which can all have their own districts.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/435dcad3-d0f2-435b-abe8-c5eee7aa8575
In this map we have:
a 1st district more along the lines of the 2000s iteration of the district
a Flint-Thumb district, with Saginaw and Midland thrown in a Lansing district
a nice, neat, compact Grand Rapids seat
1 seat nested entirely within Macomb, another nested solely within Oakland, and 2 nested solely with Wayne, and then 2 seats around those, enveloping them
Kalamazoo and Battle Creek are kept in the same seat
the Macomb CD and Flint CD are the tipping point districts

I like your map, it does split counties more than mine but I'd say respects COIs a bit better.  I see you made the Lansing district more dem but the Flint district is more competitive.  Some might criticize your map due to the tipping point districts being red leaning in 2016, but down ballot Flint and Macomb are more Dem than they are presidentially so those districts would be closer to true tossups.  I like how you fixed my long western MI strip and made more compact districts.  My only criticism of your map is the UP-Bay City district.  I'd trade Traverse City and Bay City between their respective districts.  Other than that, I would support this map as a commissioner. 

[Idaho Conservative]

I don't really see the point of Oakland getting it's own district.   It seems...meaningless.  Oakland is huge and very diverse,  both with income and demographics.    It's as though it's making a district simply to follow county lines and literally nothing else. 

It makes the most sense to have southern Oakland cross into either Wayne or Washtenaw,  depending on what communities you want to put together. 

I could understand a Macomb-exclusive district though.   That makes way more sense since it's much more White Working Class and generally is it's own community.

Oakland isn't as cohesive as other counties but I don't get how splitting it up better reflects COIs.  The main divide in Oakland is exurban vs suburban, and both my map and the speaker's map keep those areas together.  I do see potential merit in having some black areas in Oakland go to Wayne because they would probably be better represented by Lawrence than Levin; and such a move might be necessary due to population loss in Wayne.  But Dems would probably prefer keeping the county border unbroken, more blacks in Levin's district will make it safer but pushing it out further into the exurbs could endanger him.  I know incumbent interests aren't taken into account, but partisan fairness is, and a safe Dem district in Oakland is fair. 

[Idaho Conservative]

I don't really see the point of Oakland getting it's own district.   It seems...meaningless.  Oakland is huge and very diverse,  both with income and demographics.    It's as though it's making a district simply to follow county lines and literally nothing else.  

It makes the most sense to have southern Oakland cross into either Wayne or Washtenaw,  depending on what communities you want to put together.  

I could understand a Macomb-exclusive district though.   That makes way more sense since it's much more White Working Class and generally is it's own community.

An all-Oakland seat is logical especially because 8 Mile Road is better not crossed if one can help it and/or its not absolutely essential to one's plans elsewhere. The main benefit is not necessarily in a homogenous CoI but better districts elsewhere. There is much reason and much elegance in two exurban districts wrapping around the more urban metro Detroit districts.

The 8 mile rd thing is more for the Macomb-Wayne border than Oakland,  since it's what separates Black Detroit from White Macomb (the difference really is pretty stark).   In Oakland you have Oak Park and Southfield areas to the north of Detroit which are both pretty black, and the difference between the two is minimal further west.

But you don't have to reach into Oakland for an adequate black district, and the more areas you take from Southern Oakland the more you need to eat into exurban metro Detroit, which is a CoI worth keeping together.
So crossing 8 Mile is still undesirable in most cases.

Even then,  Detroit is in Northeastern Wayne, and southeastern Oakland is more "Metro" and urban than southern Wayne.    There's exurban metro Detroit in western and southern Wayne, and suburban Detroit in Oakland.  

Anyway you put it the county borders don't really mean much in Detroit,  at least in respect to Oakland and Wayne.  

The current MI-11 was probably drawn as a Suburban district surrounding the AA districts (to the benefit of Republicans at the time), which puts all the communities of interests together, and the current MI-9 is pretty close to the Macomb working class district.

County borders aren't perfect but at least ensure relative compactness.  Arms going this way or that in Detroit are really easy to gerrymander with going either way, at least compact sensibly shaped districts limit gerrymandering.  I have seen some really funky Detroit maps here favoring both sides, I think the county based division is the most fair and generally avoids ripping up communities.

[Idaho Conservative]

I don't really see the point of Oakland getting it's own district.   It seems...meaningless.  Oakland is huge and very diverse,  both with income and demographics.    It's as though it's making a district simply to follow county lines and literally nothing else.  

It makes the most sense to have southern Oakland cross into either Wayne or Washtenaw,  depending on what communities you want to put together.  

I could understand a Macomb-exclusive district though.   That makes way more sense since it's much more White Working Class and generally is it's own community.

An all-Oakland seat is logical especially because 8 Mile Road is better not crossed if one can help it and/or its not absolutely essential to one's plans elsewhere. The main benefit is not necessarily in a homogenous CoI but better districts elsewhere. There is much reason and much elegance in two exurban districts wrapping around the more urban metro Detroit districts.

The 8 mile rd thing is more for the Macomb-Wayne border than Oakland,  since it's what separates Black Detroit from White Macomb (the difference really is pretty stark).   In Oakland you have Oak Park and Southfield areas to the north of Detroit which are both pretty black, and the difference between the two is minimal further west.

But you don't have to reach into Oakland for an adequate black district, and the more areas you take from Southern Oakland the more you need to eat into exurban metro Detroit, which is a CoI worth keeping together.
So crossing 8 Mile is still undesirable in most cases.

Even then,  Detroit is in Northeastern Wayne, and southeastern Oakland is more "Metro" and urban than southern Wayne.    There's exurban metro Detroit in western and southern Wayne, and suburban Detroit in Oakland.  

Anyway you put it the county borders don't really mean much in Detroit,  at least in respect to Oakland and Wayne.  

The current MI-11 was probably drawn as a Suburban district surrounding the AA districts, which puts all the communities of interests together, and the current MI-9 is pretty close to the Macomb working class district.

The current MI-09/11 were drawn to to maximize GOP potential in the Metro region. The 9th packs in the near suburbs which at the time were the solid obama parts of the region. The 11th is designed to squiggle around and collect the 'further' suburbs which at the time were more GOP friendly. As people moved further out, as the exurbs got pushed further back, and as attitudes changed, this no longer was a viable dichotomy that made much sense. Instead, the defining divide is now between the well understood 2016 style coalitions. In fact, one could say those coalitions are even more stark here because this is Detroit, the epicenter of the financial crash where it all began. Looking to these districts for guides on....anything is a horrible choice.

I could see a Stevens vs Levin primary happening, since those districts are getting reconfigured big time.  Unless Levin runs in a swing Macomb district, but I think he'll want to stay in Oakland.

[Idaho Conservative]

I would think Romulus and Inkster should be in the AA districts to get their numbers up. 

They likely will be, that's what my map did.  With population decline in Detroit it's possible the black district will need Pontiac too, I'm not sure though.  But with 2010 demographics it isn't necessary.

[Idaho Conservative]

I don't really see the point of Oakland getting it's own district.   It seems...meaningless.  Oakland is huge and very diverse,  both with income and demographics.    It's as though it's making a district simply to follow county lines and literally nothing else.  

It makes the most sense to have southern Oakland cross into either Wayne or Washtenaw,  depending on what communities you want to put together.  

I could understand a Macomb-exclusive district though.   That makes way more sense since it's much more White Working Class and generally is it's own community.

An all-Oakland seat is logical especially because 8 Mile Road is better not crossed if one can help it and/or its not absolutely essential to one's plans elsewhere. The main benefit is not necessarily in a homogenous CoI but better districts elsewhere. There is much reason and much elegance in two exurban districts wrapping around the more urban metro Detroit districts.

The 8 mile rd thing is more for the Macomb-Wayne border than Oakland,  since it's what separates Black Detroit from White Macomb (the difference really is pretty stark).   In Oakland you have Oak Park and Southfield areas to the north of Detroit which are both pretty black, and the difference between the two is minimal further west.

But you don't have to reach into Oakland for an adequate black district, and the more areas you take from Southern Oakland the more you need to eat into exurban metro Detroit, which is a CoI worth keeping together.
So crossing 8 Mile is still undesirable in most cases.

Has anybody successfully made 2 VRA districts solely in Wayne in this thread? It was certainly doable in 2010, I'm not convinced it is any longer.

I'm also not convinced it would be that controversial on a partisan level. You have to put a lot of SE Oakland into a Detroit district before a district entirely in Oakland starts looking competitive.

This depends entirely upon how we define AA seats in this context. The 2010 GOP believed in packing said seats to the brim with as many AA voters would be allowed before the map ran became an example of racial packing. In this regard, they all passed 50%. Now, it is still possible to get two seats out of the entire metro above 50% if you use the 2016 data and ALL areas of AA concentration. There is even enough leeway in the 2016 data for it to still work in 2020 after four more years of pop decline.

However, it is unlikely the commission takes this approach since it would require the destruction of almost every other Metro COI in favor of the AA community. Instead, we should perhaps look to CA, where we got Asian access seats like CA39 and two AA access seats in west LA. All three seats have the relevant demographic far below 50%.

So then we should lower our criteria. Is it AA plurality? Can it be lower, to something like AA greater than 40%? Do the other voter groups matter? Is a white republican who will not vote in the AA dominated dem primary equal to one who will? How one defines an AA seat will  decide how much of near Oakland, if any at all, is required to make the seats pass the minimum criteria.

I'd argue it would need to be high 40s, which is possible without weird shaped districts.  In the 2012 election Gary Peters was able to win a primary with a plurality against multiple non white candidates.  Even with a black majority seat there is not a guarantee it will elect the black candidate (Peters likely won due to the Oakland County portion of the district which isn't as black, due to the odd nature of the race it's likely Peters did not win a majority of the black vote).   Due to this fact the vra districts should try to get as close to 50% aa as possible with compact districts.  Since it has been demonstrated a 58% black district in Detroit can "fail" under the right circumstances, a 40% black district would be FAR more likely to not elect a black candidate. 

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b99a88d3-23fe-4d86-a4e3-8a237a3424da
another map, the aim here was (unsuccessfully) a nice, compact, whole county CD with Washtenaw in it, and for the all-of-southern Wayne district to move south if so necessary. I compromised and then the rest of the map basically fell into place into place. On a sidenote: this makes the Muskegon-Grand Rapids more natural looking on the map, due to Ottawa having to pair with Michiana as opposed to areas north and east of Grand Rapids. Overall the Washtenaw CD becomes more marginal, going down to D+2. The Oakland district's partisanship is barely affected despite its losing its tiny share of Macomb, as Southern Oakland is paired with southern Macomb. The Thumb-Bay City district loses Midland as it is pushed further south, forcing Saginaw to separate from Flint due to the need to avoid Midland, Saginaw, and Bay City all ending up in different districts. Flint's district is forced south into Metro Lansing, and the Lansing CD switches out Battle Creek for Kalamazoo. Saginaw and Midland meanwhile are thrown in with a wide area of rural Michigan.
This map is a bit more D-favorable and an argument could be made it is D-leaning.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/945fa102-1e26-4ee0-859a-1fbe56ec6af2 I made this based on your map, but united Ottawa and Kent instead.  The shifts is causes are particularly noticeable in Detroit, including a swing seat nearly all in Wayne, which I didn't know was possible.  I'd say this is more fair, but dems have big potential if they can keep improving in the suburbs since there are 3 suburban swing seats.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/dc4df638-b30d-48ba-bbf2-4fdc6fd78031
competitive district map.  8/13 districts are competitive ('16 margin 10 points or less for either candidate) with 5 being highly competitive.  Of course if the state continues to trend red like it did last decade this turns into an R gerrymander.  I like how I made a tossup entirely within Wayne and 2 tossups in central MI. 7 Trump 6 Clinton

[Idaho Conservative]

Anyway here's the results of my investigation into the Wayne non-AA seat style map. Like the others upthread discovered, this leads to the rotation of districts around that state. Now I didn't intend for it to become a D-Gerry/D-Favoring map at the start. However, once I saw how the Detroit Metro seats (first drawn) basically favored the Democrats to an unfair degree, I kinda made that unfairness part of the map. I do not endorse this plan, and I think it should show why an anchored Wayne  non-AA seat is probably asking the data to provide something that isn't available.

An all Wayne non AA seat doesn't have to cause the map to favor dems tho.  Having the Ann Arbor district go into southern Oakland instead of red exurban/rurals could be done. 

[Idaho Conservative]

Anyway here's the results of my investigation into the Wayne non-AA seat style map. Like the others upthread discovered, this leads to the rotation of districts around that state. Now I didn't intend for it to become a D-Gerry/D-Favoring map at the start. However, once I saw how the Detroit Metro seats (first drawn) basically favored the Democrats to an unfair degree, I kinda made that unfairness part of the map. I do not endorse this plan, and I think it should show why an anchored Wayne  non-AA seat is probably asking the data to provide something that isn't available.






Districts 11, 12, 13 are Safe D (The Wayne Seat is right there is a D gift)

District 9 is probably Likely D (Clinton+10, D+4 CPVI, Sunk Livingston is growing just like Ann Arbor)

Districts 3 and 10 are marginal Clinton with D+1 CPVI's, but they are both moving towards the Dems

District 5 is marginal Clinton with D+4 CPVI, but it is moving towards the GOP (yep Clinton won a majority of seats...)

District 7 is marginal Trump with a R+1 CPVI, but moving towards the Dems

Districts 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 are safe GOP, all with CPVI's above R+8 and an average Trump win of 58% - 37% (one seat a bit above that trump win, one seat a bit below that).

how do you put photos directly in?  When I put them in it on ImgBB just becomes a link

[Idaho Conservative]

snip

how do you put photos directly in?  When I put them in it on ImgBB just becomes a link

Have you tried this?
- right-click on image
- hit the 'open image in new tab' button
- there'll be a new link, use that

THANKS

[Idaho Conservative]

This proves a non AA Wayne seat doesn't have to necessarily help Dems.  Besides there's an argument Ann Arbor does better paired with educated parts of Oakland rather than western Wayne.

[Idaho Conservative]

Michigan's House of Representatives map is much less gerrymandered than its congressional or State Senate maps, because at this scale minimising splits of counties and municipalities means there's much less room to put a thumb on the scales. There are areas where it's clearly drawn to favour Republicans, but equally there are plenty of areas where you can more or less maintain the present alignments, once you've accounted for population shifts.

Once again, I worked with 2018 population estimates and tried to make sure that as much as possible seats were not right at the upper or lower limits of the allowable range. I tried to keep similar areas together, which probably promotes more safe seats, and I tried to draw as many seats winnable by minority candidates as possible, which definitely promotes safe seats. However, there are still a fair few marginals and I think it's clear that the House is a much easier target for Michigan Democrats than the State Senate.

In a few places (primarily Macomb, Grand Rapids, Lansing and Jackson) there looked to be two viable solutions, so I drew two maps. This is the first:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/90a2f6be-8fcf-4293-9b92-1a6b6a9c3d4b

• This map has 10 black majority districts (8 in Detroit, one in Southfield, one in Flint); 1 Hispanic plurality district in Detroit (although that's probably more likely to elect a black candidate as it stands); a black-plurality district based on Pontiac; a majority-minority district in Grand Rapids; two districts where the Democratic primary is probably plurality-black (the Inkster-Romulus district and the Saginaw City district) and several other districts where the white percentage is below 60% and which might be viable coalition districts either now or by 2030. Except for the Inkster-Romulus district, these are all pretty clean. Sadly, the latest update to DRA seems to have screwed up the display of electorate data and is now only showing white and Hispanic populations, so you may just have to take me at my word.
• Wayne and Monroe combine for 21 districts, which is one fewer than they presently have. It's mathematically possible to give Wayne 19 large districts on its own, but then Monroe lacks a convenient partner and there's nothing terribly wrong with a cross-county district there so I left it be.
• In Macomb, I went for a least-change plan as much as possible. Warren and Clinton need to be chopped due to size and there's an extra chop in Sterling Heights. Macomb Township is now large enough for its own district.
• In Oakland, you can mostly leave things be in the south-east. I tried to create a black-opportunity district based on Oak Park, but the numbers aren't quite there. Rochester Hills is now large enough for its own district, but Troy and Clawson are too large so Troy gets a chop. The county could theoretically stand alone for 14 seats, but Livingston is too large for two so I stuck in a cross-county seat.
• In St. Clair, I undid the current gerrymander to create one rural district shared with Sanilac and one district focused on the St. Clair river towns. This might have been a swing district in 2008, but isn't now.
• At the moment, Jackson County is sliced and diced to try to dilute the votes of Jackson itself. This map undoes that and creates a swing seat. Similarly, I've simplified the lines in Calhoun County. On the flipside, Shiawassee County gets carved in two.
• Kent County is cracked quite hard at the moment. I've undone and given it seven seats of its own, which ought to usually split 4-3 Republican, with the Wyoming district possibly on the path to becoming competitive.
  
• I tried a lot of options, but I don't think there are any plausible solutions in the UP that let you keep Marquette whole. That makes it even harder for Democrats to hold down a seat there than it already is.

Overall, Clinton won 42 districts to Trump's 68, but several of Trump's victories were extremely narrow and in several more Democrats tend to overperform downballot, so it would be competitive in good Democratic years.

I will post the second map either later tonight or tomorrow.

Wow, interesting how a fair house map favors Rs so much.  Rs should be thankful for the rules which limited them last time.

[Idaho Conservative]

9-4 map with Trump winning all 9 by at least 10.  Amazing how it doesn't take an egregious map.  I can get a better map out of MI than TX and it looks better.  TX is 8-9 pts to the right of MI.

[Idaho Conservative]

Here's a Detroit metro arrangement I like. Two districts over 50% AA and each of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb gets its own non-VRA district. Of course, it'd result in an Ann Arbor/Rural pairing and no Flint to Saginaw Bay district like the current CD 5.

looks good

[Idaho Conservative]

I made a map based on yours.  Not ideal for either party but favors Rs a bit.  Livingston county is challenging, pairing it with Flint or Lansing is definitely unfavorable to Dems.  I'd say pairing Livingston with exurban Oakland is the most sensible (and fair) way to draw the map, but then you might not get a 100% Oakland district.   

[Idaho Conservative]

My latest version, which solves the Livingston problem by pairing with Washtenaw and Oakland in a coherent D+1.66 district that is quickly trending more D.  Oakland, Macomb and Wayne each have a district entirely within them.  The-Oakland only district is D+0.76 but Clinton won by 5.  The white parts of Wayne are reasonably paired with Monroe; it's basically a tossup district (DRA says R+0.61).  Flint/Saginaw and Lansing/Isabella districts are D+3 and D+0.15 but Trump very narrowly won both. 

I'd say good map but Rs will hate all those suburban swing seats and Dems will be sweating since  Clinton won only 4 seats!  Of course it is a citizen's commission.  If they prioritize competitiveness we could see something like this.  But I predict they'll focus more on keeping boundaries unbroken and COIs.