Redistricting in Michigan

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public Policy Logo-one line.pngin Michigan

Election Policy Logo.png
Redistricting after the 2020 census
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Michigan's 14 United States Representatives and 148 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4]

Michigan was apportioned 13 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, one fewer than it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Michigan after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Following the 2020 United States Census, Michigan was apportioned 13 congressional districts, one less than the number it had after the 2010 census.
  • Michigan's House of Representatives is made up of 110 districts; Michigan's State Senate is made up of 38 districts.
  • In Michigan, a non-politician commission is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district maps.

    • Michigan’s new congressional and legislative district boundaries became law on March 26, 2022, 60 days after the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) published its report on the redistricting plans with the secretary of state.[5][6] On December 28, 2021, the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) approved what was named the "Chestnut" map by a vote of 8-5. Two Democrats, two Republicans, and four nonpartisan members voted to approve the plan with the five remaining commissioners in favor of other plans. As required, "at least two commissioners who affiliate with each major party, and at least two commissioners who do not affiliate with either major party" voted in favor of the adopted map.[7]

    The Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) approved new district boundaries for both the state Senate and state House of Representatives on December 28, 2021. The commission approved what was known as the "Linden" map for state Senate districts by a vote of 9-4 with two Democrats, two Republicans, and all five nonpartisan members supporting the proposal. The commission adopted what was known as the "Hickory" map for state House of Representatives districts by a vote of 11-2 with four Democrats, two Republicans, and all five nonpartisan members supporting it.[8][9] As required, the adopted map was approved by "at least two commissioners who affiliate with each major party, and at least two commissioners who do not affiliate with either major party."[7] The maps became law on March 26, 2022—60 days after the MICRC published a report on the redistricting plans with the secretary of state.[6] Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.


    See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

    1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
    2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Michigan
    3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Michigan
    4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Michigan's redistricting after recent censuses
    5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
    6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

    Background

    This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

    Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

    According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[10][11]

    “ The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[12] ”
    —United States Constitution

    Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[13][14][15]

    The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[15]

    Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

    The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[15]

    State-based requirements

    In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

    1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[15][16]
    2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[15][16]
    3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[15][16]
    4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[15][16]

    Methods

    In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[17]

    1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
    2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
    3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

    Gerrymandering

    In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.
    See also: Gerrymandering

    The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[1][18]

    For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

    Show more

    The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[19]

    The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[20][21]

    Recent court decisions

    See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

    The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

    For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

    Show more

    Gill v. Whitford (2018)

    See also: Gill v. Whitford

    In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[22]

    Cooper v. Harris (2017)

    See also: Cooper v. Harris

    In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[23][24][25]

    Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

    See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

    Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[26][27][28][29]

    Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

    Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
    See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

    Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[30][31][32]

    Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

    See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
    Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[33][34][35][36]

    Race and ethnicity

    See also: Majority-minority districts

    Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

    “ No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[12] ”
    —Voting Rights Act of 1965[37]

    States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Michigan was home to two congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]

    Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]

    Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]

    State process

    See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

    In Michigan, a non-politician commission is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district plans. The commission comprises 13 members, including four Democrats, four Republicans, and five unaffiliated voters or members of minor parties. In order for a map to be enacted, at least seven members must vote for it, including at least two Democrats, two Republicans, and two members not affiliated with either major party.[38]

    The Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission prepared this document specifically explaining the redistricting process after the 2020 census.

    How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

    See also: How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

    States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Michigan, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.

    District maps

    Congressional districts

    See also: United States congressional delegations from Michigan

    Michigan comprises 13 congressional districts. The table below lists Michigan's current U.S. Representatives.


    Office Name Party Date assumed office Date term ends
    U.S. House Michigan District 1 Jack Bergman Republican January 3, 2017 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 2 John Moolenaar Republican January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 3 Hillary Scholten Democratic January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 4 Bill Huizenga Republican January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 5 Tim Walberg Republican January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 6 Debbie Dingell Democratic January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 7 Elissa Slotkin Democratic January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 8 Dan Kildee Democratic January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 9 Lisa McClain Republican January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 10 John James Republican January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 11 Haley Stevens Democratic January 3, 2019 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 12 Rashida Tlaib Democratic January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Michigan District 13 Shri Thanedar Democratic January 3, 2023 January 3, 2025


    State legislative maps

    See also: Michigan State Senate and Michigan House of Representatives

    Michigan comprises 38 state Senate districts and 110 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.

    Redistricting by cycle

    Redistricting after the 2020 census

    See also: Redistricting in Michigan after the 2020 census

    Michigan was apportioned thirteen seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net loss of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[39]

    Enacted congressional district maps

    See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

    Michigan’s new congressional and legislative district boundaries became law on March 26, 2022, 60 days after the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) published its report on the redistricting plans with the secretary of state.[40][6] On December 28, 2021, the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) approved what was named the "Chestnut" map by a vote of 8-5. Two Democrats, two Republicans, and four nonpartisan members voted to approve the plan with the five remaining commissioners in favor of other plans. As required, "at least two commissioners who affiliate with each major party, and at least two commissioners who do not affiliate with either major party" voted in favor of the adopted map.[7]

    The MICRC was established after voters approved a 2018 constitutional amendment that transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to an independent redistricting commission. Under the terms of the amendment, "Within 30 days after adopting a plan, the commission shall publish the plan and the material reports, reference materials, and data used in drawing it, including any programming information used to produce and test the plan." The adopted plan becomes law 60 days after the MICRC publishes that report.[7]

    Beth LeBlanc of The Detroit News wrote that, “Unlike other congressional maps the commission had to choose from, Chestnut was set apart by its inclusion of Grand Rapids and Muskegon in the same district, its grouping of Battle Creek and Kalamazoo and its ability to keep Jackson County whole, instead of breaking off part of the county into an Ann Arbor area district.”[41] According to Clara Hendrickson and Todd Spangler of the Detroit Free Press, "According to three measures of partisan fairness based on statewide election data from the past decade, the map favors Republicans. But those measures also show a significant reduction in the Republican bias compared to the map drawn a decade ago by a Republican legislature, deemed one of the most politically biased maps in the country. One of the partisan fairness measures used by the commission indicates Democratic candidates would have an advantage under the new map."[42] This map took effect for Michigan’s 2022 congressional elections.

    Congressional map

    Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

    Michigan Congressional Districts
    until January 2, 2023

    Click a district to compare boundaries.

    Michigan Congressional Districts
    starting January 3, 2023

    Click a district to compare boundaries.


    Reactions

    Republican Commissioner Cynthia Orton said about the new maps, "We did the best job we could with the time and everything else we were given. What could be improved is what will be improved next time. We started with a lot of unknowns. It had never been done before in Michigan, and the next commission will have the benefit of us having done this before."[8] After the MICRC approved the new maps, the Michigan Democratic Party released a statement which said in part, "Michiganders were able to give input and observe as the MICRC created the state’s first citizen-drawn maps. The Michigan Democratic Party recognizes and thanks all Michiganders who participated in the redistricting process by attending a Commission meeting, sharing information about their community in public comment, and weighing in on proposed maps."[43]

    2020 presidential results

    The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[44] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[45]

    2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Michigan
    District 2022 district Political predecessor district
    Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party
    Michigan's 1st 39.3% 59.1% 40.6% 57.9%
    Michigan's 2nd 35.0% 63.2% 37.1% 61.2%
    Michigan's 3rd 53.3% 44.8% 47.4% 50.6%
    Michigan's 4th 47.1% 51.1% 43.2% 55.0%
    Michigan's 5th 37.1% 61.2% 41.4% 56.9%
    Michigan's 6th 62.7% 36.0% 64.2% 34.4%
    Michigan's 7th 49.4% 48.9% 48.8% 49.6%
    Michigan's 8th 50.3% 48.2% 51.4% 47.1%
    Michigan's 9th 34.6% 64.0% 34.4% 64.2%
    Michigan's 10th 48.8% 49.8% 55.9% 42.7%
    Michigan's 11th 59.3% 39.4% 51.6% 47.1%
    Michigan's 12th 73.7% 25.2% 78.8% 20.0%
    Michigan's 13th 74.2% 24.6% 79.5% 19.5%

    Enacted state legislative district maps

    See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

    The Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) approved new district boundaries for both the state Senate and state House of Representatives on December 28, 2021. The commission approved what was known as the "Linden" map for state Senate districts by a vote of 9-4 with two Democrats, two Republicans, and all five nonpartisan members supporting the proposal. The commission adopted what was known as the "Hickory" map for state House of Representatives districts by a vote of 11-2 with four Democrats, two Republicans, and all five nonpartisan members supporting it.[8][46] As required, the adopted map was approved by "at least two commissioners who affiliate with each major party, and at least two commissioners who do not affiliate with either major party."[7] The maps became law on March 26, 2022—60 days after the MICRC published a report on the redistricting plans with the secretary of state.[6]

    According to The Detroit News, The Linden Senate map...is expected to create districts that could yield 20 Democratic seats and 18 Republican seats. Senate Republicans currently have a 22-16 majority."[8] Clara Hendrickson of the Detroit Free Press wrote that, "The map appears to create 19 solidly Democratic districts, 16 solidly Republican districts, one Republican-leaning district and two toss-up districts, according to election results from the past decade."[47]

    Beth LeBlanc of The Detroit News wrote that, "The Hickory House map...is expected to create districts that could produce 57 Democratic seats and 53 Republican seats. After the 2020 election, Michigan House Republicans had a 58-52 majority in the House."[8] Hendrickson wrote that, "The new map appears to create 41 solidly Democratic districts, 46 solidly Republican districts, nine Democratic-leaning districts, two Republican-leaning districts and 12 toss-up districts."[47] She also wrote, "Unlike the current map, there is no majority-Black district in the state Senate map adopted by the commission, while the state House map reduces the number of majority-Black districts in place today. Current and former state lawmakers from Detroit and civil rights leaders are vehemently opposed to how the new district lines reduce the share of Black voters. They argue that the elimination of majority-Black districts disenfranchises Black voters."[47] These maps took effect for Michigan’s 2022 legislative elections.

    State Senate map

    Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

    Michigan State Senate Districts
    until December 31, 2022

    Click a district to compare boundaries.

    Michigan State Senate Districts
    starting January 1, 2023

    Click a district to compare boundaries.

    State House map

    Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

    Michigan State House Districts
    until December 31, 2022

    Click a district to compare boundaries.

    Michigan State House Districts
    starting January 1, 2023

    Click a district to compare boundaries.


    Redistricting after the 2010 census

    See also: Redistricting in Michigan after the 2010 census

    League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson

    On December 22, 2017, the League of Women Voters of Michigan, along with a group of Michigan Democrats, filed suit in federal court alleging that Michigan's congressional and state legislative district plans represented unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders (i.e., the plaintiffs argued that the state's district maps gave an unfair advantage to Republicans over Democrats). On December 27, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an order that a three-judge panel be convened to hear the case.[48][49]

    On February 1, 2019, the court rejected a proposed settlement in which maps for some state House districts would be redrawn in advance of the 2020 election. State Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to delay lower court proceedings pending the high court's rulings in Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. On February 4, 2019, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied this request, clearing the way for a trial to commence on February 5, 2019.[50]

    On April 25, 2019, the court ruled unanimously that 34 congressional and state legislative districts had been subject to unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, violating the plaintiffs' First Amendment associational rights. The court also found that 27 of the 34 challenged districts violated the plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by diluting the impact of their votes. The challenged districts are listed below:[51]

    • Congressional districts 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
    • State Senate districts 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, and 36
    • State House districts 24, 32, 51, 52, 55, 60, 62, 63, 75, 76, 83, 91, 92, 94, and 95

    The court enjoined the use of any challenged districts in future elections. The court also ordered that special elections be conducted in 2020 for the challenged state Senate districts and any adjoining districts whose boundaries might be affected by remedial maps. The court directed the state legislature to adopt remedial maps for the challenged districts on or before August 1, 2019.[51]

    Judge Eric Clay, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton (D), wrote the following in the court's opinion and order: "Today, this Court joins the growing chorus of federal courts that have, in recent years, held that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. We find that the Enacted Plan violates Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because it deliberately dilutes the power of their votes by placing them in districts that were intentionally drawn to ensure a particular partisan outcome in each district. The Enacted Plan also injures Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to association by discriminating against them and their political party and subjecting them to 'disfavored treatment by reason of their views.'" Judges Denise Hood and Gordon Quist, appointed to the bench by Presidents Clinton and George H. W. Bush (R), respectively, joined Clay's opinion.[51]

    Charlie Spies, an attorney representing Michigan Republicans, told the following to The Detroit News: "We will likely see a stay and urge caution in drawing conclusions from this opinion, which we believe is at odds with where the Supreme Court will end up." On April 30, 2019, attorneys for Republican lawmakers appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. On May 3, 2019, Republicans filed a request with the three-judge panel for an emergency stay of its ruling.[52][53][54]

    On May 10, 2019, state officials petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the lower court's ruling. The high court granted the stay on May 24, 2019. On October 21, 2019, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, allowing the district maps as drawn to stand.[55][56][57]

    Congressional redistricting, 2010

    Following the 2010 United States Census, Michigan lost one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship. On June 29, 2011, the state legislature approved new congressional district boundaries, which were signed into law by the governor on August 9, 2011.[58][59]

    State legislative redistricting, 2010

    The state legislature approved new state legislative district boundaries on June 29, 2011. These were signed into law by the governor on August 9, 2011. On December 8, 2011, opponents filed suit, alleging that the newly drawn state House map violated the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by "targeting African-American incumbents for pairing, and 'cracking' the Latino community of southwest Detroit." On April 6, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case.[58]

    Redistricting after the 2000 census

    Following the 2000 United States Census, Michigan lost one congressional seat. A new congressional map was signed into law on September 19, 2001. A new state legislative district map was signed into law the next day.[58][59]

    Although the newly-drawn congressional district map was subject to litigation, it was ultimately upheld.[58]

    State legislation and ballot measures

    Redistricting legislation

    DocumentIcon.jpg See state election laws

    The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Michigan state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.

    Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

    Redistricting ballot measures

    See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Michigan ballot measures

    Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Michigan.

    1. Michigan Proposal No. 3, Senatorial Districts and Reapportionment Initiative (1952)
    2. Michigan Proposal No. 2, Reapportionment of the Legislature Initiative (1952)
    3. Michigan Legislative Apportionment, Proposal 1 (1930)
    4. Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018)
    5. Michigan Apportionment of the State Legislature Initiative (1930)
    6. Michigan Establishment of Legislative Districts Amendment (1928)
    7. Michigan Establishment of Legislative Districts Initiative (1924)

    Political impacts of redistricting

    Competitiveness

    There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[60]

    In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[61]

    In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[62]

    In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[63]

    State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

    See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

    In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

    There were eight competitive elections for the Michigan House of Representatives in 2012, the same as in 2010. There were 13 mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to 12 in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of one competitive election.

    Recent news

    The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Michigan. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

    Redistricting in Michigan - Google News

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
    5. ↑ Michigan.gov, "Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission-Public Notice of Adopted Plans," accessed March 30, 2022
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Dave Beaudoin, "Email communication with Edward Woods III, Communications and Outreach Director of the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission," March 1, 2022
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Michigan Legislature, "Article IV § 6" - Independent citizens redistricting commission for state legislative and congressional districts," accessed January 3, 2022
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 The Detroit News, "Michigan redistricting panel wraps adoption of state House, Senate, congressional maps" December 28, 2021
    9. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Michigan redistricting commission adopts new state legislative maps," December 28, 2021
    10. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
    11. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    13. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
    14. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
    15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
    16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
    17. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
    18. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
    19. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
    20. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
    21. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
    22. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
    23. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
    24. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
    25. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
    26. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
    27. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
    28. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
    29. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
    30. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
    31. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
    32. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
    33. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
    34. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
    35. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
    36. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
    37. ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
    38. ↑ Michigan Radio, "Redistricting proposal passes in Michigan," November 6, 2018
    39. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
    40. ↑ Michigan.gov, "Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission-Public Notice of Adopted Plans," accessed March 30, 2022
    41. ↑ The Detroit News, "Michigan redistricting panel wraps adoption of state House, Senate, congressional maps" December 28, 2021
    42. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Michigan's redistricting commission adopts final congressional map for the next decade" December 28, 2021
    43. ↑ Michigan Democratic Party, "Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission Approves New Maps for Michigan," December 28, 2021
    44. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
    45. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
    46. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Michigan redistricting commission adopts new state legislative maps," December 28, 2021
    47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 Detroit Free Press, "Michigan redistricting commission adopts new state legislative maps," December 28, 2021
    48. ↑ The Detroit News, "Federal suit alleges GOP 'gerrymandering' in Michigan," December 22, 2017
    49. ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Johnson: Order Granting Application for Three-Judge Court," December 27, 2017
    50. ↑ Associated Press, "Sotomayor rejects delay of Michigan redistricting trial," February 4, 2019
    51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson: Opinion and Order," April 25, 2019
    52. ↑ The Detroit News, "Federal court: Michigan political maps illegally rigged to 'historical proportions,'" April 25, 2019
    53. ↑ The Detroit News, "GOP appeals Michigan gerrymandering ruling to Supreme Court," April 30, 2019
    54. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Stay Request in Michigan Redistricting Case," May 6, 2019
    55. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Michigan and Ohio Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Stay Orders that Require Redistricting of US House Districts," May 11, 2019
    56. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Grants Stay in Gerrymandering Cases in Michigan and Ohio," May 24, 2019
    57. ↑ NBC News, "Supreme Court wipes out ruling on Michigan partisan gerrymander," October 21, 2019
    58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 58.2 58.3 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named miloyola
    59. ↑ 59.0 59.1 Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    60. ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
    61. ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
    62. ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
    63. ↑ Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Why Do Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin State Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Michelle Robinson, Senior Product Manager, Education & School Boards

    Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Erica Shumaker • Caitlin Vanden Boom
    External Relations: Andrew Heath • Moira Delaney • Hannah Nelson
    Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
    Policy: Caitlin Styrsky • Audrey Bayne • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Jimmy McAllister • Annelise Reinwald
    Research: Josh Altic
    Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Trevor Pollo • Joseph Sanchez

    Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
    Editorial
    Flag of Michigan
    v • e
    State of Michigan
    Lansing (capital)
    Elections

    What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

    Government

    Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Redistricting_in_Michigan&oldid=9203744"