2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan

[Sol]

Not VRA compliant.

[Nyvin]

MI-10 is 76.65% Black?  Not happening.

[kwabbit]

Not VRA compliant.

Do I need to make a second AA seat in Detroit?

Bit of a bummer, I was surprised that Detroit could be fit into a nice, neat district. I suppose it can be rearranged without really changing the outcome of the map though.

What qualifies as VRA compliant? I was able to make both Detroit CDs around 45% black. Should I shoot for 50?



The east Detroit is now down to 50% Black and the West Wayne is now 42% Black. DRA has minority rating at 98.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not VRA compliant.

Do I need to make a second AA seat in Detroit?

Bit of a bummer, I was surprised that Detroit could be fit into a nice, neat district. I suppose it can be rearranged without really changing the outcome of the map though.

What qualifies as VRA compliant? I was able to make both Detroit CDs around 45% black. Should I shoot for 50?

A compact Detroit CD is excessive packing of black voters. That being said - you don't have to touch any CDs on the map other than 11 and 10. Just rearrange them.

[kwabbit]

Not VRA compliant.

Do I need to make a second AA seat in Detroit?

Bit of a bummer, I was surprised that Detroit could be fit into a nice, neat district. I suppose it can be rearranged without really changing the outcome of the map though.

What qualifies as VRA compliant? I was able to make both Detroit CDs around 45% black. Should I shoot for 50?

A compact Detroit CD is excessive packing of black voters. That being said - you don't have to touch any CDs on the map other than 11 and 10. Just rearrange them.

Rearranged above.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not VRA compliant.

Do I need to make a second AA seat in Detroit?

Bit of a bummer, I was surprised that Detroit could be fit into a nice, neat district. I suppose it can be rearranged without really changing the outcome of the map though.

What qualifies as VRA compliant? I was able to make both Detroit CDs around 45% black. Should I shoot for 50?

A compact Detroit CD is excessive packing of black voters. That being said - you don't have to touch any CDs on the map other than 11 and 10. Just rearrange them.

Rearranged above.

Ok, that's decent.

[Sol]

Not VRA compliant.

Do I need to make a second AA seat in Detroit?

Bit of a bummer, I was surprised that Detroit could be fit into a nice, neat district. I suppose it can be rearranged without really changing the outcome of the map though.

What qualifies as VRA compliant? I was able to make both Detroit CDs around 45% black. Should I shoot for 50?



The east Detroit is now down to 50% Black and the West Wayne is now 42% Black. DRA has minority rating at 98.

You can definitely get over 50% pretty easily and compactly. It does require dipping into Southfield and Pontiac, and you do have to do a little careful work to avoid splitting municipalities, but it's very doable.

[lfromnj]

Pontiac shouldn't really be reached for, its way too far away and messes up the rest of the Oakland district.Southfield is ok though.

[Coastal Elitist]

This is an example of why the VRA is stupid and goes against the whole idea of fair redistricting which is to put communities of interest together. From a fair standpoint it makes sense to make Detroit one district because it fits nicely and a city is a perfect COI but no we can't do that because it packs blacks so instead we have to spread them out through the suburbs to make sure we can get two black districts.

[kwabbit]

Not VRA compliant.

Do I need to make a second AA seat in Detroit?

Bit of a bummer, I was surprised that Detroit could be fit into a nice, neat district. I suppose it can be rearranged without really changing the outcome of the map though.

What qualifies as VRA compliant? I was able to make both Detroit CDs around 45% black. Should I shoot for 50?


The east Detroit is now down to 50% Black and the West Wayne is now 42% Black. DRA has minority rating at 98.

You can definitely get over 50% pretty easily and compactly. It does require dipping into Southfield and Pontiac, and you do have to do a little careful work to avoid splitting municipalities, but it's very doable.

Does going from 42 to 50% warrant another split of Oakland? I saw all of the Black population in South Oakland but I have an existing district with basically all of incorporated Oakland in it. Counties are pretty arbitrary political boundaries, but I don't like how Wayne/Washtenaw/Macomb/Oakland are all carved up in weird ways in the actual House map.

I do think 42% Black is enough to elect a representative of their choice consistently. They make up over 60% of the Dem electorate in each.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not VRA compliant.

Do I need to make a second AA seat in Detroit?

Bit of a bummer, I was surprised that Detroit could be fit into a nice, neat district. I suppose it can be rearranged without really changing the outcome of the map though.

What qualifies as VRA compliant? I was able to make both Detroit CDs around 45% black. Should I shoot for 50?


The east Detroit is now down to 50% Black and the West Wayne is now 42% Black. DRA has minority rating at 98.

You can definitely get over 50% pretty easily and compactly. It does require dipping into Southfield and Pontiac, and you do have to do a little careful work to avoid splitting municipalities, but it's very doable.

Does going from 42 to 50% warrant another split of Oakland? I saw all of the Black population in South Oakland but I have an existing district with basically all of incorporated Oakland in it. Counties are pretty arbitrary political boundaries, but I don't like how Wayne/Washtenaw/Macomb/Oakland are all carved up in weird ways in the actual House map.

Imo, I think it can go either way. Going into Oakland or not going into it are both justifiable choices.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Pontiac shouldn't really be reached for, its way too far away and messes up the rest of the Oakland district.Southfield is ok though.

Yeah, Pontiac doesn't belong in there. Period. If you reach into Oakland, take Southfield. That's it.

[Sol]

You have to draw two Black districts in Detroit, suck it up.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You have to draw two Black districts in Detroit, suck it up.

The VRA does not require some grotesque arm leading up through Oakland all the way to Pontiac. Just no.

[Former President tack50]

Not VRA compliant.

Do I need to make a second AA seat in Detroit?

Bit of a bummer, I was surprised that Detroit could be fit into a nice, neat district. I suppose it can be rearranged without really changing the outcome of the map though.

What qualifies as VRA compliant? I was able to make both Detroit CDs around 45% black. Should I shoot for 50?


The east Detroit is now down to 50% Black and the West Wayne is now 42% Black. DRA has minority rating at 98.

You can definitely get over 50% pretty easily and compactly. It does require dipping into Southfield and Pontiac, and you do have to do a little careful work to avoid splitting municipalities, but it's very doable.

Does going from 42 to 50% warrant another split of Oakland? I saw all of the Black population in South Oakland but I have an existing district with basically all of incorporated Oakland in it. Counties are pretty arbitrary political boundaries, but I don't like how Wayne/Washtenaw/Macomb/Oakland are all carved up in weird ways in the actual House map.

I do think 42% Black is enough to elect a representative of their choice consistently. They make up over 60% of the Dem electorate in each.

Given you have 2 black districts you could go for 2 districts at 46% black as well instead of one at 42 and one at 50.

I also agree with TPH that in this particular case the COI based map would keep Detroit in a single district. But over all 50 states the effects of the VRA probably cancel out.

[Gass3268]

You have to draw two Black districts in Detroit, suck it up.

The VRA does not require some grotesque arm leading up through Oakland all the way to Pontiac. Just no.

Yeah, the Supreme Court has ruled that you can get a black performing district at like 42-44%.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You have to draw two Black districts in Detroit, suck it up.

The VRA does not require some grotesque arm leading up through Oakland all the way to Pontiac. Just no.

Yeah, the Supreme Court has ruled that you can get a black performing district at like 42-44%.

Would the territory a performing black seat take on be relevant, if, say, an area was overwhelmingly registered R among whites, and another area not?

[Nyvin]

This is an example of why the VRA is stupid and goes against the whole idea of fair redistricting which is to put communities of interest together. From a fair standpoint it makes sense to make Detroit one district because it fits nicely and a city is a perfect COI but no we can't do that because it packs blacks so instead we have to spread them out through the suburbs to make sure we can get two black districts.

Representation for ethnic groups > arbitrary municipal lines.

[EastAnglianLefty]

It's not like Detroit's boundaries (and when they stopped expanding) was a development that grew up entirely separately from class and race-based discrimination.

[Former President tack50]

It's not like Detroit's boundaries (and when they stopped expanding) was a development that grew up entirely separately from class and race-based discrimination.

Wayne County is supermajorty Democratic, so wouldn't they be free to redraw municipal boundaries as they saw fit?

If it has to be done by the state government it is harder, but still certainly doable?

Tbh I will say that one problem the US have is that the municipal boundaries in many cases are ridiculous and can and should be ignored in those cases where the municipal lines have tons of enclaves and exclaves and are impossible to follow, but Detroit seems to me like it has fairly clean lines.

This is an example of why the VRA is stupid and goes against the whole idea of fair redistricting which is to put communities of interest together. From a fair standpoint it makes sense to make Detroit one district because it fits nicely and a city is a perfect COI but no we can't do that because it packs blacks so instead we have to spread them out through the suburbs to make sure we can get two black districts.

Representation for ethnic groups > arbitrary municipal lines.

Not really, the point of FPTP is to represent communities, not ethnic groups. If the US really wanted to represent ethnic groups, they should go with different alternatives like for example party list PR (and making sure X % of candidates are from Y group); or making sure that parties must nominate X% of candidates from Y ethnic group; with Z% being in districts they won last election or something.

Of course that also requires dismantling primaries as Americans know them, with a "party decides" model (like say, the UK or Canada do)

I will say that I still oppose repealing that provision of the VRA and that in Detroit's particular case it is not too bad and there are much worse examples you can make for that (for example FL-05).

[Former President tack50]

I will also note that in Michigan's particular case, the VRA either has no impact, or actually hurts Democrats by turning what should be a safe seat into a swingy seat. Here are 3 maps of the Detroit metropolitan area that illustrate this:

Non-VRA compliant map with a Detroit district



MI-01: Clinton+81, D+41 (74% black)
MI-02: Clinton+14, D+9
MI-03: Clinton+15, D+8
MI-04: Trump+7, R+1
MI-05: Clinton+20, D+8
MI-06: Trump+20, R+10



VRA semi-compliant map with a Detroit split



MI-01: Clinton+50, D+27 (48% black)
MI-02: Clinton+39, D+19 (43% black)
MI-03: Clinton+15, D+8
MI-04: Trump+7, R+1
MI-05: Clinton+20, D+8
MI-06: Trump+20, R+10


Fully VRA compliant map with maxed out black districts



MI-01: Clinton+51, D+24 (48% black)
MI-02: Clinton+51, D+26 (50% black)
MI-03: Clinton+15, D+8
MI-04: Trump+7, R+1
MI-05: Clinton+9, D+2
MI-06: Trump+20, R+10

So interestingly, it is the 2nd map that is the best for Dems, but the difference is incredibly marginal, it's not like the 2nd district in the first map is anything other than Safe D. A D+9, Clinton+14 district is probably not winnable for a Republican; not even in a big wave?

Meanwhile, when you try to max out black percentages you end up endangering the 5th district. It is still quite Democratic (and probably trending D) but it's not exactly safe.

[EastAnglianLefty]

It's not like Detroit's boundaries (and when they stopped expanding) was a development that grew up entirely separately from class and race-based discrimination.

Wayne County is supermajorty Democratic, so wouldn't they be free to redraw municipal boundaries as they saw fit?

If it has to be done by the state government it is harder, but still certainly doable?

Tbh I will say that one problem the US have is that the municipal boundaries in many cases are ridiculous and can and should be ignored in those cases where the municipal lines have tons of enclaves and exclaves and are impossible to follow, but Detroit seems to me like it has fairly clean lines.

I think it's the state government, but that doesn't really signify in any case. Dearborn and Detroit are both hugely Democratic cities and have been for decades. It doesn't mean that racialised animus hasn't been a huge part of the story of the relationship between them.

I'm hard-pressed to see that Detroit's lines match up to any real-world geographic features in any organised way (it has an arm south of the Rouge River; northern and eastern Dearborn fades naturally into Detroit; the boundary with Redford is a straight line rather than following the river), and to the extent they match demographic lines that's simply a consequence of white-flight and redlining.

I would also point out that even if you did change the lines in Wayne County, the northern boundary of Detroit would still be arbitrary - it has nothing to do with the settlement's natural boundaries and everything to do with straight lines drawn by surveyors in the early 19th century.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

the boundaries of Detroit itself I don't think have anything to do with race. The racial makeup of Detroit, though, has practically everything to do with race.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I will say that I still oppose repealing that provision of the VRA and that in Detroit's particular case it is not too bad and there are much worse examples you can make for that (for example FL-05).

FL-05 is not actually required by the federal VRA, its required by the states fair Districts amendment (which by the way is about to be a dead letter because the 6-1 Conservative state Supreme Court is definitely going to let the legislature ignore it).

[EastAnglianLefty]

the boundaries of Detroit itself I don't think have anything to do with race. The racial makeup of Detroit, though, has practically everything to do with race.

The original boundaries aren't. The fact they haven't changed since the 1930s, however, is not disconnected from race. And elements of the boundaries have to do with class - for example, Redford Township still exists as a separate entity because it petitioned for a charter to stop Detroit annexing developed parts of it, which was definitely about more prosperous bits of the county wanting to remain separate from working-class Detroit.