2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Michigan

[lfromnj]

@tack Detroit VRA does matter slightly here partisanwise in my whole detroit seat non partisan map.



I put Washentaw with Western Wayne and Livonia  rather than Monroe. Monroe went with Downriver + Dearborn. However the Monroe seat is fairly swingy by 2016 numbers at Clinton +6. 2008 had the same partisan numbers for both "suburban seats" but 2016 had a wildy different one.

Overall the effect of the VRA and unpacking minorities I finds only really takes effect in the RGV and Detroit Michigan. The remaining Democratic complaints about packing minorities really has to do with the fact that white libs are around those minorities. A 60% black seat would be perfectly fine for them in MS because it would be 61% D or so. A 60% black seat in Philly is "packing" because its 90% D due to liberal whites. Even in Georgia the most overpacked seats wouldn't be a southern suburb 60% black seat but rather the 52% black seat in Fulton that might actually be getting a bit whiter due to Atlanta gentrification.

[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.

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.

Fair point.

[Nyvin]

I actually really like this map, kinda inspired by other maps posted on this thread honestly.

I don't think either party would object to it that much,  Clinton only won 4 seats but a lot of the seats are winnable for dems.  Glancing it over I'd think 3, 5, 6, and 8 would all be tossup by 2022 using 2020 numbers.   9 is probably safe for Stevens with current trends in Oakland.

Both Detroit seats are AA majority, and I really like the setup of Oakland with exclusively two districts.  Also the southern border counties aren't a mess anymore with two "block" districts, 6 and 10.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/06892011-f81c-439d-ab87-79c4f50589f8

[lfromnj]

You do realize that was with 2010 pop?


Can we get a big F.

[Nyvin]

You do realize that was with 2010 pop?


Can we get a big F.

Weird, I had it set to 2018, but it stuck on 2010, it even said 2018 in the sidebar.  Oh well my bad.

[Nyvin]

Okay, take two I suppose :-)

https://davesredistricting.org/join/06892011-f81c-439d-ab87-79c4f50589f8

[palandio]

Okay, take two I suppose :-)

https://davesredistricting.org/join/06892011-f81c-439d-ab87-79c4f50589f8

[...]

Generally many good choices and decisions. I would criticize the following:
- Putting Livingston County with Lansing continues Slotkin's current district, but it is otherwise ugly. It combines Detroit ex-urbs with an independent metro and is therefore not good from a CoI perspective. Instead Jackson could go with Lansing and Livingston County with Washtenaw.
- Separating Kalamazoo and Battle Creek is often difficult to avoid, but it's still not nice. I would slightly rotate districts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10 in the following way: 7 would take most of Calhoun County (Battle Creek) from 6, 6 would take from 5, 5 from 10, 10 from 1, 1 from 2 and 2 from 7.

[Sol]

Tbh Livingston County isn't a good fit with either Lansing or Washtenaw--the obvious pairing for it is Western Oakland. That does force a Macomb-Oakland district, but also can allow for a fairly attractive Flint-Saginaw-Bay City-Midland seat which seems like a decent CoI.

[palandio]

CoI-wise Washtenaw is the odd child, it's about half a district, but most potential partners don't really fit. SW Oakland and far NW Wayne could fit relatively well, although that probably creates problems for the rest of the map. The seat that includes Ann Arbor will be a bad CoI on most maps.

The Flint-Saginaw seat can always include Bay City if you accept connecting the Thumb to the Northern Hudson shoreline via the beach of Bay County. (Yes, I know, it's ugly.) What you seem to propose is a district combining the Thumb with Northern and Central parts of Macomb like the current 10th. This district would be nice and compact, but also prevent a Macomb seat and pair major metro Detroit areas with major non-metro areas.

[S019]

Okay, take two I suppose :-)

https://davesredistricting.org/join/06892011-f81c-439d-ab87-79c4f50589f8

I am not a big fan of drawing a Pontiac based VRA seat, I much prefer splitting Detroit and drawing two Wayne based seats

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

TBH, I think the best option with Washtenaw is pairing it with Monroe, Lenawee, and Western Wayne. It's kind of awkward as a COI but it does become a compact Detroit exurban seat. Move the Grosse Pointes into Macomb and it leaves behind a compact two Detroit districts--mitigating any need to split the Wayne/Oakland county line.

[palandio]

Yes, as a CoI it's awkward, but it stays mostly in metro Detroit and it leaves space for a nice-shaped Lansing-Jackson seat to its West (or alternatively Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson). It might be the least bad solution.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Yes, as a CoI it's awkward, but it stays mostly in metro Detroit and it leaves space for a nice-shaped Lansing-Jackson seat to its West (or alternatively Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson). It might be the least bad solution.

Yep. Personally I favor the Kalamazoo option. Take the six relevant counties and half of Lenawee and you have a really clean district.

[Sol]

I gotta say, the reluctance to put Southfield in a Detroit based district from some of y'all baffles me. Not so much from the folks who have been consistently on the record opposing VRA districts or obsessing about county contiguity, but moreso from people who will usually dismiss county considerations in favor a California-style CoI approach. Southfield is literally right there and is prime fodder for a thoughtful map's 2 VRA districts.

I actually do understand not wanting to go to Pontiac, but IMO it's not too different from going to Romulus, which will probably happen if you keep both seats in Wayne County.

[Torie]

If you can draw two performing black CD's within Wayne, I do not understand the rationale to cross over into Southfield in Oakland myself.

[Sol]

You can't draw two Black majority districts in Wayne, at least not without getting really ugly and splitting municipalities (was just playing around with it myself) but I think it's possible to draw plurality Black districts there, which of course raises the whole thorny issue of what counts as performing, etc. etc.

What is possible actually is to draw two Black majority districts in Wayne which only go into Southfield and Easpointe (and Bingham Farms for population). It's not pretty IMO; it forces weird contortions, but here's the link.

[Torie]

In the map that I drew I am quite confident that the two  CD's that are performing for black candidates. But yes, that is the crux of the issue - are they performing? The questions revolves around the expected composition of the voters in a Dem primary. In the 2018 GOP primary, about 90,000 chose to vote in that primary in Wayne County.

[Sol]

Ultimately my view is is that the question of performing is a thorny one, but if you look at the effects of drawing a Black seat into Oakland it becomes a lot easier. As a consequence of that choice, a map drawer is thus able to draw a Livingston+Oakland seat, a Thumb-Detroit exurbia seat, and a Flint-Saginaw-Bay City-Midland seat, which are all excellent CoI and avoid ugly stuff like forcing Livingston in with Lansing.

It's not like a Pontiac-Detroit seat is even that hideous either--it's more compact and attractive than basically any other VRA seat outside of Chicago and Atlanta.

[lfromnj]

Ultimately my view is is that the question of performing is a thorny one, but if you look at the effects of drawing a Black seat into Oakland it becomes a lot easier. As a consequence of that choice, a map drawer is thus able to draw a Livingston+Oakland seat, a Thumb-Detroit exurbia seat, and a Flint-Saginaw-Bay City-Midland seat, which are all excellent CoI and avoid ugly stuff like forcing Livingston in with Lansing.

It's not like a Pontiac-Detroit seat is even that hideous either--it's more compact and attractive than basically any other VRA seat outside of Chicago and Atlanta.

MS?

[Sol]

Ultimately my view is is that the question of performing is a thorny one, but if you look at the effects of drawing a Black seat into Oakland it becomes a lot easier. As a consequence of that choice, a map drawer is thus able to draw a Livingston+Oakland seat, a Thumb-Detroit exurbia seat, and a Flint-Saginaw-Bay City-Midland seat, which are all excellent CoI and avoid ugly stuff like forcing Livingston in with Lansing.

It's not like a Pontiac-Detroit seat is even that hideous either--it's more compact and attractive than basically any other VRA seat outside of Chicago and Atlanta.

MS?

Don't like the split of Metro Jackson.

[Torie]

I guess you will post your map in due course.

[palandio]

I gotta say, the reluctance to put Southfield in a Detroit based district from some of y'all baffles me. Not so much from the folks who have been consistently on the record opposing VRA districts or obsessing about county contiguity, but moreso from people who will usually dismiss county considerations in favor a California-style CoI approach. Southfield is literally right there and is prime fodder for a thoughtful map's 2 VRA districts.

I actually do understand not wanting to go to Pontiac, but IMO it's not too different from going to Romulus, which will probably happen if you keep both seats in Wayne County.

I'm quite agnostic about going into Southfield. It makes sense from a demographic point of view. Yet it still goes over a county line and you may have to make up for that at another point of the map.

But all seats on the map have to be seen together. The nicest Wayne/Oakland/Macomb layout can force an ugly non-compact remainder seat snaking from Monroe westwards and the separation of Kalamazoo and Battle Creek and then few is gained overall.

[Sol]

I guess you will post your map in due course.

I drew one way upthread, though it has some flaws I'm working on now.

Here's another shot at Michigan--IMO this is my favorite map I've made yet. Here's the DRA link.





The only town or township split is Clinton Charter Township, in Macomb County, which has such humongous municipalities that it makes not splitting something rather difficult.

MI-11 and MI-12 are both majority-Black.

Let me know if there any issues with the image displays.

[Sol]

Ok, here's my counterproposal. Fairly similar to my earlier map, but with a more compact Detroit area. Not in love with the boundary between the 1st and 2nd but not sure of the best way to improve it.


Sorry for the absence of images, not able to screenshot presently.

[palandio]

Ok, here's my counterproposal. Fairly similar to my earlier map, but with a more compact Detroit area. Not in love with the boundary between the 1st and 2nd but not sure of the best way to improve it.


Sorry for the absence of images, not able to screenshot presently.

So 1, 2 and 10 seem to be solid R.
The 8th despite a clear swing towards the Democrats seems to still have been about Trump +10 in 2020.
The 6th actually seems to be quite competitive at Trump +3 or +4.
The 3rd and 4th seem to have gone to Trump by less than a point.
The 13th seems to have voted for Biden, but only by a point or so.
The 5th seems to have voted for Biden by 2 or 3 points, although it is more Democratic down-ballot.
The 9th is at ca. Biden +9, I would think.
The 7th is at ca. Biden +12 which shows how Ann Arbor can color every seat (Atlas) red.
The 11th and 12nd are of course solid D.

Altogether the map has an R tilt compared to the state's overall political lean. But that R tilt is difficult to avoid given its geography and given these circumstances the map's R tilt is actually very slight.