The biggest gain was in Macomb with 53000. Other major gains include Kent with 28000, Ottawa with 25000, Washtenaw with 22000, Livingston with 14000, Kalamazoo with 12000, and Clinton with 11000. Smaller gains were scattered around western and southern Michigan.

It is tricky to say which districts are `new', since each new district is made up of parts of old districts. But we can say definitely which regions gained districts. One went to Kent/Ottawa/Muskegon/Allegan/Kalamazoo, one went to Washtenaw/Monroe/Lenawee/Jackson/Eaton, and one went to a region containing Macomb and the north-central Lower Peninsula. The districts that I designated as `new' (21-23) are in S Kent/NE Allegan, Ann Arbor suburbs, and Port Huron/N Macomb.

The first article above contains the basics on the rules that any map must follow. As before, we want to minimize county and city/township breaks. Hence when a county can contain some number of districts without being broken, it is usually a good idea to implement this. In this map, such counties are:

1 district: Lapeer, Grand Traverse
2 districts: Livingston, Muskegon
3 districts: Ingham, Ottawa
4 districts: Washtenaw
20 districts: Wayne

These areas can be dealt with separately.

SPECIFIC COUNTIES

Drawing districts in Ingham is tricky because there appear to be several discontiguous precincts. The only district in this county that is winnable for Republicans is the out-county district (67), although it has been held by Byrums all decade. It is possible to marginally improve this district while maintaining one city break (Lansing) by taking a different chunk of Lansing. If two breaks are allowed, it can be made nearly safe by excising Lansing and replacing it with a chuck of Meridian.

The question for Republicans in Washtenaw is whether to go for one safe seat or two marginal seats. This time, I went for the safe route. I created a new democrat seat (22) in the Ann Arbor suburbs. This takes the pressure off 52 and 55, which have been democrat as often as not. There is one break in Ann Arbor.

In Kent County it would be possible to have exactly seven districts by underpopulating them, but the smallest number of breaks that I could find in this scenario is four. However, if Kent and Allegan combine for eight districts, it is possible to avoid any city/township breaks.

This depends on breaking Grand Rapids into exactly two districts, which are which are very near the upper threshold. I tried to create a Grand Rapids district friendly to Republicans. The new 75 is better than its current incarnation, but I wouldn't rate it any better than a tossup. This is pushing it a bit with respect to clean city breaks. District 76 is near minority-majority.

In the Kalamazoo/Calhoun area, several improvements are possible. Due to population growth, Kalamazoo and Calhoun cannot combine solely. Adding VanBuren with these counties allows them to share five districts. Kalamazoo city and most of K Township combine for one safe dem district (60). (This does not count as a break due to Apol standard C8B.) This makes district 61 safe.

District 62 is a swing district dominated by Battle Creek. Improving it requires stripping out Albion, its only other dem area. Albion has to go to district 63 (Jase Bolger's district), making it a bit weaker, but still safe. Would the Speaker accept this for the good of the party?

District 80 loses a chunk of Allegan and adds the southern tier of Kalamazoo.

Now let's zoom out and look at the statewide map. Many shifts are necessary to account for population changes. Some can also help Republicans. Dividing Cass differently (adding Dowagiac to 59) makes 78 safer. Shifting Ionia city to 87 helps 70 a bit.

The northeastern Lower Peninsula is carved up in a way that should be an improvement. District 105 adds the dem area of Presque Isle, but is still safe. District 106 takes in more of the Lake Huron coastline, but is no worse than before. The new 97, anchored by Missaukee and N Midland, is improved. The new 103, with Kalkaska and Otsego, is also improved.

BREAKS, POPULATION, AND VOTING RIGHTS

Overall, this map breaks 22 counties, including three double breaks (St. Clair, Jackson, Kalamazoo). The current map breaks 23 counties with two double breaks (St. Clair, Ottawa).

This map also breaks 13 cities/townships, including breaking Detroit four ways and two double breaks (Sterling Heights, Clinton Twp). These breaks are in Wayne (5/8), Macomb (3/5), Oakland (2), Flint, Ann Arbor, and Lansing. The current map breaks 17 cities/townships, including a triple break for Detroit. These breaks are in Wayne (6/8), Macomb (4), Oakland (2), Genesee (2), Ann Arbor, Lansing, and Grand Rapids.

The smallest district population is 85324 (district 92), which is just outside what is allowed and needs to be adjusted, perhaps by adding another break. Otherwise the smallest is 85396 (89). The largest district population is 94304 (93).

There are 10 black-majority districts, down two from the current map due to population loss in Detroit. The number of black-majority districts could be increased by adding more breaks around Detroit, as seen in Part I.

DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS

22. Safe D [Scio, Pittsfield, NE Ann Arbor] (new)
    
23. Safe R(++++) [S Kent, NE Allegan] (new)
    
47. Safe R [N Livingston]
    
52. Safe R(+++) [W Washtenaw]
    
53. Safe D [Ann Arbor]
    
54. Safe D [Ypsilanti]
    
55. Lean R(+) [S Monroe, E Lenawee]
    
56. Tossup [N Monroe]
    
57. Tossup [W Lenawee]
    
58. Safe R [Branch, Hillsdale]
    
59. Safe R [St. Joseph, N Cass]
    
60. Safe D [Kalamazoo]
    
61. Safe R(+) [Portage, Oshtemo, Texas]
    
62. Lean R(+) [S Calhoun]
    
63. Safe R [E Kalamazoo, N Calhoun]
    
64. Tossup [S Jackson]
    
65. Lean R [N Jackson, E Eaton]
    
66. Safe R [SE Livingston]
    
67. Lean R(+) [S Ingham]
    
68. Safe D [Lansing]
    
69. Safe D [East Lansing, Meridian]
    
70. Lean R [Montcalm, E Ionia]
    
71. Lean R [Eaton]
    
72. Safe R [Kentwood, Lowell]
    
73. Safe R [Walker, Plainfield, Alpine]
    
74. Safe R [Jenison, SE Ottowa]
    
75. Tossup [peripheral Grand Rapids]
    
76. Safe D [central Grand Rapids]
    
77. Safe R [Wyoming, Grandville]
    
78. Safe R(+) [S Berrien, SW Cass]
    
79. Safe R [N Berrien]
    
80. Safe R [VanBuren, S Kalamazoo]
    
82. Safe R [Lapeer]
    
84. Safe R(+) [Tuscola, E Saginaw, E Bay]
    
85. Safe R(+) [Shiawassee, St. Johns]
    
86. Safe R [Grand Rapids Twp, N Kent]
    
87. Safe R [Barry, W Ionia]
    
88. Safe R [Allegan]
    
89. Safe R [N Ottowa]
    
90. Safe R [Holland]
    
91. Lean R [S, W Muskegon]
    
92. Safe D [Muskegon city]
    
93. Safe R [Gratiot, S Clinton]
    
94. Safe R [W Saginaw]
    
95. Safe D [Saginaw city]
    
96. Safe D [Bay]
    
97. Safe R(+) [Missaukee, Roscommon, Gladwin, N Midland]
    
98. Safe R [S Midland, E Isabella]
    
99. Lean R [Mecosta, Mount Pleasant]
    
100. Safe R [Newaygo, Oceana, Lake]
     
101. Lean R [Leelanau, Benzie, Manistee, Mason]
     
102. Safe R [Wexford, Osceola, Clare]
     
103. Lean R(+) [Kalkaska, Otsego, Crawford, Oscoda, Ogemaw]
     
104. Safe R [Grand Traverse]
     
105. Safe R [Antrim, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Presque Isle]
     
106. Lean D [Alpena, Alcona, Montmorency, Iosco, Arenac]
     
107. Lean R [Emmet, Mackinac, Chippewa]
     
108. Lean R [Delta, Menominee, Dickinson]
     
109. Safe D [Marquette, Alger, Schoolcraft, Luce]
     
110. Lean D [W Upper Peninsula]

Rating: SR/LR/TU/LD/SD
Old....... 24 / 13 / 8 / 3 / 10
New...... 31 / 12 / 4 / 2 / 11

Combined with the ratings for southeast Michigan, we have the following.

Rating: SR/LR/TU/LD/SD
Old....... 35 / 18 / 12 / 4 / 41
New...... 45 / 19 / _5 / 2 / 39

Thus this map is a definite improvement over the existing map. This is due mainly to population shifts, but also to careful line-drawing. Still, the map is not completely safe for Republicans. It would still have produced a democrat majority in a wave election like 2008.

There are two reasons for this. First, state house elections are held in presidential election years, which are friendlier to democrats, as well as off years. State senate elections are only held in off years. Second, districts the size of house districts appear less easy to manipulate than districts the size of senate or congressional districts. It does not appear to be possible to make a totally safe house map absent massive gerrymandering.

This map should give Republicans a majority in good or average years, which makes it good in my book.

Previous articles on Michigan redistricting:
Michigan Congressional Redistricting: Two Possible Maps
Michigan Redistricting: Two Possible State Senate Maps
Michigan Redistricting: State House Part I: Wayne County
Michigan Redistricting: State House Part II: Oakland and Genesee
Michigan Redistricting: State House Part III: Macomb and the Thumb