Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Michigan Congressional Redistricting: Two Possible Maps


    By Conservative First, Section News
    Posted on Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 10:50:18 PM EST
    Tags: redistricting, census, Detroit, Gary Peters (all tags)

    Cross-posted at The Western Right

    Now that Michigan's census figures have been released, the process of redistricting can begin. With Republicans controlling the process this decade, they are expected to draw maps favorable to their interests. This article considers what such a congressional district map might look like.

    Federal law mandates that congressional districts must have population as equal as possible. Michigan will drop from 15 to 14 districts, each of which must have 705,974 or 705975 people. Republicans currently have a 9-6 majority in the congressional delegation.

    The Voting Rights Act, as interpreted by the courts, requires that black and Hispanic majority districts be drawn when reasonably possible. In Michigan, there must be two black-majority districts in the Detroit area.

    State standards require that districts be contiguous by land with no cut-points. It also requires that there not be unreasonably many breaks of counties and cities/townships. However, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in the case LaRoux v. Secretary of State (2001) that these standards cannot bind future legislatures, as any new redistricting plan passed into law would supersede the old law.

    Drawing a map favorable to your party requires two basic things.

    1. Pack your opponents into as few districts as possible.
    2. Spread your supporters evenly to create modest majorities in as many districts as possible.

    Point two has two further implications.
    2a. Add more of your supporters to any vulnerable districts that you have.
    2b. Remove some of your supporters (or add some of your opponents) to any districts where you have large majorities.

    Further considerations include protecting the residences and constituencies of incumbents and removing or weakening the bases of potential challengers. They can also include matching constituents and representatives by class, race, etc.

    How does this apply to Michigan? Democrats currently hold five districts in the Detroit area and one based in Flint. One of these (Gary Peters in Oakland County) is a swing district and the others are solidly democratic. All of these districts need to gain significant population, particularly the Detroit-based districts. It will not be difficult to consolidate the Detroit-area democrats down to at most four districts. This is most easily accomplished by carving the Republican areas off of Gary Peters' district.

    The currently vulnerable Republican districts are 1, 7, and 11, held by Dan Benishek, Tim Walberg, and Thaddeus McCotter, respectively.

    Benishek can be made somewhat safer by adding Grand Traverse (County) and neighboring areas and removing north Bay. Walberg can be strengthened by removing some combination of Battle Creek, Eaton, and west Washtenaw. Losing Battle Creek is particularly important for Walberg since it is the home and political base of former congressman and potential future opponent Mark Schauer, who Walberg defeated in 2010. He could add either Republican territory in the Ionia/Clinton area or swing territory in Monroe County. McCotter would benefit from more territory in Oakland County.

    The Republican districts that have more Republicans than necessary are 2, 3, and 10, held by Bill Huizinga, Justin Amash, and Candice Miller, respectively.

    The only way to made Huizinga's district substantially more democratic is to add some of the city of Grand Rapids. Amash could take on Battle Creek. Miller could take on swing areas in south Macomb including St. Clair Shores, south Sterling Heights, and north Clinton Twp.

    I have drawn two different maps for how these goals might be accomplished. The first could be called the "max Republican" plan, since the primary goal is too elect as many Republicans as possible and it is only secondarily concerned with maintaining the existing constituencies of Republican incumbents. It is a 9-4-1 plan, where the 1 is an open swing district.

    The key to this plan is Dale Kildee's Flint-based 5th district. It already has some Republican areas in Tuscola and south Genessee. It needs to add population, but there are no adjacent democrat areas. The solution is to excise the Republican areas plus dem-leaning south Bay so that it can add Ingham, with Shiawassee as a connector. This removes the only democrat area from Mike Rogers' 8th district, which allows him to take on Ann Arbor.

    Meanwhile, the two Detroit districts push up into the democrat areas of Oakland and Macomb. John Conyers, Sander Levin, and Gary Peters all end up in the same district. John Dingell and Hansen Clarke both have their own districts. Thaddeus McCotter would have to choose between moving to a safe district in Oakland or running in a new swing district composed of west Wayne, east Washtenaw, and Monroe.

    Tim Walberg would lose Battle Creek and west Washtenaw and add Clinton, Gratiot, and Montcalm.

    Here are maps, made using Dave's Redistricting App. Note that since this program had not yet been updated with 2010 census numbers, I had to hand-add the populations for the first map. Hence they are not exact, but should be within 10,000 of the ideal size. The boundaries can be tweaked as necessary to make the populations exact.

    The software doesn't seem to like my pictures, so you can view the maps at The Western Right.

    Brief Descriptions:

    1. Benishek (R) Upper Peninsula, northern lower peninsula. Adds Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Benzie. Loses Ogemaw, Gladwin, Arenac, north Bay.
    2. Huizinga (R) West Michigan coast. Adds part of Grand Rapids. Loses north Allegan, Benzie.
    3. Amash (R) Most of Kent, Ionia, Barry. Adds Battle Creek area. Loses part of Grand Rapids.
    4. Camp (R) Central lower peninsula. Adds Ogemaw, Gladwin, Arenac, Bay, Tuscola, Huron, Sanilac. Loses Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Montcalm, Gratiot, north Shiawassee.
    5. Kildee (D) Flint area, Ingham, Shiawassee, city of Saginaw. Adds Ingham, Shiawassee. Loses Tuscola, south Bay, south Genessee.
    6. Upton (R) Southwest Michigan. Adds north Allegan.
    7. Walberg (R) South-central Michigan. Adds Clinton, Gratiot, Montcalm. Loses Battle Creek, west Washtenaw.
    8. Rogers (R) Livington, Lapeer, north Oakland, south Genessee, Ann Arbor. Adds Lapeer, south Genessee, Ann Arbor. Loses Ingham, Clinton, south Shiawassee.
    9. Open or McCotter (R) Southwest and east-central Oakland.
    10. Miller (R) North Macomb, St. Clair. Adds St. Clair Shores, south Sterling Heights, part of Clinton Twp. Loses Huron, Sanilac, Lapeer.
    11. Clarke (D) east Detroit, south Macomb. Adds south Macomb. Loses some of Downriver.
    12. Conyers, Levin, Peters (D) west Detroit, southeast Oakland, including Pontiac, Southfield, and Royal Oak.
    13. Open or McCotter (swing) west Wayne, east Washtenaw, and Monroe.
    14. Dingell (D) Central Wayne, including Downriver, Dearborn, Westland. Adds Downriver, Westland. Loses Monroe, Ann Arbor.

    The upsides of this map include a potential 10-4 delegation and eliminating two of Conyers, Levin, and Peters. The downside is that Camp, Rogers, and McCotter may not be very happy with how their districts are changed.

    Now we consider a second plan. This could be called an incumbent protection plan, in that all the incumbents get safe districts, except that Peters and Levin are merged into one district. (Also, Walberg is not quite as safe as I would like.) This would create a 9-5 delegation.

    You can view the maps at The Western Right.

    Descriptions:

    1. Almost same
    2. Almost same
    3. Almost same
    4. Camp. Adds Clinton, south Shiawassee, Gladwin, Arenac. Loses Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau.
    5. Kildee. Genessee, Bay, Tuscola, Huron, city of Saginaw. Adds north Bay, Huron.
    6. Same
    7. Walberg. Adds Monroe. Loses Battle Creek area, central Washtenaw.
    8. Rogers. Adds Lapeer. Loses Clinton, south Shiawassee.
    9. Dingell (renumbered from 15) Adds west Wayne, part of Downriver. Loses Monroe, central Wayne.
    10. Miller. Adds St. Clair Shores, south Sterling Heights. Loses Huron, Lapeer.
    11. McCotter. Adds Waterford, West Bloomfield, Rochester, Troy. Loses Redford, Westland, Canton.
    12. Levin/Peters. South Macomb, Royal Oak, Pontiac, Bloomfield, Farmington.
    13. Clarke. East Detroit. Adds Dearborn, central Detroit.
    14. Conyers. West Detroit, Southfield, Oak Park, Westland, Romulus, Taylor. All but Detroit are additions. Loses part of Downriver.

    Which map do you prefer?
    < Is D-Day coming to Michigan? | Amash On Congress >


    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


    Display: Sort:
    Interesting source for an app. (none / 0) (#1)
    by KG One on Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 11:53:54 PM EST
    Progressive Congress. Isn't that an oxymoron?

    On a serious note: I've already given my $0.02 on the whole VRA - Conyers/Clarke thing. Much like the constitutionality of Obamacare, I've yet been able to locate the exact language they use to justify this decision.

    If you want to drive a steak through the heart of the democrats, Wayne County is where it's at.

    You'll cause more consternation among them putting Conyers and Clarke head-to-head, rather than Levin and Peters.

    Kudos for pointing out an interesting link.

    Right now, I've got to go and make the donuts. But, I'll play around with this more later.

    *sigh*... (none / 0) (#2)
    by rdww on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:00:20 AM EST
    "The Voting Rights Act, as interpreted by the courts, requires that black and Hispanic majority districts be drawn when reasonably possible"

    And the sad part is, we now accept such BS without the least outrage.


    • indeed.. by JGillman, 03/27/2011 09:59:15 AM EST (none / 0)
      • Only... by KG One, 03/27/2011 11:35:53 AM EST (none / 0)
    Addendum (none / 0) (#3)
    by Conservative First on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:49:10 AM EST
    The computer chopped off the last sentence of the introduction.  It was supposed to say:

    "Drawing a map favorable to your party requires two basic things."

    Also, note that you can vote in the poll on the sidebar at right.

    KG One: (none / 0) (#4)
    by Conservative First on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 01:20:25 AM EST
    I'm perfectly happy to use their tools against them.

    Even if you are right in principle on the VRA issue, it isn't worth the risk of having the whole map thrown out over that issue.

    I don't see Peters or Levin as any better than Conyers or Clarke.  That and the fact that Peters could have statewide potential means we might as well take him out now when there are no statewide offices to run for.

    Dave updated Michigan with 2010 numbers (none / 0) (#7)
    by Republican Michigander on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    I'm working on a few things right now.
    Off the top of my head, that map is very dangerous for Camp and Rogers. Bay City has Jim Barcia, who  runs 10-20% ahead of most democrats. He is a former congressman who is well liked in those swing areas there (and the thumb).

    Rogers runs a lot better in Ingham County than he would in Ann Arbor.  

    Wow, a good option for me! (none / 0) (#8)
    by DrDetroit on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    Wow, in option 2 I would dump Commie Peters and get a sane Congressman.

    Sign me up sign me up!

    Barcia and Rogers (none / 0) (#10)
    by Conservative First on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 06:56:26 AM EST
    RM:

    The last time Barcia had a competitive race was 2002 state senate against Mike Green.  In that race, he lost Tuscola and Sanilac and narrowly won Huron.  His entire margin of about 20000 votes came from Bay.

    http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/election/results/02GEN/07031000.html

    I doubt any Republican would run well in Ann Arbor, but in the district I drew, it should be outvoted by Livingston, Lapeer, and north Oakland.

    Response to PB: (none / 0) (#11)
    by Conservative First on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 07:13:45 AM EST
    Thanks for commenting, Peter.

    1. How does splitting Grand Rapids violate the Apol standards?  Strict population equality requires that there be breaks somewhere.  Right now, Solon Twp in Kent is split.  I don't see why it is better to split a township than split a city.

    2. The populations are as close as I could make them using the tools available.  The boundaries could be tweaked to make the populations exact, but the outline of the map is what I consider important.

    3. Bonior's old district and my proposed district are indeed similar.  Mine trades Roseville, Eastpointe, Mount Clemens area (D) for Sterling Heights (lean R).  Bonior's district was never all that democratic, and seems to have gotten more Republican since then.  Bonior held it due to incumbency, but only narrowly held off some less than top-tier challengers.


    • Thoughts by pbratt, 03/29/2011 10:11:15 AM EST (none / 0)
    • City Breaks by Conservative First, 03/30/2011 12:31:17 PM EST (none / 0)
    An interesting read over at the WAPO (none / 0) (#15)
    by JGillman on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:04:49 AM EST
    Discussing Redistricting..

    And given that Republicans control the redistricting process, Demcorats should watch their backs, right?

    As it often is with redistricting, it might not be so simple.

    Much like in other big states, Republican gains in Michigan in 2010 make it virtually impossible for the party to add winnable seats in 2012 without severely risking the districts they currently hold. That's in spite of the fact that Republicans control all levers of the redistricting process in the Wolverine State.

    Posted as found including the author's 'Demcorats' Freudian slip

    Here's my take on that Washington Post article (none / 0) (#16)
    by Conservative First on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:39:09 PM EST
    Washington Post Misleading on Michigan Redistricting

    http://wmugop.blogspot.com/2011/03/washington-post-misleading-on-michigan.html

     

    My 2¢ ...whether liked or not (none / 0) (#17)
    by Corinthian Scales on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    Move the lines any which way you want.  Until Republicans stop voting like Democrats, all this redistricting is an exercise in futility.

    Two Michigan Republicans were amongst the 26 GOP "no" voters who could have broken the tie and won the vote for the "yes" side. All of the 210 "yes" votes were Republicans. The amendment had no Democrat support.

    The two Republicans from Michigan that voted "no" were Candice Miller, R-Harrison Twp., and Thad McCotter, R-Livonia.

    ....

    The offices of Miller and McCotter each received two email requests for comment but did not respond.

    Damned shame about Thaddy Mac.  Being a rah-rah hometown tool for the auto bailouts I can somewhat overlook, but this vote?  Nope.  Stick a fork in him, he's done in my book.

    Candice should be another lesson learned too.  Lot's of money and lines redrawn went into the creation of her dimwitted political career.


    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!

    Poll

    Which map do you prefer?
    Max Republican
    Incumbent Protection

    Votes: 8
    Results | Other Polls
    create account | faq | search