Google Ads


Site Stats

Michigan redistricting: rolling the dice?

by: sacman701

Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 6:27 PM EST


The Michigan Republicans are in the enviable position of controlling the governor's office and both houses of the legislature, as they were back in 2001. The state has a fairly restrictive redistricting law that stresses respecting city and county boundaries and forbids really abusive gerrymanders, so the state's districts will probably look more or less like they do on the current map, which is Republican-friendly but has nothing outrageous.
sacman701 :: Michigan redistricting: rolling the dice?
The state will lose one of its seats, and like most people I assume that they will throw Dem incumbents Gary Peters and Sander Levin into one district. Most of the population losses have been in the inner Detroit area, and they probably can't mess with Hansen Clarke's MI13 or John Conyers' MI14  too much as it is easy to draw two compact majority-black districts for them. The Republicans must face a major decision: do they try to hold all 9 seats they currently have and risk losing a bunch of them in a blue wave year, or do they sacrifice one of them to shore up some of the others? They have one glaring problem: Ingham county. As in Ohio, the seat of state government and a huge public university create a big blue menace in the middle of a bunch of Republican-held districts. Obama won it by 50k votes, about 2-1. Michigan Reeps attached it to Republican areas further east in Mike Rogers' MI8, thus creating two swing districts instead of one red one and one blue one. This worked out for them except in 2008 when Mark Schauer took MI7 south of Lansing from Tim Walberg. Maximizing the number of winnable districts worked well for the Reeps for most of the 00s, and for that reason I expect them to try it again. However, the state as a whole has been trending blue for some time and I think they would have an easier time holding the House if they try to push up their floor instead of their ceiling. So here are two scenarios: one in which they sacrifice a seat in the Lansing area and one in which they try to hold everything.

Scenario 1: Throw Walberg under the bus!

Here they create a Democratic sink in the Lansing area primarily from Walberg's district to make things easier for Rogers and Justin Amash. The state map:

Michigan

Everything north of the top edge is in Dan Benishek's MI1. The Detroit-area closeup:

Detroit area

Notes on districts follow. In each case O or M followed by a number indicates Obama's or McCains's 2008 margin in thousands of votes.

MI1 (blue): Loses Arenac and Gladwin which combined are O1, and the northern part of Bay which is probably more like those two counties than the rest of Bay, which was O9 overall. Gains Kalkaska, Grand Traverse, Benzie, and Leelanau which collectively are M1. There isn't much opportunity for mischief here since the district is shoved into the northern end of the state and the northern lower peninsula has very few counties where either candidate won by as much as 10%. It would still be R+3.

MI2 (green): Rookie Bill Huizenga's district loses Benzie and northern Allegan and gains suburban and exurban precincts north of Grand Rapids. The current district is the reddest in the state at R+7 and this would not change much.

MI3 (purple): Amash's district will probably be pushed south to some extent as MI1 needs to expand, which will likely push MI2 into MI3. Here the lost northern suburbs and exurbs are replaced with most of Allegan, which was M6 (roughly R+9). The current district is R+6 and the new one would likely be about the same.

MI4 (red): Dave Camp is the chair of the Ways and Means committee and I think the Reeps will ensure that his district, currently just R+3, is not weakened. Here it swaps out marginal areas near Traverse City with similar areas near Saginaw Bay (see MI1 above), loses a few (bluish?) precincts near Saginaw, and picks up O0 (that's Obama by less than 500 votes, roughly R+3) Clinton and the southern part of O3 Shiawassee.

MI5 (yellow): Dale Kildee's district will be pushed east if Levin and Peters are thrown together. The thumb has to go somewhere, and it can't stay in Candice Miller's MI10. Here it loses (bluish?) suburbs and exurbs south of Flint, and gains M1 Huron, M2 Sanilac, and most of O2 St.Clair. This district is currently D+11 and would probably be D+9 or D+10 under the proposed map. It serves the same purpose: a blue sink with Flint, Saginaw, and Bay City.

MI6 (teal): Fred Upton's district makes up for the loss of much of Allegan with M1 Branch and M2 (roughly R+10) Hillsdale, along with less-populated parts of purple Lenawee. Overall PVI of zero before and after. Kalamazoo (O25, D+7) is this district's big problem, but you may not be able to legally make a blue sink that takes in both Lansing and Kalamazoo.

MI7 (gray): Here we create a blue sink from what used to be Walberg's R+2 district. He loses Branch, Hillsdale, Lenawee, and purplish areas of Washtenaw and gets stuck with O49 (D+13) Ingham. The new MI7 also has O5 (D+1) Eaton, O6 (D+1) Calhoun, O2 (R+2) Jackson, and the west end of Washtenaw. Obama won the whole thing by at least 60k, and it's hopeless for a Republican. Joe Schwarz might be able to lose respectably here, but he wouldn't be able to win.

MI8 (blue-gray): Rogers moves east, ridding himself of Ingham, Clinton, and southern Shiawassee and swaps in M1 (R+5) Lapeer and suburban/exurban parts of Oakland, Washtenaw, and Genesee. The district's new areas are less red than M13 (R+10) Livingston, but it's likely R+6 to R+8 overall whereas the current MI8 is just R+2.

MI9 (toothpaste blue): What's left after you merge Peters and Levin is another blue sink with blue pieces of southern Oakland and Macomb. For what it's worth Levin lives here and Peters doesn't.

MI10 (pink): Miller has to pick up some vacated areas from the current MI9 and MI12, and she gets Rochester Hills, much of Troy, Mt. Clemens, and part of Sterling Heights. This area is probably less safe overall than the reddish areas of the thumb that she has to vacate, and I suspect that the district's PVI would drop from R+5 to R+3 or R+4. But there isn't much of an alternative if you want to merge Levin and Peters.

MI11 (pea soup green): Thad McCotter's district moves east but retains its base in northwestern Wayne County. In Wayne, it drops Belleville and blue Redford and picks up Dearborn Heights. In Oakland, he keeps Novi and not much else, losing the exurban western areas to MI8 and picking up Waterford and the (more problematic?) West Bloomfield and Farmington Hills from MI9. The current MI11 has a PVI of zero and I suspect the new changes would be about a wash. I think the biggest problem with the new MI11 is that is Peters lives there. Having MI8 reach down to pick up W. Bloomfield might violate the compactness or community of interest provisions of the redistricting law, although it might be feasible  to swap some northern parts of Oakland county for pieces of Washtenaw and Livingston that I have going into MI8.  

MI12 (lighter blue-gray): John Dingell's old MI15 moves slightly west, but still contains Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and is therefore a blue fortress. His home in Dearborn will probably end up in MI14 as the Detroit districts need to expand.

MI13 (faded pink): Clarke's district has to cross 8 Mile to pick up part of Warren and Eastpointe. It's 56% black.

MI14 (brown): Conyers' district moves west to pick up Dearborn, Redford, and Inkster. It's 53% black. Both MI13 and MI14 still have PVIs of D+fuhgeddaboutit.      

Scenario 2: A 9-5 map, if you can keep it

Here Rogers keeps Lansing, and as before most of the other central and eastern districts have to move in the direction of the areas vacated by merging Levin and Peters. State map:

Michigan1

Detroit area map:

Detroit1

District comments. Unless otherwise noted, "changes" here are relative to the map discussed above, not the current map.

MI1, MI2: no changes.

MI3: Here Amash cannot pick up Allegan, as Upton will need the rest of it as a substitute for Branch and Hillsdale. He has nowhere to go but Eaton, and the result is a district that Obama won: Ionia was M1, Barry M3, and Eaton O5. Kent was O2, and Amash's piece (Grand Rapids and everything south or west of it) is clearly more blue than the county average. Overall the new MI3 would be R+3 at best, and Amash would likely be vulnerable in a year that is average or better for Dems.

MI4: Here Camp loses northern Shiawassee and replaces it with suburban/exurban areas of Genesee and Saginaw. Probably minimal impact.

MI5: Picks up Lapeer and some of St. Clair, loses bits of Genesee and Saginaw, still a blue sink.

MI6: Picks up the rest of Allegan instead of Branch and Hillsdale. Probably about a wash.

MI7: This time it isn't sacrificed. Relative to the current MI7 it has to move east, so it swaps out O5 (D+1) Eaton for O3 (R+1) Monroe and makes minor changes in Washtenaw and Calhoun. Probably still R+2, which doesn't bode well for Walberg after his narrow win on the red wave of 2010.

MI8: Again relative to the current map, it swaps out O0 (R+3) Clinton and part of exurban northern Oakland for northern Shiawassee (O3, D+1) and southern Genesee. This appears less favorable for Rogers than his current district, and would likely move it from R+2 to R+1 or even.

MI9, MI10: Trivial changes.

MI11: Loses much of its Wayne turf including Dearborn Heights, Westland, and Canton and retains more of western and northern Oakland. Possibly better for McCotter than the MI11 from the first map, but this time he is in no position to get any favors from Rogers who is saddled with a shaky district.

MI12: Has more of Dingell's old stomping grounds. Still a blue sink.

MI13, MI14: no changes.

In the first map, the Reeps give up Walberg's seat to make Amash somewhat safer and Rogers much safer. Alternatively, they may be able to have Rogers take on a bit more risk (albeit much less than he has now) to make McCotter somewhat safer. The second map is a dummymander in my opinion. Amash, Walberg, and possibly Rogers would all be at serious risk. McCotter would almost certainly be vulnerable to a challenge from Peters, although this is also true of the first map as shown. Politically Michigan is much more like Wisconsin than Ohio: it has lots of purple and not much deep red, and it's difficult to do a Republican gerrymander.

 

Poll
Which of these incumbents would be most vulnerable under the second proposed map?
Justin Amash
Tim Walberg
Mike Rogers
Thad McCotter

Results

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Strategically, I do see how it makes sense for the GOP to can Walberg
There is no way they can maintain every seat safely, so they have to save what they can. Of course, there is the chance that they don't see it like that and end up dummymandering themselves, which is fully conceivable.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

Yeah.
And I'd love to see a Schauer comeback.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
I have a map that puts Lansing in MI-5
It seems a shame to waste those Reddish counties in the Thumb on Kildee. You can put Lansing and Saginaw in MI-5 without splitting townships, but it requires splitting 3 counties. It would be a major coup if they could justify it... I'm just not sure if it would fly.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

Kildee is Flint
If I recall my own experiments correctly, it was just barely possible to string together a Lansing to Flint district. I don't think I figured out how to Saginaw in it too, though.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

[ Parent ]
Here it is
It takes advantage of that fact that Saginaw Twp is far less Dem heavy than Saginaw City. It's still fairly compact, and I'd guess this district is D+20.

MI5

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)


[ Parent ]
Looks good ... er ... bad ... er ... whatever
I guess I'm misremembering my last attempts at that district, because it actually doesn't look so horrible in your version. Thankfully, I'm pretty sure that clearly an illegal district under Michigan standards. (Although the current MI-05 seems suspect to me to, so....)

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

[ Parent ]
I think they'd try to justify it
because it's such a good packing. It also doesn't split a single township or city. The problem is county splitting - there's no way to do it without splitting 3 counties. You can make it more compact (though less packed) by swapping out Eastern Genesee for the rest of Shiawasee.

Like I said, it's a gray area. Though I think if they believed they could justify it they'd try for something like this.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)


[ Parent ]
A reasonable 5th District.
I know this is a little off-topic, but its possible to create a Democratic vote dump with Flint/Saginaw without reaching up into Bay City and being on the borderline of Michigan's redistricting rules.

District 6

This district would be about 62-63% Obama (I'm using the numbers for Shiawassee County as a whole, since only some small, rural portions of it are outside of the district). I don't think Republicans as a whole would like this since the question would become where does Bay City go, but Kildee wouldn't, I don't think, be that uncomfortable with the new territory he's getting and Camp might be happy to get rid of Corunna-Owosso in Shiawassee, which is much more Democratic than Shiawassee as a whole.

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)


[ Parent ]
That Map looks fine
to me but as always its a balancing act.  I think Camp would do fine with Midland county, Bay County and all of the Thumb area.  Aot that area would be new to him but Camp is an articulate, attractive, super well funded and is in a primo committee spot.  Naturally Camp would need some of his old district to the West of Midland too so I suspect he would jump on that map arrangement.


[ Parent ]
Problematic Gerrymander
(The Ingham portion would almost certainly have to go at least a little bit farther South near the freeway interchange to avoid also splitting city and township annexations, but that might not have a material impact.)

The Michigan Supreme Court is now partisan enough that they might approve this, but it would still be pretty risky.  Not only would it cost Snyder much of his post-partisan cred (needed to actually govern), it would be so blatant that voters themselves might punish Republicans for it.  I doubt Grand Rapids voters would care, but those in Okemos and Williamston would wonder why they're attached to Flint instead of Holt.  Depending on how the surrounding districts were drawn (and how the campaign shapes up), that could cost Republicans the non-vote-sink districts as well.


[ Parent ]
Snyder would have a hard time swallowing it
...but it would do nothing but help congressional Republicans. It puts Lansing, the big problem outside of SE Mich, in a D vote sink. Also, due to pop loss in Flint and Saginaw, this district will likely be bigger with the actual census data and might actually be able to take in the rest of Shiawasee without splitting Genesee - if that happens the district isn't really that huge of a gerrymander with only 2 county splits.

I think it's got a chance of being legal. MI Law says only that township splits must be done on the shortest line possible; it says nothing in that respect on county splits. So the Saginaw salient is A-OK IMHO, and Ingham's split is not any kind of crazy line anyway.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)


[ Parent ]
Backlash possibilities
but it would do nothing but help congressional Republicans

If we assume voting behavior is static, then I won't argue.  But Michigan had a fair number Obama/Walberg voters, because they were angry at McCain.  My question was whether or not this split would be egregious enough to increase Dem turnout/sway undecideds/change minds of moderate Republicans in, say, the rest of Ingham County.  

My honest guess is no, but it is borderline risky in a way that some of the other proposals (such as koolbens') are safe.


[ Parent ]
Here's another idea
Lansing is larger and more Democratic than Saginaw, so why not make Kildee's district Flint-to-Lansing and split Saginaw county between 2 Republicans. (Rogers and Camp perhaps?) That way you can put all of Gennessee, all of Shiawassee (which is marginal) and more of Ingham into MI-05 and make a cleaner looking map than the one above.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
Interesting work
I've given up on redistricting Michigan until the census data comes out on it. The estimates available in the app ended up pretty far off, since they predicted growth, and the final result was population loss.

I'm not sure how the justiciability of the district lines works, but I'm not sure you've done enough to conform to city and county lines. Not having any district that's wholly within Oakland County looks suspect to me (although I've run into the same problem before myself). Having parts of three different districts in Macomb looks even more suspect.

I liked your final sentence though. It strikes me as apt. Imagine how much more difficult the Republicans' job would be if Raczkowski had beaten Peters!

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.


I have always assumed you get just
one county crossing under Michigan law.  So the 1st map over with Levin's district going into Oakland county plus Miller's seat doing the same is a double cross and a no no under the law.  

I don't see the GOP should do anything too drastic in MI to save W's  CD7. We saw in 2001 the GOP built its map in Eastern PA around beating Holden-the Indy map in 1981 was based on beating a certain D incumbent.  The creation of the Burton seat beat that incumbent but the map was a poor one for the GOP. PA 2001 did not work well for GOP.  I don't say the GOP will sink W. in CD7 but they will not make him the focus of their map.  I mean you have Chairman Upton, Chairman Rogers and you have Chairman Camp.  Who do you focus on?

I see CD7 getting Barry and the balance of Calhoun-per another rural township in Washtenaw.  That should make that seat safe for a GOP candidate and if Walberg can't keep it he can't keep it.

You can't mess up a state's whole map for a weak incumbent.  


[ Parent ]
ah
Thanks for the responses everyone. I wasn't aware of the county-crossing rule. I figured Miller would much rather have Roch. Hills and Troy than southern Macomb. If she has to stay within Macomb, she could be in a lot of trouble with basically David Bonior's old district. If she stays in the thumb and forces Levin further into Macomb, then McCotter will end up with at least Bloomfield Hills and possibly (heh) Pontiac or Southfield, and likely get waxed by Peters.

I don't see them giving Barry to Walberg, as that would likely endanger Huizenga by pushing Amash into his best areas. I agree that they will try to avoid hurting the senior members, which is why Amash may be in a shaky position sandwiched between Upton and Camp.  

41, Ind, CA-05


[ Parent ]
Here's the actual text of Michigan's redistricting statute
found here.

3.63 Redistricting plan; guidelines.

Sec. 3.

Except as otherwise required by federal law for congressional districts in this state, the redistricting plan shall be enacted using only these guidelines in the following order of priority:

(a) The constitutional guideline is that each congressional district shall achieve precise mathematical equality of population in each district.

(b) The federal statutory guidelines in no order of priority are as follows:

(i) Each congressional district shall be entitled to elect a single member.

(ii) Each congressional district shall not violate section 2 of title I of the voting rights act of 1965, Public Law 89-110, 42 U.S.C. 1973.

(c) The secondary guidelines in order of priority are as follows:

(i) Each congressional district shall consist of areas of convenient territory contiguous by land. Areas that meet only at points of adjoining corners are not contiguous.

(ii) Congressional district lines shall break as few county boundaries as is reasonably possible.

(iii) If it is necessary to break county lines to achieve equality of population between congressional districts as provided in subdivision (a), the number of people necessary to achieve population equality shall be shifted between the 2 districts affected by the shift.

(iv) Congressional district lines shall break as few city and township boundaries as is reasonably possible.

(v) If it is necessary to break city or township lines to achieve equality of population between congressional districts as provided in subdivision (a), the number of people necessary to achieve population equality shall be shifted between the 2 districts affected by the shift.

(vi) Within a city or township to which there is apportioned more than 1 congressional district, district lines shall be drawn to achieve the maximum compactness possible.

(vii) Compactness shall be determined by circumscribing each district within a circle of minimum radius and measuring the area, not part of the Great Lakes and not part of another state, inside the circle but not inside the district.

(viii) If a discontiguous township island exists within an incorporated city or discontiguous portions of townships are split by an incorporated city, the splitting of the township shall not be considered a split if any of the following circumstances exist:

(A) The city must be split to achieve equality of population between congressional districts as provided in subdivision (a) and it is practicable to keep the township together within 1 district.

(B) A township island is contained within a whole city and a split of the city would be required to keep the township intact.

(C) The discontiguous portion of a township cannot be included in the same district with another portion of the same township without creating a noncontiguous district.

(ix) Each congressional district shall be numbered in a regular series, beginning with congressional district 1 in the northwest corner of the state and ending with the highest numbered district in the southeast corner of the state.

(c)(ii) and (c)(iii) taken together should probably be interpreted as rdelbov says, that having a "double-cross" - as he puts it - is illegal.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.


[ Parent ]
My own currently preferred-from-a-GOP-standpoint
map of metro Detroit would fail victim to the same illegality, if that interpretation of the statute is correct.

This map sets up Dingell vs Clarke and Conyers vs Levin from a residency standpoint. Of course Dingell and Levin would probably just run in the adjacent open districts. The more diabolical aspect of this plan is that the current 9th gets quartered, with its most Democratic components no longer in the district. McCotter isn't the greatest candidate for a potential incumbent versus incumbent showdown, but this district should favor him.

The main detriment, aside from the possible illegality of the district, is that Miller is being as to take on Pontiac. Since she's lost the most Democratic parts of her current district, I think she can handle it, but she might not like it.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.


[ Parent ]
Hmmmm...
I was thinking about the current map, and the many ways in which it doesn't really live up to the statute I cited. For example, three full districts could have been placed in Wayne County. And if that had been done, Washtenaw County wouldn't have had to be broken up. And Oakland County could have had one fewer districts in it too. That's three fewer county splits just there.

So I did a quick google search for Michigan Supreme Court rulings about the 2000 redistricting plan, and found this. It turns out in 2000 a group of voters sued the state over the redistricting plan on two grounds: (1) two census tracks were originally omitted from the plan and (2) it didn't meet the qualifications of the statute I cited.

In regards to (1), the state senate clerk had decided that it amounted to a typographical error and fixed it before it went to the governor for signing. The state supreme court let that stand. In regards to (2), the state supreme court said that since it was just a statute, not part of the Michigan constitution, it wasn't really binding on the state legislature. One legislature can't bind the hands of future legislatures. By passing a plan that didn't conform to the statute, the legislature had indirectly obsoleted the statute.

In other words, the standards of that statute don't actually have the force of law. I'm suprised this hasn't come up before in talking about Michigan redistricting.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.


[ Parent ]
Yes three full districts could
have been done in Wayne county but the statue does not place the order of priority in not  splitting county lines.  

There is no reason to split Washtenaw or Bay or Sagninaw as districts could have been drawn that did not split these counties but some counties have to be split.  Its not a game where the absolute minimum number of counties have to be split its that if you split them you have to justify it by meeting population standards.  

Oakland county is split four ways like Wayne county but the dance is done with extreme care.  


[ Parent ]
MI-2, MI-4, MI-5, MI-6, MI-7, MI-8 and MI-15 all have two county splits
Although as pointed out below, the statute doesn't have force of law.

[ Parent ]
About MI-1
can a Democrat win that back in a good Dem year?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


Stupak
Bart Stupak won it 9 times in a row.

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
Yeah but
the Democrats used to hold a majority of state house districts in the region, now they have exactly one (Marquette in the UP). I'm afraid that the Republicans have convinced folks up there that no matter how conservative their Democratic representatives are, they're still going to Lansing to vote for Pelosi as speaker (she's from San Francisco, it's in Washtenaw County).

32, M, MI-6, Iconoclastic Leftist

[ Parent ]
Nicely done.
It sure is hard for the GOP to gerrymander MI like they can with OH and TX.  And they'll be in a tough spot.  Either harm Amash or Walberg, or they get a probable dummymander.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


If that's the case
It's curtains for Walberg. Amash is young and interesting, and has the potential to have a good career in Congress. Walberg is a retread who's already lost once and doesn't really excite anyone. Besides, even under the 9-5 attempt, Walberg has the most tenuous hold on his district.

If I were the Michigan Republicans, I would try for 9-5 but only with the Flint-Lansing vote sink. With that map you might lose MI-07 but everyone else would probably be OK. If you can't get that passed, I'd sacrifice Walberg to make the other 8 GOPers safer. With two committee chairs (Camp, Upton) and another guy with close ties to Boehner (McCotter), there's too much at risk in Michigan.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08


[ Parent ]
I would not write
Walberg off yet.  I would not twist and turn the lines around the state to give him a super safe seat but I would not write him off.  The district has a long history of electing republicans and Congressman Smith who had it for years was no more conservative then Walberg.

Incumbents have advantages in home district staff, the frank, fund raising and PR stuff.  Sure he lost in 2008 but will be 2012 be like 2008 or like 2010?  That's not all together clear yet.  

I think he gets Barry county and morever there is plenty of stuff for CD5 to pickup North and East that is GOP leaning.  


[ Parent ]
Committee Chairs
Technically, all the non-freshmen chair something, though I'll agree that the above two appear to be by far the best for pork.  

Rogers chairs the House Intelligence Committee, McCotter chairs the House Republican Policy Committee, and Miller chairs the (Homeland Security) Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.


[ Parent ]
One of my pet peeves - Michigan hasn't really trended anywhere
I like to point people to Nate Silver's Electoral History Charts (in particular, "Relative History" whenever they talk about "trends".  

it is trending
In 08 it was what Silver would call d10 and Cook would call D+5. That's a clear if gradual progression toward the Dems since 1984.

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
Yeah, also....
It was like CA in how it did not go for a Democrat at the  presidential level since '64 until Clinton.  Although, obviously, it has not trended as sharply as CA at all.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
Hence my qualifer that it hasn't "really" trended anywhere, i.e. of any significance
If Michigan behaved like California did in 2010 I'd be more inclined to agree, but the considerable Republican success makes me think Michigan's economic woes makes it prone to larger swings against the incumbent in a bad economy, explaining 2008.



[ Parent ]
MI is sort of like a reverse WV.
It's a blue state on the national level, but at the state level, the GOP has got a surprising amount of power.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
Making the world safe for Amash
Of the two scenarios, number one is by far the better one for the region, but I would want to look at Census numbers, here.  The indications are that west Michigan has picked up some significant population shifts.  Kent County is easily 600+ so that means there is only 100 and change to add to the district.  

As a matter of practical politics, community leaders would keep Plainfield Twp (that's the eastern half of the notch in the map) with the southern cities and twps. That shift would have some nibbling around the eastern edge of the County.  

For an alternate you may also consider keeping Kent intact, and trimming off the eastern townships in Ottawa.  They would give the more than enough power to CD-3, and still allow for CD-2 to keep Allegan county, since Allegan and Ottawa share Holland MI.

CD-3


L Brook Patterson already said Gary Peters is out.
Good job at putting together these maps but the mystery has been solved.  L Brooks just said in the Oakland Press Gary peters is out of his US seat and Peters crashed Brooks invite only county address to suggest Peters will challenge Brooks in 12 for Oakland Exec.  This clearly means Levin will get the meat of Peters district and Conyers will extend all the  way to 12 mile, at least but could span to Pontiac. Clearly Southfield, Oak Park and Lathrup Village will end up in the district conyers now has.  Dingell and Snyder donate to each other and Dingell supported Snyder for gov, he is as good as safe.  Candice Miller will see and expansion from Levins district and will probably take Republican corner from Peters district.    

Dingell.
I remember a story saying that Rick Snyder had donated money to one of John Dingell's past campaigns, but when did Dingell donate money to Snyder? The last campaign? Just curious.

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)

[ Parent ]
Michigan 6.
Nice map, though Miller's new district looks too close to Bonior's old district for Republican comfort, and I'm not sure Dave Camp would want to dump Traverse City (which is pretty strongly Republican at the local level).

It's almost impossible to create a safe Democratic vote dump in either Michigan 6 or 7, but it is easy to create a map like this:

District

Since Kalamazoo County has lost less population then most counties in Michigan, its easy to just take out the Allegan County portion of the district and add Battle Creek/Marshall to the 6th. The real problem with creating a Democratic district in the southwest is that Kalamazoo County is really not that Democratic outside of Kalamazoo, which is massively Democratic (only Osthemo and  Portage have Democratic leans outside of the city), and Michigan's county-splitting rules would never, presumably, allow a district that includes Benton Harbor, but not the rest of Berrien County. A Democrat like Mark Schauer or Kate Segal should be able to win a district like this once Upton retires, though.

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)


Upton
I don't know whether Upton would be ok with swapping out a nice red area for a purple area where people don't know him that well. When was the last time he faced a serious challenge? He might be rusty if it's been a decade or two, and could get himself into a Jim Oberstar situation if his district is weakened. 2012 won't be as bad for Reeps as 2010 was for Dems, but your proposed MI6 at about D+1 would be less incumbent-friendly than MN8 at D+3.  

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
Upton continued.
I agree with you abou 95% (in fact, I thought of the Oberstar comparison on the way to class after I wrote this. Great minds think alike). To answer your question, Upton has never had a serious opponent. Cooney was a legitimate opponent, but not one who anyone ever thought had a real chance to win, even in 2008, which really hurt him in fundraising.

I doubt anyone in Lansing cares what Upton thinks; there's a lot of Republicans AND Democrats who, because of term limis or failed campaigns, would like Upton's job. Plus he's kind of a chameleon and came out of wih less then 60% of the vote agains a weak teabagger last year in the Republican primary, and everyone knows when he retires the race will be a crapshoot anyways, so why wait? He's been in Congress since the late 80's and is young enough that, if he follows the Dingell model he could be there for another 20-30 years. Anything used to strengthen him will take something out of Huizinga, Walberg or maybe Amash's hide anyways.

I still think Upton would probably survive, though he's never had a good opponent before so who knows. A strong Democrat has to get around 60-70% of the vote at the least in Kalamazoom to win MI-06 now; Upton's opponents have usually gotten around 40-50%. And Battle Creek is much less Democratic then Kalamazoo, though obviously more Democratic then southern Allegan County. Interesting sidenote - Kalmazoo. and BC have overlapping mediamarkets and share a wide media market with Grand Rapids, so I would be curious to wonder how high Upon's name recognition is in BC or Schaeur's is in Kalamazoo.

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)


[ Parent ]
The Republican problem in Michigan
The only flaws I really saw in these maps were from quirks of local politics.  (Well, plus the usual caveat that 2008 was odd, because of people getting offended at McCain's pullout.)

It isn't hard to draw nine districts where a moderate — or even a generic — Republican would easily win the general election.  But the freshman are not moderates, and if they can't find ways to become recognized without becoming polarizing, they in particular won't be able to hold their seats.  

Huizenga understands this, and basically went into hiding during the general election.  That will be enough to keep him in office, but maybe not if the district itself becomes closer, and he continues to draw a real challenger — so he will be nervous about any weakening.

Benishek had made some obvious missteps, but it may just be a learning curve.  And as you pointed out, there isn't much the Republicans can do either to strengthen it or to rescue nearby districts.

Amash is more at risk.  Like Bachmann or Foxx, he needs a very safe Republican seat.  And if he does lose, Republicans (but not radicals) can expect to win the seat back two years later.  Redistricting will weaken either this seat or one of its neighbors, and this one is the natural target.  Republicans won't want to weaken the district too much for ambitious state legislators, but it may be too much for Amash.

Walberg is obviously at risk — and probably so is any likely successor.  The district has plenty of moderates who won't vote for someone they consider extreme, but it also has the hotbeds of radicalism, so that an actual moderate would have great difficulty getting through the primary.  Even Joe Schwarz only did it with a heavily divided field; it is not a coincidence that he was among the first Club For Growth primary victims — nor is it a surprise that Walberg lost to his first serious challenger.  He came back in 2010, but it isn't clear that he could survive a neutral year.  There really isn't any way to make the district safer for moderates without making it swing or lean D, and there really isn't anyway to make it safe for radicals without seriously damaging Rogers' district.

Meanwhile, even Upton may need shoring up — he held a swing district pretty well, but now that he is worried about primary challenges, he is tacking heavily to the right — and may need extra Republicans from one of the freshman to shore him up in the general election.  Tacking hard to the right is sensible if he expects Hillsdale from Walberg.

Camp should be fine unless elections get entirely nationalized, but don't count on his being able to do much for the freshmen.  McCotter and Miller have geography problems, but will probably be OK given a Republican gerrymander.  Rogers' district is already a pretty clear gerrymander; he should remain safe, but not so safe that he can comfortably help McCotter or Walberg.


Those are fair comments
and I don't disagree with them.  That's one reason I believe you will see a sink or swim plan from the GOP for various incumbents.  

I like the Sagninaw move that some have suggested that has Camp moving into the Thumb over the top of Sagninaw city.  

I see Miller's seat shrinking and taking in just the bottom half of St Claire county. Miller would get all of Sterling Heights & Clinton Township.  The Southern line of cities and Townships in MacComb county would be attached to CD13. That seat would lose the white areas in SE Wayne county and would keep its AA % intact.

I see CD7 gaining Monroe county but losing a few marginal precincts in Washtenaw county plus a few marginal precincts in Calhoun county.  The partisan % in CD7 would probably stay about the same as Monroe county is classic ticket splitting area.  The President got 50% in Jackson, 51% in Leenanaw and Monroe county.  It might be sink or swim time for Walberg but as noted the GOP has limited options.  You might plug a few more precincts out of Calhoun for both Walberg and Upton's sake.  Upton would not mind the more moderate voters in Calhoun county.  


[ Parent ]
Lansingite, here.
As a Lansingite, I'd love nothing more than to be in a district that better represents the historical layout of the area.  I really doubt they'd sacrifice Walberg, though.  I think Dem or Republican, the natural tendency is to try and max out your map each time and pray that it'll stick.  The GOP has essentially maxed itself out, here, and McCotter and Walberg's margins of error will need to be reduced, regardless, to maintain their hold on their districts.  McCotter's area is maturing and getting more African American.  Walberg's area in Eaton County is becoming more urban in its northeastern corner (Delta Township), and our mayor is actively promoting regionalism, which is drawing all of the surrounding townships closer in priorities to Democratic Lansing proper.

I can't remember the last time Dems had total control of the process.  Given that the GOP has held the state senate since the mid-80's, I'd guess that if they had complete control at any times, it was immediately after the 1980 Census, and even then, the Dems were up against an electoral wall in the state senate.


billhos (Ga-7)
I'm wondering if the GOP wouldn't throw Kildee and Levin together by drawing a 1-5mile strip through the most Democrat area of Peters district and uniting them that way. If you take out Flint and most of Genosee county I think that the rest of the district would be swingy or even GOP and would leave GOP incumbents better off. You would also eliminate a Dem uberdistrict and change the lean of the Peters district to a probably Republican pick up..

No way
Even if Michigan's redistricting standards aren't considered justiciable by the state supreme court, they're still part of Michigan's political culture. The final map will more or less abide by them.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

[ Parent ]
No GOP congressman
would want 150K of North Genessee county.

To do redistricting in Michigan for the GOP is like that scene in the movie "National Treasure".  The four charactors are on this giant balanced piece of wood.  Every step you make creates an inbalance that has to be corrected by a move in an oppisite direction.  

Every step you take a consequence that has to be offset.  


[ Parent ]
reply
Would a GOP congressman need to take 150,00 of Genosee county? With the shrinkage in Detroit and Dingells district and by taking out Monroe county from Dingell. I would think you take all or almost tall of Genossee counties 400,00 population. don't forget that county has likely shrunk considerably to.

[ Parent ]
If you tried to connect
Flint (Kildee's home) by going through Oakland county to Levin's home in Royal Oak you would have to leave a good part of Genessee county behind.  

Michigan does not allow you to split cities or townships unless you have to.  So to connect Flint & southern Genesse county to Royal Oak you would have to chew through a lot of Oakland county.  There is no way you could do without ditching a lot of Genesse county.  

That was what my reference was to--the idea of combining Kildee & Levin's seat together.  

I might add the idea of connecting Flint to Lansing is amusing.  I am just not sure any GOP congressman wants Sagninaw county.  


[ Parent ]
Flint-Lansing
I tried playing around with that last night and it just doesn't work assuming that you can't draw a snaky district like shamlet drew. MI5 was fine with all of Genesee, all of Shiawassee, and almost all of the northern half of Ingham but Camp had to eat Saginaw and that won't happen. It was possible for MI1 to take Bay City, but I suspect they won't do that as MI1 has always been the "up north" district.

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
I sorted it over as well
in my mind.  The problem is not just Sagninaw but all that Thumb region plus suburbs east of Flint.

You have to play around with MacComb county and decide if you what you want to attach to Miller's seat. Then what ever is left in MacComb either has to go to Wayne or Oakland county.

In the GOP eyes Rogers should be fine with Ingham offset by Livingston.  The Flint move is probably not needed


[ Parent ]
not from Michaigain
So I might be naive. If the law says you cannot split a county unless necessary I would think that could be overturned by passing a law that does that. By virtue of being a law redistricting would neutralize and or repeal that law.

[ Parent ]
Democrat or Republican
No politician would touch that with a 10-foot pole.  Political tradition is still strong, here, it still means something.  Just like capital punishment won't ever be reinstated here.

[ Parent ]
Pretending to be a Republican for just a moment..
Why not draw the 3rd just swingy enough so Amash can lose in a presidential year when GR turns out, forcing Sikkema out of his think tank retirement or making some other representative of the mainstream party take the seat. Long term they're better off.

32, M, MI-6, Iconoclastic Leftist

If I remember correctly
Amash is a favorite of west Michigan Republican power broker Dick DeVos. I doubt the Republicans will share your dispassionate assessment of Amash's chances.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

[ Parent ]
I am clueless on Amash
but at 60% in 2010 and 59% in Kent county.  I suspect MI3 will be way down on the list of Democratic targets in 2012.  

I defer to any locals who think differently but on the surface he has the making of a long career like Ehlers.


[ Parent ]
Amash
He is actually a former student of mine. He was in my section when I was a TA at U of M in the spring of 2000. I didn't have much of an impression of him at the time. He was just a guy with shaggy hair who usually sat near the front but didn't say much.

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
Wow, that's quite the coincidence.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
Is it really?
Anyway,

Amash isn't going anywhere any time soon.  It's one of those districts where once you get someone in, they are there to stay unless they decide not to run.  This became even more clear to me when someone as centrist as Pat Miles ended up not even being able to compete despite the media giving a Democrat an actual honest look in that district for the first time in a long time.


[ Parent ]
Probably right
Amash won a very convincing victory in 2010 against what seemed to be a credible, if not top-tier opponent. He's also not as Bachmannesque as some here make him out to be. He voted against reauthorization of the Patriot Act yesterday, one of only a handful of Republicans to do so. Yes, he'll vote with Republicans on all economic and most social issues, but he's not some sort of offensive firebrand that will demand Obama's birth certificate or something. He's actually fairly charismatic in person and, young as he is, probably has a long career ahead of him.

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox