in Michigan

Fiscal Budgets Michigan state budget and finances Tax policy in Michigan Finance Financial regulation in Michigan Pensions Public pensions in Michigan Pension health in Michigan Civil liberties Affirmative action in Michigan Campaign finance requirements in Michigan Campaign finance requirements for Michigan ballot measures Nonprofit regulation in Michigan Education Charter schools in Michigan Higher education in Michigan Public education in Michigan School choice in Michigan Elections Ballot access Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Michigan Ballot access requirements for political parties in Michigan Political parties in Michigan Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Michigan Redistricting in Michigan Voting in Michigan Energy andEnvironment Energy policy in Michigan Fracking in Michigan Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Michigan Endangered species in Michigan Environmental policy in Michigan Healthcare Healthcare policy in Michigan Medicaid spending in Michigan Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Michigan Immigration Immigration in Michigan

Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures •Majority-minority districts •Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 •Congressional apportionment •Redistricting committees •Deadlines •2022 House elections with multiple incumbents •New U.S.House districts created after apportionment •Congressional maps •State legislative maps •Lawsuits •Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections •Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Michigan's 13 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 aboutredistricting in Michigan after the 2020 census.

Michigan’s congressional 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]

On July 26, 2024, a three-judge panel of theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan approved state Senate district boundaries submitted by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) on June 27, 2024, and authorized Michigan's secretary of state to implement the plan for the2026 elections:^[8]

The MICRC voted on June 26 to approve the state Senate map calledCrane A1.^[10]

On March 27, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan approved new state House district boundaries drawn by the MICRC for use in the2024 elections. According to the court order:^[11]

The MICRC voted 10-3 on February 28, 2024, to adopt the new state House map known as “Motown Sound FC E1."

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michiganstruck down the state House and Senate maps on December 21, 2023.^[12]

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 forcongressional redistricting,state legislative redistricting,state-based requirements,redistricting methods used in the 50 states,gerrymandering, andrecent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of theUnited 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.^[13][14]

Article I, Section 2 of theUnited States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives beapportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in theUnited 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, theUnited States Supreme Court ruled inWesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."^[15][16][17]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According toAll 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."^[17]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

TheUnited States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, theUnited States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. InReynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of theUnited States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According toAll 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."^[17]

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.^[17][18]
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.^[17][18]
3. Acommunity of interest is defined byFairVote 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.^[17][18]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account forpolitical 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.^[17][18]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[19]

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 theEncyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The wordgerrymander was coined byThe Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also:Gerrymandering

The termgerrymandering 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][20]

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

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 inapportionment, and the constitutionality ofredistricting 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

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also:Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that theSouth Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."^[24]Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity asSouth Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.^[25] TheU.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.^[26]

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also:Moore v. Harper

At issue inMoore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as theindependent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, theNorth Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by theRepublican Party. In the caseHarper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.^[27] On February 14, 2022, theNorth Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections andremanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts.TheUnited States Supreme Court affirmed theNorth Carolina Supreme Court's original decision inMoore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief JusticeJohn Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.^[28]

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also:Merrill v. Milligan

At issue inMerrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district.The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.^[29]

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also:Gill v. Whitford

InGill 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 JusticeJohn 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 JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer,Samuel Alito,Sonia Sotomayor, andElena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate JusticeClarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate JusticeNeil Gorsuch.^[30]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also:Cooper v. Harris

InCooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, theSupreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of theUnited 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 theVoting Rights Act. JusticeElena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by JusticesClarence Thomas,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer, andSonia 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." JusticeSamuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticeAnthony Kennedy.^[31][32][33]

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also:Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality ofstate legislative districts inTexas. 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 JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg.^{[34][35][36][37]}

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

JusticeStephen Breyer penned the majority opinion inHarris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also:Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by theSupreme 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 ofRepublican 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 theVoting Rights Act and obtain approval from theUnited States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtainpreclearance 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 inShelby 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 JusticeStephen Breyer.^[38][39][40]

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 theSupreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established bystate constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of theUnited 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 JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg and joined by JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Stephen Breyer,Elena Kagan, andSonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and JusticesClarence Thomas,Antonin Scalia, andSamuel Alito dissented.^{[41][42][43][44]}

Race and ethnicity

See also:Majority-minority districts

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

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of theVoting 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 ofcracking, 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 inpacking, 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 voteDemocratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage toRepublicans 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.^[46]

The Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission preparedthis 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.

State legislative maps

See also:Michigan State Senate andMichigan House of Representatives

Michigan comprises 38state Senate districts and 110state 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, clickhere.

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.^[47]

Enacted congressional district maps

See also:Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Litigation over congressional redistricting in Michigan after the 2020 censushas concluded.

Michigan’s congressional 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 MICRC was established after voters approveda 2018 constitutional amendment that transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to a 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 ofThe 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.”^[48] According to Clara Hendrickson and Todd Spangler of theDetroit 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."^[49] 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.

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."^[50] Democratic Commissioner Brittni Kellom said, "I know Black people all over, but particularly in Detroit, will continue, unfortunately, to do what they need to do to survive. Which is to galvanize and be active and to do what they need to do. ... Do I wish that there was more time to get it right? Absolutely."^[50]

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.^[51] This data was compiled byDaily Kos Elections.^[52]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Michigan
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
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

Litigation over state legislative redistricting in Michigan after the 2020 censushas concluded.

State legislative maps enacted in 2024

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

On July 26, 2024, a three-judge panel of theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan approved state Senate district boundaries submitted by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) on June 27, 2024, and authorized Michigan's secretary of state to implement the plan for the2026 elections:^[8]

The MICRC voted on June 26 to approve the state Senate map calledCrane A1.^[10]

On March 27, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan approved new state House district boundaries drawn by the MICRC for use in the2024 elections. According to the court order:^[53]

The MICRC voted 10-3 on February 28, 2024, to adopt the new state House map known as “Motown Sound FC E1."

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michiganstruck down the state House and Senate maps on December 21, 2023.^[12]

State Senate map

State House map

Reactions to 2024 state legislative maps (Senate)

After the court approved the Crane A1 map, independent MICRC commissioner Anthony Eid said:^[54]

Following the MICRC's selection of the new map, Republican commissioner Cynthia Orton said:^[55]

Democratic MICRC vice chair Brittni Kellom said:^[56]

Reactions to 2024 state legislative maps (House)

The Executive Director of the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, Edward Woods III, said the following in a news conference:^[57]

Independent Commissioner Rebecca Szetela, who did not vote for the map, said:^[57]

Former state House member Sherry Gay-Dagnogo was one of the plaintiffs in theDonald Agee, Jr. v. Secretary of StateJocelyn Benson case that led to the new House map. In a statement to theMichigan Advance, she reacted to the new map:^[57]

State Senate map

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

State House map

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

State legislative maps enacted in 2022

On December 21, 2023, theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan found Michigan's legislative maps to be unconstitutional and ordered the state to draw new maps before the2024 elections. 13 Senate and House districts were identified as being raciallygerrymandered in violation of the equal protection clause of theFourteenth Amendment. In its order, the three-judge panel wrote:^[12]

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.^[50][58] 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]

Reactions to 2022 state legislative maps

According toThe 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."^[50] Clara Hendrickson of theDetroit Free Press wrote, "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."^[59]

Beth LeBlanc ofThe Detroit News wrote, "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."^[50] 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."^[59] 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."^[59] These maps took effect for Michigan’s 2022 legislative elections.

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, theLeague 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, theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an order that a three-judge panel be convened to hear the case.^[60][61]

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 inLamone v. Benisek andRucho 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.^[62]

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:^[63]

• 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.^[63]

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.^[63]

Charlie Spies, an attorney representing Michigan Republicans, told the following toThe 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.^[64][65][66]

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.^[67][68][69]

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, thestate legislature approved new congressional district boundaries, which were signed into law by the governor on August 9, 2011.^[70][71]

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 theVoting Rights Act and the equal protection clause of theUnited States Constitution by "targeting African-American incumbents for pairing, and 'cracking' the Latino community of southwest Detroit." On April 6, 2012, theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case.^[70]

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.^[70][71]

Although the newly-drawn congressional district map was subject to litigation, it was ultimately upheld.^[70]

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

Seestate election laws

The table below includes bills related to redistricting introduced during (or carried over to) the current session of theMichigan state legislature. The following information is included for each bill:

• State
• Bill number
• Official bill name or caption
• Most recent action date
• Legislative status
• Sponsor party
• Topics dealt with by the bill

Bills are organized by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page onBallotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.

Redistricting ballot measures

See also:Redistricting measures on the ballot andList of Michigan ballot measures

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

1. Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018)

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."^[72]

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."^[73]

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."^[74]

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."^[75]

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, seethis article.

There were eight competitive elections for theMichigan 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 termsRedistricting Michigan. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Michigan after the 2010 census
• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

External links

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"

Footnotes

v • e Election policy Election legislation Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker •Ballotpedia's The Ballot Bulletin •Election legislation tracking: list of sub-topics •Absentee/mail-in voting •Early voting •Election dates and deadlines •Election Day voting •Ranked-choice voting •Redistricting •Voter registration Election administration Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •Washington, D.C. •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Voting policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Electoral systems policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Primary elections policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Redistricting policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Recount laws Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Ballot access for political candidates Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Ballot access for presidential candidates Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Ballot access for political parties Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Electoral systems Single-winner system •Multi-winner system •Block voting system •Plurality voting system •Majority voting system •Top-two primary •Blanket primary •Open primary •Closed primary •Semi-closed primary •Top-four primary •Ranked-choice voting (RCV) •STAR voting •Approval voting •Fusion voting

	v • e State ofMichigan Lansing (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? |Elections in 2025 |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