Gerrymandering - Myths vs Facts

The talking points of the left is that the only reason why Michigan has a Republican majority is due to gerrymandered districts. That's not true. "But 50some odd percent voted for democrats for congress or state rep in 2012!!!" So what. That happens when Detroit votes 97%, Flint 89%, and Ann Arbor/Ypsi around 80 some odd percent.  A major reason why you see that is self-packing and guidelines (in Michigan) against splitting municipalities (less so federally since they have to have equal population total). Another reason is due to federal requirements of Voting Rights Act districts.  Voting Rights Act districts generally require two districts with black voting age majorities. That is why the 14th district is shaped as it is, taking Southfield, Oak Park, Lathrup Village, and Royal Oak Township, and curling up to get Pontiac.

A large number of democrats are in a few select areas. Detroit is 95-98% democrat and has around a 250-300K vote spread. You have two districts based there that have to satisfy the VRA requirements.

MI-01 - There's not a lot that can be done with Benishek's district.

MI-02 - Ottawa County is such a red county that will trump neighboring Muskegon every time. Self packing on the part of both parties. Kentwood and Wyoming added are minor tweaks, but MI-03 leaned R anyway barring a disaster.

MI-03 - Amash's district added Calhoun County. Less safe than it was. Self-packing again. Dems in Grand Rapids proper, Albion, and Battle Creek. R's in suburbs and rural areas there.

MI-04 - Tweaked a little to add Frankenmuth, but mostly reclaimed old territory with Clinton and Shiawassee Counties. 

MI-05 - Kildee's district covers all of Genesee County (self-packing) and isn't cracked there. It goes up to take the Eastern part of Saginaw County. You can argue that part, but now has all of Bay County and a couple of rural counties. Tuscola County was split. If there's a gerrymander part there, it's to put Frankenmuth with Camp's district. Minor tweak at best.

MI-06 - Actually a quite competitive district on paper despite self-packing in Kalamazoo and Benton Harbor.  Van Buren County is competitive as well.

MI-07 - Fairly populist. Walberg lost Calhoun County and picked up Monroe County. Partisanwise, there isn't a lot of difference, although it's a better matchup for Walberg who isn't liked in Calhoun County.

MI-08 - Only competitive because of Lansing area. Livingston and North Oakland are blood red. North Oakland would have flipped the old 9th as well despite Pontiac. Pick your poison.

MI-09 - Levin's district is relatively compact. Southern Macomb and SE Oakland. It moved to the right actually from the old district, but I don't see it flipping barring a major surprise. GOP could have possibly have gotten greedier there, although it would put more districts at risk.

MI-10 - Thumb and North Macomb. The thumb had to go somewhere. North Macomb leans R to begin with. Probably safer than it had to be. The GOP could have been greedier and tried to crack Levin's district.

MI-11 - I'll admit. This district is ugly, and was made for a guy that didn't even get to run thanks to petition fraud by his staffers. Part of its ugliness was due to VRA requirements with the 14th.

MI-12 - Dingell's district dropped Monroe to take almost all of Downriver again,  and kept Eastern Washtenaw. It's more realistic looking than the old district.

MI-13 - Not that bad for a VRA district.

MI-14 - Very ugly due to VRA requirements.

I post this due to Phil Power's talking points rant with little original thought in the Argus.

The practice of gerrymandering — drawing congressional and legislative districts to favor one political party or the other — is at the core of our deeply dysfunctional and hyperpartisan political system that produced the shutdown and nearly resulted in default.
Virtually all the “tea party”-backed, hard-right congressional representatives who provoked the recent crisis are from districts so heavily gerrymandered Republican that they’re in virtually no danger of voter backlash in a general election. If an incumbent’s seat is gerrymandered safe, there’s no political downside to adopting whatever radical ideology is fashionable at the moment.

Phil is assuming (and we all know what three words are in the word ass-u-me) that the problem isn't the spending and that all that opposed it are tea party. That's the narrative he's set for this rant when frankly it's the elitism of Phil's DC's counterparts in the national political class that caused the damn problem in the first place for being out of touch with real people.

Indeed, it could be a political plus, if it inoculates an incumbent against a primary challenge from someone even further right. Gerrymandering is an ancient and widespread institution, long used by politicians to protect incumbent politicians of both political parties.
These days, it has been coupled with its enabling cousin, the partisan primary election, to contort our politics into hyperpartisan gridlock. Primaries provide the political leverage in a gerrymandered district so that the only election that counts is the primary.

What's wrong with primaries? The reps jobs is to vote their districts and defend their votes in the primary. One can agree or disagree. That's the voter's decision. Most primary challenges also fail, although some of the arrogant ones get the defeat they deserve. Joe Schwarz got what he deserved due to his arrogance against the little people, and Phil Power, Susan Demas, and the rest of the media elite are still mad about it. Fred Upton's ideology isn't tons different than Schwarz, but he survived, despite very conservative Allegan County. He's not as arrogant as Schwarz who always needed to bash conservatives in the press.

Most experts agree there are very few truly competitive congressional districts in America, perhaps as few as 40 out of a total of 435. According to U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, the longest-serving member of Congress in history, gerrymandering represents a big part of what happened in Washington over the past few weeks.

I don't put much faith in the so called "political experts" (Esp DC) in either party these days. If it's from the same study I've seen, it's bullshit. I'm not arguing that gerrymander isn't an issue at times, but that was a bullshit study that only considers competitive districts those that actually flip. If someone wins with 50.8% three times but doesn't flip, than that's not considered competitive.

“Some of the Republican members form heavily gerrymandered districts have nothing to fear from voters in a general election; everything is determined by the primary,” Dingell told me.
Richard McLellan, a heavy-duty Republican if ever there was one, agrees. So does Mark Grebner, head of Practical Political Consulting in East Lansing and one of the smartest political thinkers in this state. In Michigan, he counts as gerrymandered Republican at least three congressional districts, four or five state Senate seats and at least 10 state House districts.

Dingell, McLellan, and Grebner I do respect. That quote from Dingell is true, but a large part of that is self-packing (along with the VRA districts).  I'd like to know which districts they consider gerrymandered. I'll concede the 11th for congress, but VRA districts don't count due to federal law. For state senate some of the uglier ones are probably more dem favorable than previous incarnations (arguably the 32nd, 36th). There's an argument for the 14th, but the 32nd is the price for that. The 6th was flat out conceded. The 10th I'll concede. I don't see 4 or 5 with the state senate. State House? What are the 10? The 76th was a bad Hail Mary pass that failed (and the Roy Schmidt party switch process was worse). Several districts were conceded that didn't need to be (17th, 62nd).  I'll give you possibly the 23rd, but that cost us the 17th. The 24th cost us the 18th. I'll concede the 51st. If anything, I think the state house was a little too cautious, although that's also limited by APOL standards (as is the Senate).

The only good thing emerging from the recent mess in Washington is a new realization of and focus on the malign influence of gerrymandering on American politics.
But the more essential and complicated question is what to do about it. Many urge we take the drawing of district lines out of the hands of politicians (usually state legislators) and give the job to independent, nonpartisan folks like retired judges.


This is the system adopted in Iowa, where there is some evidence it has reduced overt partisanship in drawing lines. I still think it’s naive to believe you can ever totally take politics out of redistricting, the most political act of all.

There's nothing independent about commissions. There's nothing nonbiased about commissions. Even Phil Power concedes that. What's worse about commissions is that if they pass a screwjob, there's no recourse whatsoever against the bad guys who push it (Mathismander in Arizona). If the state legislature passes a screwjob, there's at least SOME recourse by tossing the bums out.

Grebner proposes a similar alternative: Pass a redistricting law that prohibits any political considerations in drawing congressional or legislative districts. “Put criminal penalties on violations,” Grebner says, while admitting the idea is pretty radical. And I’m not sure how a jury will decide what constitutes a “political consideration.”

What is defined as as a political consideration? That's the problem.

Another possibility would be to adopt the “open primary” system, in which candidates for office run in primary elections just as they do now, but in which the two top vote-getters — whether a Republican and a Democrat, or both Republicans, or both Democrats — run against each other in the fall general election.
That way, both candidates wanting to maximize total vote would have political reasons to reach beyond their narrow base to members of the other party or independents. This system is under trial in California, where it’s resulted in the defeat of two liberal congressmen who didn’t reach beyond the Democratic base.

This is something I could look at, often called a jungle primary. The Louisiana style is similar back from their one party days. There's various forms of it with runoffs for less than a certain amount.

Unless we cut the cancer of gerrymandering out of the core of our political system, our days as a great nation are numbered, doomed by a dysfunctional, hyperpartisan and crisis-prone politics. We need a serious conversation about reforming this practice, now.

Phil, if we don't stop overregulating and overspending, we're in deep shite. If the "my way or the highway" stuff doesn't end (Obama and Reid are the worst of all there), neither will the dysfunction.

As far as gerrymandering goes, I'm open to a computer style that takes as much human element away as possible. That's as far as I go. No biased and not really independent commissions and nothing that doesn't account for self-packing.

State Senate Districts are updated

I finally finished looking at the new state senate districts. I haven't updated those since 2005-2006. They are now up on the sidebar and easy to access. Eventually, I'll get to the 110 state rep districts when I have time. I'd like to get those done before the candidate filing deadline May of next year, and but I'm not going to count on it. The timetable of the list to be finished is "when its done."

A lot of congressional candidates are announced. I probably won't update candidate lists on the sidebar list further for those seats until filing next year, because things filter out (Some candidates drop, new candidates announce, some don't make the ballot). I will however post about some candidates here on the board and label the affected congressional district in the labels sections.

Proposed Redistricting Maps released

Congressional Plan from the Michigan State Senate.

State Senate proposed plan also from the State Senate.

Proposed House plan from the Michigan State House

I haven't gone through the numbers yet and those will be updates on the side bar over the next 18 months. I'll start with Congress and move down.

I have some initial impressions, but I'll wait until I run the numbers before I call it good/bad in between. A couple got tossed to the wolves, but others with no business winning last time (on paper) won and were protected. Sometimes a choice needs to be made between protecting one and dropping another, or protect none and risk winning or losing both seats. I do think at least at first glance, these maps are much better than the last ones. We got damn lucky twice with the senate in 02 and 06. Bob Emerson actually liked the old senate map. I thought the old house maps through were good at the time and we did lose that. That shows how much I know.

For now, I'll post the maps and I'll run the numbers as they go in. I expect the final maps to mirror or come very close to mirroring the proposed maps.

Livingston County chooses new commissioner districts

New Livingston County Commissioner Districts

Yesterday was the day that the Livingston County Redistricting Committee chose its maps. There were six maps under consideration. The map chosen was "Map 5." It was definitely not a unanimous vote and it was a quite contentious ending to the process. Here was my recap of the 2nd meeting which has some comments by the democrat representative of the committee as well as a recent comment  from someone with republican leanings who was obviously there.

The Argus had reports there.:

A redistricting committee approved a map with new Livingston County Board of Commissioners districts Tuesday, but local Democrats alleged the plan is partisan and expect to appeal.

The five-member committee approved the map 4-1, with Jordan Genso, the lone Democrat, voting against it. The map has nine commissioner districts, which is the same number as the existing map. It was created and submitted by Brighton Township Treasurer Lana Theis, chairwoman of the county’s Republican Party.

“There should be an appeal,” Genso said after the meeting.
He called the outcome “blatant partisan reapportionment.”

I'll get to the partisan claims and appeals in a minute. The dems chances at winning are slim at best.

Dane Morris, a former Democratic candidate for the county board, said the map approved maintains the nine commissioner seats and doesn’t pit one of the all-Republican commissioners against another one.

“That’s the reason this plan was adopted,” Morris said.

So what? Why should the board be forced pit comissioners against one another? Dane, you and the others failed to defeat any of them in 2010, or the democrat years of 2006 and 2008 for that matter. This included the marginal republican districts which are winnable for dems under the right circumstances (for them).

I spoke in favor of Map 1, which was very similar to the current maps. It was my first choice despite the township breaks because it classified areas by the regions and did not have the potential of reps living 20 miles away from their constituents. I also did not want to see incumbent commissioners have to duke it out in incumbent v incumbent primaries. Map 1 satisfied both of my concerns. There was one map I was concerned would be passed (Map 4). I did not see the latest map from the democrats (Map 6) until after I spoke.  The committee preferred Map 5 which was the "republican map", which was pretty good outside of one district. Map 5 was good at limiting the number of townships broken.

As for Jordan's claim about "blatant partisan reapportionment" and the appeals process, which I saw coming from the cell phone recordings, here's the standard from Clinton County's 1991 redistricting.

Petitioners claim that the four-way division of DeWitt Township is designed for partisan political purposes, to dilute Democratic Party voting strength. However, at oral argument it was conceded that there is effectively no Democratic political strength throughout the county and, in fact, the adopted plan represents only minor adjustments from the plan adopted in 1982, to account for a two percent increase in population during the decade. Other than petitioners' naked claim, no evidence has been presented to this panel that satisfactorily proves that the division of DeWitt Township accomplishes, in fact, a partisan political advantage, whatever its motivation.

Where's the democrat strength in Livingston County? Going back at least to 2000, neither Al Gore, John Kerry, nor Barack Obama did not win a single commissioner district. Keep in mind, this is a county commission map. The last democrat to win a county commissioner district was Jake Donohue in the 80's/90's, a highly respected moderate from the SW corner of the county. His district was replaced by a republican. Where's the big stronghold? A couple of precincts far apart. Right now, they are trailing 9-0 in a county that hasn't gone democrat countywide at any level since I believe Frank Kelley in 1990.

The other part which wasn't covered as much in the paper was the fight being over one extra township break. The commission does not have to chose the "best plan," just a good plan.

We agree with respondents that neither the state or federal constitution nor the holding in Apportionment of Wayne Co Bd of Comm'rs -- 1982, 413 Mich 224; 321 NW2d 615 (1982), either singly or in combination, compels an apportionment commission to adhere to any preordained method in devising an apportionment plan. It is the final plan as adopted, and not the intermediate steps, with which this Court must concern itself under MCL 46.406; MSA 5.359(6).

We are likewise of the opinion that Wayne Co Apportionment -- 1982 does not impose a "best plan" test as advocated by petitioners. Under such a test, a plan which had been adopted and which meets threshold constitutional and statutory standards nevertheless would have to be rejected by this Court if a competing plan more closely approaches perfection.

We think the Michigan Supreme Court was fully aware when it rendered that decision that a "best plan" review standard would be a prescription for perpetual litigation. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that reapportionment by its nature involves "fundamental choice about the nature of representation" in what is "primarily a political and legislative process." Gaffney v Cummings, supra, 412 U.S. 747. A reviewing court, in determining whether a plan "meets the requirements of the laws of this state," MCL 46.406; MSA 5.359(6), must allow the political organs to whom the redistricting task has been delegated some scope for the "exercise of judgment," and a plan that represents a "reasonable choice in the reasoned exercise of judgment" must be sustained, Wayne Co Apportionment -- 1982, supra, 413 Mich 264, notwithstanding that a marginally better plan might be devised. Otherwise, the courts would be involved in the never ending process of litigation every time "a resourceful mind hits upon a plan better than the Master's by a fraction of a percentage point." Gaffney v Cummings, supra, 412 U.S. 750-751.

That's what the dems have to get overturned or at least distinguished if they are going to appeal this on "partisanship" grounds. In other words, tough scheisse. It's the same thing the dems are doing to us in Washtenaw County, Ingham County, Wayne County and at least attempting to do in Oakland County. Elections have consequences, and that cuts in all directions.

Personally, I hope they appeal and waste the Union Leadership's money.

County Redistricting

Today was the 2nd meeting of the redistricting process in Livingston County. While there's a lot of hype about redistricting at the state level, the process at county level is largely ignored, but just as important. The redistricting process for county commission districts goes on every ten years much like the state rep/congressional redistricting process.

The process at county level is different. Commissioners do not redistrict their own seats here. The redistricting committee is made up of the County Prosecutor, Clerk, and Treasurer, as well as the GOP and Democrat Party Chairs of the county. In Livingston County, the committee is David Morse, Margaret Dunleavy, Dianne Hardy, Lana Theis, and Jordan Genso. What makes this different than a normal partisan redistricting is that in addition to party chairs, the other committee members have to work with the commissioners in a business setting.

It's early to tell which maps are gaining momentum. Right now there's three nonpartisan maps, three democrat maps, and a republican map currently in the works that I haven't see yet. The guidelines are actually broad for county level in a legal sense. There's a 11.9% variation allowed in the districts. The other requirement is that the maps aren't redrawn for clear partisan advantage. Those are based from a court case, I believe involving Clinton County. I have to look that up in more detail.

Whatever happens, I expect the democrats to make a bigtime snit if one of their maps (which I think is a big gerrymander) is not adopted. There's a set up attempt, at least for a PR standpoint going on here. I was told that at the first meeting, that the democrats filmed this on cell-phone camera. Well, the camera was back today. It didn't catch anything shady outside of influencing Genso who IMO was playing for that camera a bit. What I found more interesting is the nitpicking with the minutes. Part of it was minor and no big deal. The other part was pushing something misleading. Genso wanted the minutes to state that his map only split three townships. That part is true. However, it split Hamburg three ways, and Genoa four ways - but those don't count as splits in his mind. He didn't want that in. The committee let him have his way with the minutes, which I don't have a problem with. There's more important things to argue about.


By law, a split is a split is a split. The republicans are going to counter a map with five overall splits, but it will split a precinct, which Genso did not like very much. Precincts are supposed to be only split when "necessary", but the question is what is "necessary." If this map has five total breaks, is that the necessity, especially if it does a good job at reasonable shaped districts. I haven't seen this one yet, so I can't fully comment. The latest dem map has 8 splits. The nonpartisan maps have 7 (shaped most like current map), 11, and 5 splits. Splits aside, the shape of the districts is also a factor. Nonpartisan one keeps them fairly close together in area. Nonpartisan two and three spreads them out a bit, as do the democrat maps that I've seen so far. Right now, I don't know how the GOP map will be on the shapes of the districts.

There's going to be at least two more maps pushed. One more democrat map, and the GOP map. We'll know more next month about which map will be approved. I think it will be decided next month, but I can't guarantee it.

This is an interesting process. It's also important. Many state reps were formerly county commissioners. Bill Rogers got his start as a county commissioner in Genoa Township. Today's commissioner is tomorrow's state rep.

Dan's 10-4 GOP Redistricting Map part 3 of 3

This is part 3 of 3 in my attempt at a 10-4 GOP redistricting map. I'll fully admit that I'm testing APOL standards on district shapes and county breaks with this. Part one is here. They cover districts 1-5. Part two covers 6-9. Part three covers 10-14.

District 10 - Candice Miller will absolutely hate this map for good reason. She had a safe district. This one is a lot tougher and a swing district, but I think she's strong enough to win this without a huge battle, now that David Bonior's been gone for ten years. The current district is North Macomb and all of the thumb. It went 56.23% for Bush and 49.84% for McCain (won narrowly). The old 10th district went often GOP at top of the ticket, and Bonior (then pro-life) downticket. Bonior flipped on that issue as his price to get into dem leadership.

Dan's proposed 10th District

I split Macomb into east west. The bad news is Roseville, St Clair Shores, Clinton Twp, and Mt Clemens is now here. That's the price for an attempt on a 10-4 map. I removed Lapeer County, and replaced it with Tuscola. Northeast Macomb isn't as good as Northwest and it shows. The proposed district two party vote went 52.7% for the winner both times. This attempt at a 10-4 map is a 9-5-1 map if Miller steps down to run statewide. That's the gamble with splitting the blue sinks.

District 11 - McCotter's map is tough to work with without risking others. The current district is on borrowed time. I think McCotter's Livonia and Catholic Central High strength saves him. If he didn't have strong local strength, this district would have flipped. I really this current district for the next ten years though. It went 53.75% for Obama (34000 vote sink) at the top of the ticket and 51.97% for Bush (18000 vote spread). There's some big blue sinks here though in Westland, Wayne, Garden City, Van Buren, Part of Dearborn Heights, and Belleville. I removed all of them to either Dingell or Clarke except Redford which I had to keep due to space. I removed an automatic 12000-25000 vote sink. Redford's a big one and getting bigger, but I picked that poison instead of Westland because Glenn Anderson is a very strong democrat from there. Westland had to go, because Anderson would give McCotter a very difficult race. I had to give another blue sink in West Bloomfield. Thats a 5-9K vote sink, but still half of what he had before. I also gave him all of Waterford (swings) and the base areas Independence, Commerce, and Rose Twps from Oakland County from the Peters district. I also gave Salem Twp from Washtenaw County.

Dan's proposed 11th District

This one isn't easy, but Obama got 52.15% (16000 sink) of the two party vote and Bush 55.08% (37000 spread). It's much more friendly than the previous district.

District 12 - The current 12th, along with the 9th, I eliminated. It was Levin's Southeast Oakland/South Macomb district. The current 12th is a mix of Levin's district and Conyers West Detroit district, although it's more North/South. It's more like the old 14th district. It's a voting rights act district that is 56.5% black. The difference is that now with Detroit's population loss, it's likely that there will be two black districts, but this will be almost as much centered on the suburbs as Detroit.

Dan's proposed 12th District

The proposed 12th takes in Northern Detroit, Highland Park, The Grosse Pointes, and Harper Woods in Wayne County, along with the City of Southfield, Lathrup Village, Oak Park, Royal Oak City and Township, and the rest of Southeast Oakland County and a small part of Madison Heights. I removed Dearborn and the downriver portions.

District 13 - This was Kilpatrick's district, and now Hansen Clarke's. It is still a Voting Rights Act district, although this one is 52.1% black and 8.8% Hispanic. I removed most of downriver here too outside of Ecorse, River Rouge, Melvindale, and Northern Lincoln Park.

Dan's Proposed 13th District

This district is kept within Wayne County. I thought about picking off Eastpointe and part of South Warren in Macomb, but while I'm stretching the APOL standards here, I didn't want to completely disregard them on everything. I also wanted to make sure Dingell's district got to Ann Arbor, which means I needed as much as I could get from Wayne County here. I added all of Dearborn Heights, Westland and Garden City (So Glenn Anderson wouldn't challenge McCotter), Inkster, Wayne, and Romulus.

District 14 - This is similar to the current 15th District for John Dingell. It is intended to give him as much of a blue sink as possible to protect McCotter and Walberg. The current 15th has most of Eastern Washtenaw County, Monroe, and Southern Wayne County.

Dan's Proposed 14th District

The main thing here is that I replaced Monroe County with Scio Township, almost all of Downriver, and the rest of Dearborn. It's more of a blue sink than the previous map.

These districts aren't perfect because I can't get things down to the exact number with the software. My worst discrepency on these is 3000 votes over and 2000 votes under. What I did figure out is that a 10-4 map is possible. I'm probably going to try for the best 9-5 I can do next and compare it with this and see if I think the best strategy for the GOP is to go 10-4 or 9-5. I'm not sure yet. It's a tough go because it's tough to expand some of these districts in any direction without danger due to either a strong candidate on the dem side (Barcia or Anderson), or a big blue sink (Bay, Saginaw, Westland, Pontiac, Kalamazoo).

The question for the GOP is whether it is worth the risk of a 10-4 map like this (and the court fight) or whether it is better to take the 9-5 and try and shore up McCotter, Benishek, and Walberg.

Dan's 10-4 GOP Redistricting Map part 2 of 3

This is part 2 of 3 in my attempt at a 10-4 GOP redistricting map. I'll fully admit that I'm testing APOL standards on district shapes and county breaks with this. Part one is here. They cover districts 1-5. Information on the current districts can be found at the sidebars. These will cover 6-9. Part three covers 10-14.

District 6 - The incumbent is Fred Upton and I think his current district is very dangerous (thought so then). The trouble is that making him safe after a certain point hurts Tim Walberg in the 7th. His current district covers Kalamazoo, Van Buren, Berrien, Cass, St Joseph, part of Allegan, and a very small part of Calhoun. It went 52.84% for Bush and 54.09% for Obama. Obama won this district by almost 10%. Add the fact that you have a Chicago influence there, a college town in Kalamazoo, Jon Stryker's gazillions, a sizable minority population by non-Detroit area Michigan standards, and Obama on the ticket in 2012 tailor made for a district like this, and it needs to be watched, regardless of Fred Upton's local strength (right flank issues with conservatives, strong crossvotes).

Dan's proposed 6th District

Under the proposed map, I gave him all of Allegan County. That can help or hurt Upton. It would hurt him in a primary, but would help in the general. Northern Allegan is some of the most Republican area of the state. I took away St Joe County for Walberg, and carved up Calhoun County. I tried to finesse this so we didn't have a Howard Wolpe situation like the 80's. I think Allegan County prevents this. I wanted to split the four blue sinks in Calhoun County. Albion, Battle Creek, Springfield, and Bedford Township. Upton gets Albion and Bedford Township. Walberg gets Battle Creek and Springfield. Everyone talks about Battle Creek, but little Albion packs about as big of punch as Battle Creek. It's smaller, but much more democrat by percentage. Under the new proposed map, it's still rough. Obama takes 54.29 of the 2 party vote. Bush 53.83% of the two party vote. It was a 32000 vote Obama deficit under the old plan, and 25000 vote deficit under the new plan. It's a little better, but downticket is stronger here than the 7th.

District 7 - This district changed hands several times. Incumbent Nick Smith won in 02. RINO Joe Schwarz won in 04. Tim Walberg (not Wahlberg)  beat RINO Schwarz in 06 and won a close race. Mark Schauer rode the Obama wave in 08, and lost to Walberg again in 2010. The current district is Eaton, Calhoun, Jackson, Hillsdale, Branch, Lenawee, and part of Washtenaw County. This district needed to expand, and it's picking poison. I could expand to Clinton and Barry County, screwing up the Detroit area districts (McCotter especially). I could take a blue sink in Ann Arbor or Kalamazoo sacrificing this district.  Even taking Clinton County would be risky for Walberg because of state workers. Walberg actually does well in some swing areas, and ran ahead of McCain. Lenawee County is a swing county and voted for Walberg just as it voted for Clinton and Obama. I tried to finesse this district too. The current district went 51.75% Obama and 54.26% Bush. The proposed district had 55.20% of the two party vote for Bush and 51.54% of the two party vote to Obama.

Dan's proposed district 7

I added St Joseph County. Good for Walberg. I also added Monroe County. That was my poison picked. I dropped Eaton, and part of Calhoun. Eaton is more Republican than Monroe County up and down the ticket usually, but they do not like Walberg. That's why it went to Camp or Amash. Walberg's style is better in at least part of Monroe County, although neither would have been my first choice. The other part I dropped was subtle. Scio and Salem Township in Washtenaw County. I dropped Salem to McCottr strictly for population concerns. Scio Township had to go to Dingell. Scio Township alone is a 3000-4000 democrat vote spread that doesn't even need to be in this district. I couldn't find a way to get Battle Creek and Springfield out of the district, but I did remove Albion and Bedford Township. Some of the more republican areas in Calhoun were gone too though. This isn't safe for Walberg, but it is slightly better than the old district, even with Monroe County.

District 8 - This map is much better than it looks for Congressman Mike. As I was running the 08 numbers to this in Genesee and Oakland, (Livingston went in last) I was thinking I was going to have to scrap this and start over. When it was done, I was thinking that this isn't that bad. The map LOOKS bad from a GOP standpoint, but it's actually more republican at the top of the ticket than the current district. The current district was 53.65% for Bush (29000 vote cushion) and 52.53% Obama (25000 vote deficit). The proposed district is 50.75% Obama (5500 deficit) and 56% Bush. The current district has all of Clinton, Ingham, and Livingston Counties, along with part of North Oakland and 1/2 of Shiawassee County.

Dan's Proposed 8th District

What looks bad with this map is two things. Taking in a lot of the area in Genesee County, with a couple of blue sinks there. The other one is Pontiac and Auburn Hills. Pontiac had to go somewhere. If it wasn't going to a VRA district, nor to a safe Peters/Levin district (likely under a 9-5 plan), somebody tough has to take it on the chin. I took out Clinton County for Camp, and Shiawassee County as a bridge for Kildee with the blue sink in NW Ingham County. The Genesee County portion came from Kildee, and Lapeer County from Miller.

When you look at vote spreads, Lansing, Lansing Twp, East Lansing, and Meridian Township combine at the top of the ticket for a 27000-45000 vote deficit. Pontiac combines for 13-17000. The Genesee County portion actually voted for Bush in 04. It was a 6000 vote deficit in 08. That's not much different than Mike's portion of Ingham County, where he overperforms the ticket. Lapeer County is an insurance policy, because I didn't want to take more of the republican part of Oakland from McCotter or the proposed open district.

District 9 - Peters (targetted). The current 9th will be carved up. It's a swing district that somehow for reasons beyond my understanding, put Royal Oak, West Bloomfield, and Pontiac in the same district. I understand West Bloomfield due to Knollenberg's strength there. Pontiac was trouble, but better than Southfield. Royal Oak though? Why wasn't that in Levins instead? Give more of Sterling Heights to Miller instead. The current 9th went 50.31% (5500 vote spread) for Bush and 55.86% (48,000 vote sink) for Obama. The proposed 9th had Obama with 52.64% of the two party vote with a 20,000 vote sink and 53.41% of the two party vote for Bush with a 24,000 vote spread.

Dan's Proposed 9th District

The trouble with a 10-4 attempt is picking which poison. I split South Macomb, giving the South Oakland parts to Conyers. I counted all of Madison Heights (some with 12th) and none of Fraser (most with the 10th) so the numbers are slightly off, but probably close. Macomb has five major blue sinks, and two light to moderate blue sinks. The major ones are Warren, Center Line, Roseville, Mt Clemens, and Eastpointe. Then there's Clinton Twp (moderate) and St Clair Shores (light blue). If Warren was here, Clinton Twp, Mt Clemens, and Roseville could not be. I didn't like putting Eastpointe here, but it was here or Miller's district, which was already the toughest for an incumbent outside of maybe Upton.

The proposed district has Warren and Center Line, Sterling Heights, Shelby Twp, Bruce, Armada, Ray, and Washington Twps in Macomb County, along with Rochester/Troy, Bloomfield Hills and Twp, Clawson, Birmingham, and Southfield Twp (Franklin/Bingham Farms) in Oakland County. Interesting, I just heard that Marty Knollenberg wants a district to run in. He's from Troy. He could give Peters a good run with this one. No Pontiac, Royal Oak, Farmington Hills, or West Bloomfield. Warren and Eastpointe are tough, but nothing comes easy.

An attempt (by me) at a 10-4 GOP Redistricting Map (part 1 of 3)

I'm going to preface this with the following because the senate redistricting chair is my state senator. I didn't take this map to Joe Hune, nor did Joe run this by me. Joe never saw this map and has nothing to do with this map. This is strictly something I did.

The debate right now for the GOP is whether to play is "safe" with a 9-5 map or to go greedy and a 10-4. I'm undecided on what I think is best. Much of that has to do with the APOL standards regarding limiting the county and municipal breaks, as well as the shape of the district (they prefer squares to snakes). APOL applies to state districts, but there is question to what extend they apply to the federal districts. Part of the problem is that fed law trumps state law, and by fed law, there is no variation (one person max) among district population. That means there will be a lot more breaks. This map that I did stretchs APOL a bit. I took a few things in mind when I did this map. 2004 and 2008 numbers, voting rights act, strength of the candidates/likely candidates, and likelihood of us taking 10 of these seats, and avoiding what happened to Joe Knollenberg in 2008. I think this is a probable 10-4 map, and at worse 9-4-1 or 9-4-2 if someone retires. I used the Obama numbers as a near worse case scenario (McCain quitting the state, outorganized, wave election)

The tough part, from a GOP standpoint is what those who follow redistricting call the blue sinks. Democrat strongholds. In order to do a 9-4 map, I have to spread enough blue sinks around without it backfiring (as it did in Pennsylvania).

To save time, I didn't do 3rd party votes, so my percentages are off slightly. These are all approximations, since I can't do 1 vote difference with Dave's Redistricting software. Dave Gardow did a great job on this. I don't share his politics, but he has the best redistricting software I've seen out there.

District 1. Under the current district 1, Obama won it 49.99-48.11, and Bush won it 53.28-45.58. This one is a near 50/50 split as well. Obama won the two party vote 50.41-49.59 and Bush won it 55.34-44.66. It is currently held by Dr. Dan Benishek, who beat a strong opponent in Gary McDowell by 10 pts.

Dan's Proposed 1st District.

This district covers the entire UP. He also has in the lower peninsula Alcona, Alpena, Antrim, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Crawford, Emmet, Iosco, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, and Presque Isle.

Grand Traverse, Kalkaska and Roscommon would be new to this district. Grand Traverse County is republican, although Traverse City is a light blue sink. Kalkaska is strongly Republican. Roscommon County is a swing county which voted for Bush, Obama, Camp, and Sheltrown. I removed rural Bay County, Arenac County, and Gladwin County, which are all swing to slightly democrat areas.

District 2. The current District 2 went 59.99%-39.05% Bush and 50.74-47.61% McCain. This one has the two party vote going 50.65% McCain and 59.16% Bush so it is slightly less Republican. Bill Huizenga is a 1st term rep who won easily in the current district. Here's the map he'd have under this scenario.

Dan's proposed 2nd District

The old district covers Benzie, Lake, Manistee, Mason, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Ottawa, Wexford, a small part of Kent County, and part of Allegan County. Under this proposed map, Huizenga keeps Benzie, Lake, Manistee, Mason, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, and Ottawa. He removes Allegan, Wexford, and the Kent County Portion. He adds Leelanau, and part of Isabella County. (Sherman, Broomfield, Deerfield, and Union Townships, along with Mt Pleasant.) I wanted the 2nd district to pick up a blue sink, and I didn't want Camp to get too many because I had to finess that district a bit.

District 3. This was a tough one to peg. It's Gerry Ford county, went big for Bush and Ehlers, but Grand Rapids itself's been going blue in a big way, and Obama and Granholm did extremely well in West Michigan. The current district is most of Kent County, and all of Barry and Ionia Counties. The current rep is first termer Justin Amash who won an upset in a primary (by a big margin) and did better than expected against the democrat considering the RINO's backing him. The old 3rd was 59.09-39.93% Bush and 49.49%-48.81% McCain. The proposed district is about the same with 50.19% of the two party vote going to McCain and 59.59% of the two party vote going Bush.

Dan's proposed 3rd District

I originally wanted to sneak this down to Battle Creek, but even testing APOL, I didn't expect that to fly. I kept Barry and Kent Counties, and gave up Ionia. I tried to avoid splitting the municipalities. I tried to carve up Eaton County instead. I did not want to give Walberg any of Eaton County because he runs poorly there with the state workers who loved Joe Schwarz. Amash probably wouldn't do a lot better there, but he doesn't have Delta or the Lansing portion. It stops at Grand Ledge. Charlotte is the other tough part. Both of those areas are still very winnable for Republicans (Even Delta Twp went for Bush twice, although leans more democrat than the rest of the county outside of the portion of Lansing)

District 4 - This is a mess. I think Congressman Dave Camp will be very less than impressed with this map. I would be too if I was him and really don't like it that much myself. The trouble with even his current district who takes from who? Camp's district seems to get what's left without it being too democrat. The current district has Leelanau, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Missaukee, Roscommon, Osceola, Clare, Mecosta, Midland, Isabella, most of Saginaw County (outside urban Saginaw area), Gratiot, Montcalm, and 1/2 of Shiawassee County. The current district went 54.84%Bush and50.09% Obama. The proposed district has Obama with 50.23 and Bush with 55.88% of the 2-party vote. While the numbers are more favorable at the top of the ticket, I'm still nervous about this one.

Dan's proposed 4th district

The proposed district gives up Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, and Roscommon to Benishek. It gives up the Mt Pleasant area (Democrat, but he runs well there) to Huizenga. It takes Clinton from Rogers and gives up Shiawassee to Kildee. It also adds part of Eaton County. Most concerning to me is that it takes rural Bay County, Gladwin County, and Arenac County from Benishek. I couldn't risk Ogenaw, because then I set this up for Sheltrown. I couldn't give Bay City to Camp because of ex Congressman and state-senator Jim Barcia, a moderate who who is probably the best vote-getter among democrats in his area. Bay City had to stay with Kildee for that reason. Combining rural Bay and much of Saginaw County together is risky enough for a Barcia type to make a darkhorse run. The part of Eaton I gave to Camp was to protect Walberg. It leans democrat without some of the other rural areas, but most years, not overwhelmingly so outside of the small Lansing portion.

District 5 - This is a blue sink district currently held by Dale Kildee. It has all of Genesee County, along with Tuscola County, and the Bay City and Saginaw City areas. I kept a lot of it the same, but carved up Genessee County outside the Flint area, gave Shiawassee County as a bridge, and snuck down and took Lansing, East Lansing, and Meridian Township from Rogers. Williamstown Township was the bridge, and I am going to hear about that one. This district tests the APOL standards more than any other one. In order to get a 10-4 Map I'm somewhat less uncomfortable with, I had to do this.

Dan's proposed 5th District

I decided to have Rogers risk part of Genesee and rural Ingham instead of Lansing, East Lansing, and Meridian Township. He runs well there, but not so well that he couldn't be at risk. When you look at vote spreads, Lansing, Lansing Twp, East Lansing, and Meridian Township combine at the top of the ticket for a 27000-45000 vote deficit. Pontiac, my other option for Kildee combines for 13-17000. While Mike Rogers usually runs close in Ingham County overall, that's a 60% county at the top of the ticket. I had to move Kildee's district somewhere to pick up the population he needed, and the more blue areas to him the better for the rest of the GOP. I removed the swing areas and some light blue areas from(outside Flushing because of John Gleason if Kildee retires), and kept the stronger democrat areas (Clio and the Cherrys, Burton, Mt Morris) in his district. I removed Tuscola County as well.

I'm splitting this up in parts 1-3.

Census Observations Part II - Wayne County

This is a continuing series on the census numbers. Part I is here. This focuses on Wayne County.

Wayne County as a whole lost 240,578 people. Noticing trend here is this. Wayne County is shedding white people in a big way. There is some growth in the far downriver areas and near Northville/Canton towards Ann Arbor, but the inner-ring burbs near Detroit are shedding a lot of people.

Detroit (D) lost 237493. Lost 44,000 whites and 185K blacks. Was 10.5% White, 81.2% Black, 5% Hispanic. Now 7.8% White, 82.2% Black, 6.8% Hispanic. Only the Hispanic population grew. Detroit had white and black flight.

Dearborn (D) actually gained 378 people. 98,153 people. Middle Easterners are classified as whites for census purposes, so I'm not sure if there were big ethnic changes or not. If there was, it was mostly due to Middle Easterners, likely Muslims. A lot of the Middle Eastern Christians are now in Macomb County. There is black growth here as well, not as much as elsewhere bordering Detroit.

Highland Park (D) lost 4970 to 11,776. Across the board across racial lines.

Hamtramck (D) lost 553 to 22432. The loss was almost entirely among whites (Poles likely). The black and Asian (Bangladeshi or Pakistani mostly I believe) populations gained heavily. Was 60.4% white, 14.9% black, and 10.3 Asian, now 53% white, 19.1% black, and 21.4% Asian

Harper Woods (D) is going through a massive white flight. Dropped 18 people overall to 14,236. There was a loss of 5000 whites. It was 84.9% White, 10.2% Black, now 48.5% White, and 45.3% Black. I am surprised at how quick the change happened here. A lot of it was school flight.

Grosse Pointe Park (slight D) is going to be interesting in the next 10 years. Lost 888 people to 11,555. Lost of 1800 whites. It was 91.2 White, 2.9 black. Now 83% White, 10.5% Black. This is long been the most liberal of the Pointes. Will the whites there that love diversity live among it? The same thing is happening on a smaller scale among the other Pointes (Slight R) but not nearly on the same scale.

Redford (D) - Lost 3260 overall to 48,362. White flight has been going on here too for years, especially on the North end (and SE portion near Joy/Telegraph) near the Detroit and Southfield borders. Was 86.7% White, 8.5% Black, now 64.7% White and 28.7% Black. I thought the numbers would have changed more, but I'm more familiar with the northern part of Redford than southern part.

Livonia (slight R) lost 3603 - 96,342. Lost 7000 Whites. Was 94.1% White, 0.9% Black, and 1.9% Asian, 1.7% Hispanic, now 90.1% White, 3.4% Black, 2.5% Asian, 2.5% Hispanic. It is becoming diverse, or is the same thing going happen here as Redford?

Dearborn Heights (D) lost 494 - 57,774. Lost at least 4000 whites even if you consider Arabs white. Was 89.3% white, 2.1% black, 2.2% Asian, and 3.4% Hispanic. Now 83% White, 7.8% Black, 1.7% Asian, 4.7% Hispanic. I think a lot of the change here was in the area bordering Inkster and Parkland/far Warrendale portion of Detroit which massively changed after the City Workers left when the residency clause was outlawed.

Westland (D) lost 2.9%, down to 84,094. Lost 13,000 whites. Was 85.6% White, 6.7% Black, now 73.5% White, 17.1% Black. Same thing on much smaller scale in Garden City and Wayne. Westland borders Inkster to the Southeast.

Inkster (D) lost 15.8%, down to 25,369. More whites than blacks left, but it was across the board out migration.

River Rouge (D) lost 20.3%, down to 7903. Only Hispanics gain, but more whites than blacks left. Was 49.9% White, 41.8% Black, and 5% Hispanic. Now 49.8% Black, 34.8% White, and 11.2% Hispanic. Same thing happened in Ecorse. These northernmost downriver communities border Detroit.

Melvindale (D) - Lost 20 people, down to 10715. Lost 1600 whites. Was 81.7% White, 5.2% Black, 8.9 Hispanic, now 66.6% White, 10.8% Black, and 18.3% Hispanic. SW Detroit is expanding there.

Allen Park (Slight D) - Lost 4% to 28,210. Big growth among Hispanics here in Ford Country, part of which borders Detroit. Was 4.7% Hispanic, now 8.1% The black population doubled as well, but is only at 2.1% Whites dropped, but still higher percentage than nearby areas. Allen Park should be stable as long as Ford is.

Lincoln Park (D) - Dropped 4.7% to 38144. Lost 5500 whites. Was 89.2% White, 2% Black, 6.4% Hispanic, now 76.3% White, 5.7% Black, 14.9% Hispanic. Similar to Melvindale on a smaller scale.

Southgate (D) - Dropped 89 people to 30047. Lost 2000 whites. Was 90.9% white, 2.1% black, and 4% Hispanic. Now 84.5% White, 5.4% Black, 6.5% Hispanic.

Wyandotte (D) - Dropped 7.6% to 25883. Unlike Southgate, there wasn't much minority growth here outside of 500 Hispanics.

Trenton (Slight D) and Riverview (Slight D) didn't change much.

Southern Downriver gained, mostly among minorities.

Woodhaven (Slight D) gained 345 to 12875. Was 90.8% White, 2.3% Black, 3.5% Hispanic, now 85.2% White, 5.2% Black, and 5.5% Hispanic. Stable.

Gibralter (Slight D) gained 392 to 4656. Gains across the board among all ethnic groups.

Brownstown Township (D) had gains across the board, up 7638 to 30627. So did Huron Township (Swing) up 2142 to 15879, and Flat Rock (Slight D) up 1390 to 9878.

Rockwood (Slight D) dropped 153 to 3289. Few ethnic changes.

Towards the airport, Taylor (D) lost 2797 to 63,131. Lost 8,000 whites. Was 84% White, 8.7 Black and 3.2 Hispanic, now 74.4% White, 15.7% Black, and 5.1% Hispanic.

Romulus (D) went a dramatic change. It actually gained 1010 to 23989 people, but lost 3500 whites. It was 64.3% White, 29.8% Black, and now 49% White, 42.7% Black.

Sumpter Township (D) dropped 2307 to 9549. Losses were across the board here about equally.

Van Buren Township (D) gained 5262 to 28821. The white population actually dropped 1000. Was 81.2% White, 12% Black, now 63% White and 28.5% Black. This will be an area to watch. Van Buren Township is fairly rural. Belleville inside the township stayed about the same, although the minority increases were smaller than Van Buren Townnship.

Canton Township (Swings) - gained 13807 to 90173. One of the few areas where I'd actually consider integrated a bit instead of just percentages that look "diverse". Gains were across the board, smaller among whites than other ethnics. Blacks and Asians (Indians) were the big increase. Was 82.3 White, 4.5% Black, 8.7 Asian, now 70% White, 10.1% Black, 14.1% Asian.

Plymouth Township (R) - Dropped 274 to 27524. This one really surprised me compared to neighbors in Northville and Canton. Same percentages of whites and blacks left, although Asians and Hispanics gained. Few changes overall. Plymouth City (Swing) gained 110 to 9132. Few changes among ethnic lines here too.

Northville Township (R) - Gained 7461 to 28497. Big gains across the board, especially by Asians. The White and Black percentages dropped despite number increases. Was 88.1% White, 4.3% Black, and 4.2% Asian. Now 80.9% White, 3.6% Black, and 11.2% Asian.

As for political representation in Wayne County, there is currently parts of four congressional districts (Conyers, Clarke, Dingell, McCotter), 8 state senate districts (5 Detroit D, 1 Suburban D, 1D winnable for R's, 1 R winnable for D's), and 23 state rep districts (11 Detroit, 1 Detroit/Pointes lean D, 7 suburban D, 1 D winnable for R, 3 R winnable for D.) These were based on Wayne County's population of 2,061,162 and Michigan's population of 9,938,823. Wayne County's new population is 1,820,584. Michigan lost population overall to 9,883,640.

Population is 705,974 per Congressional District after losing one seat overall. Some articles state there is up to 5% variation. NOT true with CONGRESSIONAL districts. There can be with state districts. Population is 260095 (within 13004) per state senate district, and 89851 (within 4492) per state rep district. There is more limited municipal breaks with state/rep senate seats which means some reps here are in big trouble.

I'll get to Oakland County next.

Michigan census numbers in. Some observations.

Yesterday was the day was the big day with the official census numbers being released. I'm going to look at this more in depth as more data is shown.

The big news is that Detroit lost 230,000 residents over the past 10 years. It is down to 713,777, smaller than Indianapolis and Columbus, Ohio. This is a city that was once a world class city before the so called "progressives" ruined it from Jerry Cavanagh onward to Coleman Young and all those city council and school board members who kept getting re-elected time and time again. Detroiters made their decisions, and now have to decide if they want to make a comeback, or do the same old thing, blame everybody else, and vote 93% Democrat again and again. It's their choice. I just hope that 93% of the 230,000 who left Detroit don't bring their crappy voting habits with them and ruin the areas they move to. Detroit CAN come back, if Detroiters want to and put the effort needed to come back.

Swing State Project, a left wing blog actually does a real good job looking at the districts. Michigan lost a district, so most areas have to shed population. Some were big enough where they have to shrink. One of these districts will be eliminated, and it will be from the Southeast part of the state.

Benishek - MI-01 - 650,222 - needs to gain 55,752
Huizenga - MI-02 - 698,831 - needs to gain 7,143
Amash - MI-03 - 694,695 - needs to gain 11,279
Camp - MI-04 - 686,378 - needs to gain 19,596
Kildee - MI-05 - 635,129 - needs to gain 70,845
Upton - MI-06 - 671,883 - needs to gain 34,091
Walberg - MI-07 - 676,899 - needs to gain 29,075
Rogers - MI-08 - 707,572 - needs to shrink 1,598
Peters - MI-09 - 657,590 - needs to gain 48,384
Miller - MI-10 - 719,712 - needs to shrink 13,738
McCotter - MI-11 - 695,888 - needs to gain 10,086
Levin - MI-12 - 636,601 - needs to gain 69,373
Clarke - MI-13 - 519,570 - needs to gain 186,404
Conyers - MI-14 - 550,465 - needs to gain 155,509
Dingell - MI-15 - 682,205 - needs to gain 23,769

If Michigan is going to keep two federal voting rights act districts (black majority) which is likely to avoid a court challenge (and it helps Republicans in other districts), the loser will likely be Sander Levin. They are going to have to pick up suburban black votes, and the most likely places are Southfield, Oak Park, Lathrup Village, Royal Oak Township, and maybe Eastpointe and part of Warren these days. It won't be hard in Michigan. The "tipping point" is alive and well, and I believe the number in Michigan historically has been 20-25%. I'd argue it at 15% actually.

Whether the tipping point is good or bad depends on who you ask. What I think is this. Those (of whatever color) leaving Detroit, Highland Park, Inkster, etc have choices and decisions to make. They can do what brought harm to the old city, to make a change. Communities are struggling with that right now. Southfield awhile back had a big story of the clash between recent Detroit transplants and longtime residents (both who were black). As far as the flight goes, it is what it is. Is it racist? Some of it is, especially when it comes to school decisions. Is it bad? I'd say it's a case by case basis based on the individuals moving to town. If people are leaving because of hard working people who look different are moving to town and control their kids, bettering their way of life, then it is bad. Those are good neighbors like any other. The good part of "diversity" came to Howell. Some of the whites nearby were more trouble than the blacks and Hispanics. If people are leaving their areas because gangbangers are moving to town, then its a whole different matter. That's why I judge tipping points and white flight on a case by case business. Some areas I think it's due to the former, some the latter.

The counties that lost population are:
Alcona (Slight R) - Sunrise Coast -6.6%
Alger (Slight D) - UP -2.6%
Alpena (Slight D) - Sunrise Coast -5.4%
Arenac (Slight D) - Sunrise Coast - -8.0%
Bay (D) - Bay City -2.3%
Berrien (R) - SW MI -3.5%
Branch (R) - South Central MI -1.2%
Calhoun (Swing) - Battle Creek Area -1.3%
Charlevoix (R) - NW MI -0.5%
Cheboygan (R) - NE MI -1.0%
Chippewa (Slight R) - UP -0.1%
Clare (Swing) - North Central -1.1%
Crawford (R) - North Central -1.1%
Delta (Swing) - UP -3.8%
Dickinson (slight R) - UP - 4.8
Genesee (D) - Flint area -2.4%
Gladwin (Swing) - North Central -1.3%
Gogebic (D) - UP -5.5%
Huron (Slight R) - Thumb -8.2%
Iosco (Swing) - Sunrise Coast -5.3%
Iron (Slight D) - UP -10.0%
Keweenaw (Slight R) - UP -6.1%
Luce (Slight R) - UP -5.6%
Mackinac (Slight R) - UP -6.9%
Menominee (Swing) - UP -5.1%
Montmorency (R) - NE MI -5.3%
Oceana (Slight R) - West MI -1.1%
Ontonagon (Swing) - UP -13.3%
Oscoda (R) - NE MI -8.1%
Presque Isle (Swing) - NE MI -7.2%
Roscommon (Swing) - North Central -3.9%
Saginaw (D) - Saginaw area -4.7%
St Clair (Swing) - Thumb/Port Huron -0.7% (That surprises me)
St Joseph (R) - SW MI -1.8%
Sanilac (R) - Thumb -3.1%
Schoolcraft (Slight D) - UP -4.7%
Shiawassee (Swing) - Mid MI -1.5 (Surprises me)
Tuscola (Slight R) - Thumb -4.3%
Van Buren (Swing) - SW MI - 5 people
Wayne (D) - Detroit/Downriver -11.7%



The counties that gained population are:
Allegan (R) - West Michigan +5.5%
Antrim (R) - Northwest MI +2.1%
Baraga (Slight R) - UP +1.4%
Barry (R) - West MI +4.2%
Benzie (Slight R) - Northwest MI +9.6%
Cass (Slight R) - Southwest MI +2.4%
Clinton (Slight R) - Lansing Area +16.5%
Eaton (Swing) - Lansing Area +3.9%
Emmet (R) - NW MI +4.0%
Grand Traverse (R) - Traverse City area +12.0%
Gratiot (R) - Mid MI +0.4%
Hillsdale (R) - South Central +0.3%
Houghton (R) - UP - +1.7%
Ingham (D) - Lansing/East Lansing +0.5%
Ionia (R) - West MI +3.8%
Isabella (Swing) - Mt Pleasant +11.0%
Jackson (Slight R) - South Central +1.2%
Kalamazoo (Slight D) - SW MI +4.9%
Kalkaska (R) - NW MI +3.5%
Kent (R) - Grand Rapids area +4.9%
Lake (D) - NW MI +2.4%
Lapeer (R) - Thumb +0.4%
Leelanau (Slight R) - NW MI +2.8%
Lenawee (Slight R) - SE MI +0.9%
Livingston (R) - SE MI +15.3%
Macomb (Swing) - Detroit Area +6.7%
Manistee (Swing) - NW MI +1.0%
Marquette (D) - UP +3.8%
Mason (Slight R) - NW MI +1.5%
Mecosta (R) - NW MI +5.6%
Midland (R) - Midland area +1.0%
Missaukee (R) - North Central +2.6%
Monroe (Swing) - SE MI +4.2%
Montcalm (Slight R) - West MI +3.4%
Muskegon (D) - West MI +1.2%
Newaygo (R) - West MI +1.3%
Oakland (Swing) - Detroit area +0.7%
Ogemaw (Slight D) - NE MI +0.3%
Osceola (R) - North Central +1.4%
Otsego (R) - North Central +3.7%
Ottawa (R) - West MI +10.6%
Washtenaw (D) - Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti +6.8%
Wexford (R) - NW MI +7.4%

The population losers are the industrial centers first which are most democrat. The thumb, Sunrise Coast/SE MI, and the UP lost population. Whether that's considered losing or winning depends on who you ask up there. The big gangs are in Macomb County, Grand Rapids/Holland area, College Town areas, Livingston/Monroe Counties, and Northwest MI. Surprising to me was small gains in Lapeer and losses in St Clair and Shiawassee County.

Outside of Marquette area, Ann Arbor burbs, and Lansing burbs, more democrat areas lost population. Republican areas and swing areas mostly gained. Hopefully the newcomers don't bring what screwed up their old home to these areas, like what happened in Bath Township in 2008. That's always a concern. Like the doctor's first rule says, do no harm. If you're moving to an area that's a good place to live, the first thing to research is how it got that way.

With redistricting here, the big losers will be likely Wayne County, Sander Levin/Gary Peters, and possibly Benishek, Camp, and Kildee, although that's admittedly stretching it.

Wayne County loses on state rep/senate representation due to population loss. Simple as that. As for Levin and Peters, their problem is that they are white democrats, which are always a favorite target for two reason. 1. They are stronger statewide. 2. Voting Rights Act protects, especially on congressional levels, minority majority interests. Many Republicans outside the districts often like VRA districts because it packs a bunch of democrats in an area. If we're stuck with John Conyers no matter what we do, then let's help other reps that need it. I expect two VRA districts. Whether Conyers in Palmer Park and Clarke on Detroit's Eastside are combined into one remains to be seen, but I don't expect that. Personally, I'd rather go after Peters or Levin anyway.

Since Detroit's lost over 200K, there's not enough for two fully Detroit based districts anymore. Since Metro Detroit is still very segregated, VRA districts can still be enacted. I would not be surprised to see one district catch more of of the changing burbs to shore up McCotter's district (Redford, Westland, along with Inkster and most of Detroit) and the other taking in Southfield, Oak Park, and maybe even S Warren/Eastpointe and/or Pontiac.

As for Benishek, Kildee, and Camp, all have to expand some. Kildee, or less likely Beniskek/Camp will likely have to take some of the thumb from Miller. Benishek can probably secure himself with Grand Traverse County, but that costs Camp. Camp is in Midland. He can take some of the slight dems on the sunrise coast, but you have Bay County nearby as well. His district is right now safe for him, but it's more tenuous on paper. I wouldn't feel safe there. Another issue with Bay County is Jim Barcia. Barcia is a very popular former Congressman/State Senator with strong pro-2a credentials. His old district was much of the sunrise coast, thumb, and Bay/Saginaw Counties. I doubt Camp or Benishek would want to take him on. I expect for that reason that Bay County will stay with Kildee. Once I see possible maps updated, I'll see what can be done.

Michigan Redistricting 2011-2012 (and a close look at Center For Michigan/Argus claims)

The census numbers are starting to be released, and the big political impact will be with redistricting. There's three ways the borders can be drawn. I'll classify them as good, bad system with sometimes good bad and ugly results but with recourse, and bad with no recourse.

Bad - So called nonpartisan commissions. Nonpartisan does not, never did, and never will mean the same as nonbiased. Most people who follow the issue want nonbiased redistricting. There's a difference. Usually commission based redistricting results in incumbent protection. Don't rock the boat. Keep as many people happy as possible. These maps are usually the case when you have split control of the state government. The worst part about these so called nonpartisan commissioners is that there is no recourse for bad maps by these biased politicians. That's what commissions are made up of. Politicians. We can't vote the commissioners out for screwing us.

Good would leave this out of the hands of politicians as much as possible. The true fair system would be a map made up of as few municipal breaks as possible. That as many maps with that system, put them in random and may the best map win.

Bad with recourse is what we have now. We are Republicans were lucky, and we can't always count on that. We took the house, the state senate, and we're still unsure if we have the governor's mansion or not. I'm still not sold on Snyder. The current system is where the state legislature/governor draws the boundaries. It's the system in most states. Michigan has some guidelines in place by statute limiting municipal breaks and shapes of the district.

The talking heads always have a fit every 10 years, and the Argus recently had some comments. Joe Hune told the truth, and they didn't understand it with two editorials Feb 6th and 17th.

First, on the 6th.

Hune says not to worry. In a story our paper published Friday, he said there are guidelines to prevent partisanship from interfering with the results.

"There isn't that much room for politics and play and gerrymandering. The standards we have in place just don't allow that," Hune said.

And he said it with a straight face.

Joe Hune said it with a straight face, because he knows what we have, and he knows the laws. He told me the same thing he told the paper. If you want to see real gerrymanders, look at Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina, New York, and California. Gerrymander doesn't mean non competitive. Gerrymander means odd shaped districts. Michigan's system limits the major gerrymanders. There's still politics, but there isn't that much room. The 1970's and 80's maps were a lot more gerrymandered than the 90's, 2000's and the upcoming map.

Here's the standards from current statutes. This refers to the STATE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS only.

c) Senate and house of representatives districts shall be areas of convenient territory contiguous by land. Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous.

This limits how things can break. For example, I can't use corners to keep an extra Republican Northern Oakland County township out of a map connecting Genessee County and Pontiac.

(d) Senate and house of representatives districts shall have a population not exceeding 105% and not less than 95% of the ideal district size for the senate or the house of representatives unless and until the United States supreme court establishes a different range of allowable population divergence for state legislative districts.

This was due to a 1960's SCOTUS ruling.

(e) Senate and house of representatives district lines shall preserve county lines with the least cost to the principle of equality of population provided for in subdivision (d).

This is why you have the strange shaped district in Livingston County. That's to keep county lines mostly together. Milford will probably be out of the 66th next term.

(f) If it is necessary to break county lines to stay within the range of allowable population divergence provided for in subdivision (d), the fewest whole cities or whole townships necessary shall be shifted. Between 2 cities or townships, both of which will bring the districts into compliance with subdivisions (d) and (h), the city or township with the lesser population shall be shifted.


(g) Within those counties to which there is apportioned more than 1 senate district or house of representatives district, district lines shall be drawn on city and township lines with the least cost to the principle of equality of population between election districts consistent with the maximum preservation of city and township lines and without exceeding the range of allowable divergence provided for in subdivision (d).

(h) If it is necessary to break city or township lines to stay within the range of allowable divergence provided for in subdivision (d), the number of people necessary to achieve population equality shall be shifted between the 2 districts affected by the shift, except that in lieu of absolute equality the lines may be drawn along the closest street or comparable boundary.

Here's a big one.

(i) Within a city or township to which there is apportioned more than 1 senate district or house of representatives district, district lines shall be drawn to achieve the maximum compactness possible within a population range of 98% to 102% of absolute equality between districts within that city or township.

(j) 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.

There can't be too many of those long skinny districts. I also can't carve out Grand Rapids six ways to eliminate the two dem seats.

(k) 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:

(i) The city must be split to stay within the range of allowable divergence provided for in subdivision (d) and it is practicable to keep the township together within 1 district.

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

(iii) 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.

This is the case in Ann Arbor Township. Parts of it are surrounded by the city.

In addition to those rules, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 must be followed. So to all those who want Conyers to get redistricted out of a job, that's not going to happen. There will be two black majority seats.

The congressional guidelines are as follows:

(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.

It's one person, one vote. There's no 5% variation within districts. That's allowed with states, but not federal districts. That makes for more municipal breaks.

(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.

It's similar to the state rules. Joe Hune is binded by these guidelines with his proposals. When Joe says there's only so much that can be done, that's what he's referring to. There's also a current 26-12 Senate majority, 63-47 house majority, and 9-6 congressional majority. Joe's not going to risk what's there to get greedy in most cases, even if he wasn't binded by the statutory guidelines.

The papers yap again using former owner and Democrat official Phil Power and his left leaning think tank, The Center for Michigan's study. The Western Right Blog did a great job studying their report. It's worth a good read.

Their report is from very left-leaning reporter Susan Demas, and John Bebow. Bebow's another former reporter, although tougher to peg on the political spectrum without assumptions. Their report is here at the CFM's website.

Their main complaint is about non-competitive seats. Non competitive does not mean gerrymandered. If you look at the county maps from 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010, you'll find that there are a lot of republican areas, democrat areas, and ticket splitting areas. It would take a lot of gerrymandering to make a true competitive map every election. Why? Because most of the very strong democrat areas are clustered in a few areas. Geography, outside of wave elections, Michigan is a red state. It's slightly blue leaning overall because of Detroit, Southern Wayne County, Southern Macomb (and Mt Clemens) and Southern Oakland Counties (along with Pontiac), Genessee County, Saginaw (city), Bay County, Lansing/East Lansing/Okemos, Kalamazoo (city), Benton Harbor (although its county leans red), Muskegon, Grand Rapids (city), Marquette, and the Ann Arbor/Ypsi area. Take all those areas I mentioned away, and its about 57-43 GOP. Most of those areas I mentioned range from 58% Dem to 93% Dem. You can't draw competitive seats for 90% dem.

The Center for Michigan rates 16 swing house seats and 6 swing senate seats. That's way off because the House changed control twice, and the senate was closer than some thought in 2002 (Bob Emerson supported that map) and 2006. I had 34 house seats and 11 Senate Seats. That's enough to change party control, which happened twice in the house already in the decade. The Center for Michigan Complained about the state senate seats most heavily, calling it almost impossible to win. I'll get to that later, when we go district by district.

They said that 30% of the districts can be made competitive without a problem. I'd say we have that now in the house, actually. 34 out of 110, 11 out of 38 (about 24% in senate). That's especially if you look at top of the ticket numbers. That's even if you count Obama's results as an aberration due to McCain and Bush fatigue. Going by memory, I believe 15 house seats and 7 or 8 senate seats were held by the opposite party for President. I was real surprised by that.

Unfortunately, my color blindness has me trouble differentiating between some blues and purples, so I'll try and get this as best as I can in their classifications.

The CFM uses as safe classification is a seat not actually changing parties. It also has a spot where "normally safe" changes party. That's where my biggest bone of contention is. Some seats that don't change party are very competitive, or competitive outside of a damn good candidate. That's still the best way to win a race. The CFM ignores candidate quality, incumbency advantage, top of the ticket results, and close wins. That's the problem with this report.

CFM's classification. I put in bold my disagreements.
Swing:
D1 - Bledsoe - Swings, although I'd almost count this as leans Dem nowadays. Grosse Pointes are moving left some, and more and more of that district is Detroit.
D20/21 - Far West Wayne County. D20 was won by the democrats due to RINO/now dem John Stewart (who later claimed to always vote dem for president) and a split party. Marc Corriveau held the seat for three terms. Kurt Heise took the seat back in 2010. D21 is top of the ticket lean dem, more competitive on state level. Patterson and LaJoy had it for the GOP with some tough wins. Dian Slavens took the spot in 2008 thanks to demographic changes. Canton is a swing area. Van Buren and Belleville is rapidly going solid blue, and made the difference. It was close in 2008 and 2010.

D39 - Brown - Swings. Most of West Bloomfield and Commerce Township. West Bloomfield is strongly democrat. Commerce leans republican. That one is close every election. Dave Law and Marc Shulman won it for the GOP and Lisa Brown for the dems.

D52 - Ouimet - Swings. Good candidates makes this otherwise democrat seat competitive. The GOP won it twice. 2002 and 2010. Between that was Pam Byrnes. In 02, Gene DeRossett was an incumbent with a lot of union support. In 2010, Ouimet had strength most republicans don't have in Scio Township. It only swings due to good candidates.

D55 - Olson - Swings. This district has slightly Republican leaning Western Monroe County, and southern Washtenaw County. Pittsfield Twp is the base for the dems. The GOP has some base in Bedford Twp in Monroe County. Matt Milosch and Rick Olson won for the GOP. Kathy Angerer won for the dems.

D56 - Zorn - Swings. Monroe County. Kate Ebli and Herb Kehrl won for the dems. Zorn and Richardville for the GOP. This district doesn't have Pittsfield Twp, but it's part of Monroe County is more democrat than the part in the 55th.

D62 - Segal - Swings. Battle Creek, Albion. I'd like to see who takes this after Kate Segal. This district had a Republican I can't remember, Mark Schauer, Mike Nofs, and now Segal. On paper, this seat leans democrat, but there's been a lot of tough battles here for years.

D64/65 - Jackson County. This is about as Republican as the 62nd is Democrat. On paper, it leans. Candidate quality makes the difference here, which is why I agree with CfM on these two being swing districts.

D75 - Grand Rapids - I really thought this seat could have been drawn better. It was democrat in the 70's, later GOP, and started going democrat again from 2004 (06 at state rep level) onwards. The dems held on by 600 votes in 2010. I'd classify it as lean dem right now, but there can be an argument for this still being a swing seat with the right candidate.

D83 - Sanilac and Port Huron - I'd almost consider this lean GOP, not swing unless you got a great candidate. It was a seat that John Espinoza could win for the dems. Everything aligned right for Espinoza in 04. Port Huron itself could make the seat a little competitive at times, so I wouldn't call it safe.

D84 - Thumb. This was Mike Green and Tom Kern's seat before Terry Brown surprised the GOP. The thumb is populist independent and really marches to its own drum, so I can't dispute this being classified as a swing district. Brown almost survived 2010.

D91 - Most of Muskegon County - Can't disagree with that. Always competitive.

D101 - Lake Michigan Coast - Went GOP, then for Dan Scripps, back to GOP. Was close in 2006 and 2010 as well. Keep an eye on that in 2010 with the Chicago influence.

D107 - Eastern UP and Northernmost Lower Penninsula. Listed as a swing district, and I'd agree. It's class North Michigan style of swing district. It votes GOP at the top of the ticket, but competitive further down. For state rep it went Gagliardi, Shackleton, McDowell, Foster. 2 dems, 2 GOP.

Safe:
D2-12 - Dem Detroit
D13-14 - Dem Downriver (although 13 was close in 2010)
D16-18 - Dem, Wayne County (although 17 was close in 2002 - it's gone now with demographic changes)

D19 - Rep - Livonia. Apologies to John Walsh, but I'd consider this a lean more than a safe seat. It didn't change hands, but almost always under 54% win at the top of the ticket, and it was competitive at least twice. This has been safe recently, because John Walsh is a good candidate. With the housing crunch (houses under 40K in East Livonia, keep an eye on it.

D22 - Dem - Taylor/Romulus

D25 - Dem - North Warren/S Sterling Heights. I'd say leans more than safe. Jennifer Faunce won a similar seat in the 90's for the GOP, but it's been Bieda and Switalski since. How much of that was due to the Switalski last name I'm not sure. Advantage dems, but it's been close a couple of times. I think the GOP was expected to win this in 02.

D26 - Dem - Madison Heights and Royal Oak. It's been close twice, but I'd have to agree with CfM here. Royal Oak is too far gone.

D27/28/29 - Southeast Oakland (Ferndale/Huntington Woods), South Warren, and Pontiac.

D30 - Utica, North Sterling Heights - Disagree with this. Pundits called this one gone early in the year for the GOP. It's been held by the Roccas (GOP, one was party switcher) for years, and Jeff Farrington won it this year. It's competitive at the top of the ticket, and has been at times downticket as well. It may lean GOP slightly, but it's not a safe seat by any stretch of the imagination.

D31 - Dem - Mt Clemens, Fraser, part of Clinton Township. I disagree with this for the same reason I disagree with D30. It's lean democrat, but competitive.

D33 - Rep. Macomb, Ray, part of Clinton Twp.

D34/D35 - Dem - Flint and Southfield.

D36 - Rep - NW Macomb.

D37 - Dem - Farmington/Farmington Hills - It was Rocky's district as recently as 2000-2002, but I'll have to see it to believe it can be won again. Even in 10, it was an 8K vote victory.

D38 - Rep - SW Oakland (Novi/South Lyon)

D40-41 - Rep - Birmingham/Bloomfield based district and Troy based district. The dems have talked about going after both those seats in the past, but I'd put this in the same category as the Royal Oak seat.

D42 - Dem - Eastpointe and Roseville.

D43 - Rep - Waterford - Dems went after this seat big twice and made it close. I can't call Waterford safe. Dems have won local offices there in the past.

D44-47 - Rep - 44-46 all in North Oakland, 47 in Livingston County.

D48-50 - Dem - Genesee County. 48 West, 49 South Flint, 50 East. 50 was real close in 2010.

D51 - Rep - Fenton, Linden, and Grand Blanc. I strongly disagree with this one. Dave Robertson had the seat. Pat Lockwood replaced him. In the current configuration, Robertson beat Lockwood by about 1%. He also had a tough race in 06. Paul Scott had a tough race in 08. This is a very competitive seat. I'd call it a swing district, or at best slight lean.

D53/54 - Dem - Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti based districts.

D58-59 - GOP - South Central Michigan districts.

D60 - Dem - Kalamazoo City

D61 - GOP - Portage, Texas Twp, part of Kalamazoo County - This district has been very close at least twice, if not three times. Slight lean GOP maybe, but it's not safe.

D63 - REP - Parts of Kalamazoo and Calhoun County.

D66 - REP - Livingston County

D67 - DEM - Rural Ingham County, Holt, Mason, part of Lansing. The only reason someone can call this safe democrat is because of the name Byrum. This is a 50/50 swing district otherwise. I don't think even the Byrums would call this a swing district. Their campaign wasn't working the polls like it was a safe district.

D68/69 - DEM - Lansing and East Lansing/Meridian Township

D70 - Rep - part of Ionia and Montcalm Counties - Here CfM even ignored their own rule on party changes. Mike Huckleberry won this seat for them in 2008. I'd consider this a lean republican seat, but it switched parties. Huckleberry was a strong candidate as a challenger, but that's part of candidate recruitment.

D71 - rep - Eaton County. The GOP has won state rep seats for years, but it's a paper tiger in away. Eaton County voted for Bush twice, Granholm twice, Obama, Schauer, and Snyder. County commission seats here have flipped a few times. Demographics of Lansing makes this tough sledding. Socially conservative leaning, but there's a lot of government workers. I can't call this seat safe for the GOP. Tabor, Jones, and Shaughnessy run ahead of the ticket.

D72-74 - GOP - Suburban Kent (and 74 - Kent/Ottawa) County.

D76 - Dem - Grand Rapids.

D77-82 - Gop - West Michigan and Lapeer County (82). - I hesitate to call the 78th safe based on a couple of recent races, or even the 80th (on paper). A similar district to the 81st used to be competitive in the 90's. Those are about as safe as the Royal Oak district is for the dems through.

D85 - GOP - Shiawassee County and part of Clinton County. Safe GOP? No way. Democrats had this seat for well over 20 years until Larry Julian won in a then big upset. The GOP held on, but it hasn't been easy. Shiawassee County (voted for Clinton, Bush, Obama) has moved slowly to the right, but the part of Clinton County in this district has rapidly moved to the democrats. Bath Township is now East Lansing North. This is a swing district.

D86-90 - GOP - West Michigan

D92 - Dem - Muskegon

D93 - GOP - Clinton and Gratiot Counties. - I'd still keep it as a safe county, but I'll keep an eye on it.

D94 - GOP - Rural Saginaw County - Historically conservative democrat until about 15 years ago. I hesitate to call it safe, but it really hasn't been closely lately.

D95 - DEM - Saginaw City.

D96 - Dem - Bay City - Close in 2010. I think it was an aberration.

D98 - GOP - Midland

D99 - GOP - Isabella County. I can't call a state rep district with CMU aka Mt Pleasant safe for the GOP. There's been many close elections there over the years. It's gone dem at the top of the ticket too. I'd consider it a swing district, with slight GOP leanings, if any.

D100 - GOP - Lake, Newaygo, Ocenah Counties

D102 - GOP - Newaygo, Wexford, Osceola Counties

D104-105 - GOP - North Michigan

D109 - Dem - Marquette

D110 - Dem - Westernmost UP. Safe democrat? Matt Huuki may have something to say about that. He's the current rep and is not a democrat. The 110th is a competitive district that normally leans democrat downticket, but it was close in the past, and was like the Alpena close but no cigar race. It may go back to the dems, but it's not a safe district.


Other:
D15 - Dearborn, considered normally safe for dems. I'd agree with that.

D23 - Far Downriver. They call this a democrat district. It's been real close at least twice, maybe three times under a previous incarnation in the 90's. It's close at the top of the ticket as well. This a is a swing district that I previously always called a close but no cigar district. I strongly disagree with the analysis of CFM here (and the 24th). Pat Somerville finally won it, beating incumbent Deb Kennedy.

D24 - St Clair Shores/Harrison Twp in Macomb County. They call this a GOP district and not a swing district. I strongly disagree. Jack Brandenburg won it, but other than that it's been democrat. It's close at the top of the ticket every election. St Clair Shores leans slightly democrat, with Harrison Twp leaning republican. Before Brandenburg, it was democrat Bill Callahan. After him, it was democrat Sarah Roberts. With the incumbent Roberts defeated, GOP Anthony Forlini won.

D32 - North Macomb/South St Clair County - I think an argument can be made either way. It's been GOP since its inception, outside of 2008. On the same note, the GOP lost it in 2008. I'd need to look at this one in depth more to make a call one way or the other. Lean GOP and competitive at best, but not sure I'd call it a true swing district or an 08 abberation.

D57 - Lenawaee County. If you count this district as "other" and not a swing district, you better do the same with the 52nd. This district is about as republican as the 52nd is democrat on paper. Tim Walberg held this district for either 16 or 18 years until term limits. The Spades had it for 12 years. It's close at the top of the ticket. Nancy Jenkins won by a good margin for an open seat, but it was a competitive race.

D97 - - Clare, Gladwin, Arenac, part of Bay Counties - They call this safe dem aberration, but it's switched parties before, and all four of those areas will vote person more than party. This is a swing county and actually went GOP more then Dem for reps.

D103 - Missaukee, Iosco, Roscommon, Ogemaw Counties. They consider this GOP aberration (due to 12 years of Sheltrown, and Tom Alley before him). This is a North Michigan or thumb style of swing district. It votes GOP for federal candidates, usually. It does not necessarily vote GOP locally. There's a strong populist labor pocket here with retired UAW along with Corrections workers. Roscommon, Ogemaw, and Iosco voted for Gore. Missaukee is the 2nd more GOP county in the state, but it's smaller. This is a swing district.

D106 - Northeast Michigan. Alpena based district they have as dem aberration. I disagree with that one. It's a swing district that has been a classic close but no cigar for years with the GOP. 2010 was the year it flipped, but it's usually competitive when open.

D108 - - Central UP, listed as safe GOP with dem aberration with Judy Nerat. I have to disagree. It was democrat before Casperson, Bart Stupak's home, went back to the dems (expectedly so) in 08, and flipped in 2010. Swing district.

--------------------
Senate

Safe:
D1-5 - Dem - Wayne County, mostly Detroit.
D7 - GOP - Western and Southernmost Wayne County. This is only "safe GOP" because the democrats blundered their asses off campaign time. It's a swing area at the top of the ticket between Van Buren, Belleville, and parts of Downriver like Brownstown Twp tilting democrat. Canton isn't a GOP stronghold anymore either.
D8-9 - Dem - Downriver, South Macomb

D11-12 - GOP - North Macomb, North Oakland

D13 - GOP - Central Oakland. Any district with Royal Oak, Berkley, and Madison Heights is not safe GOP. The GOP won this in 2006 by 800 votes and less than 50%. This is a swing district.

D14 - Dem - Southeast Oakland

D15-16 - GOP - SW Oakland, South Central Michigan

D17 - GOP - Monroe County, part of Jackson and Washtenaw - It's safe for Randy Richardville and Bev Hammerstrom, but that's due to the candidates. On paper, it's a swing district, and once it's opened up, a pro-gun democrat could win it. A Mike Simpson type could win this.

D18 - Dem - Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti

D20 - GOP - Kalamazoo County and small part of Van Buren - District voted for John Kerry and Obama. Tom George had close wins. This is a swing district, not safe.

D21-22 - GOP - SW Michigan and Livingston/Shiawassee (and Mason/Stockbridge area in Ingham) Counties.

D23 - Dem - Lansing/East Lansing/Okemos

D24-25 - GOP - Allegan/Barry/Eaton and Lapeer/St Clair

D27 - Dem - West Genesee and Flint.

D28 - GOP - Kent County

D29 - GOP - Grand Rapids/Kentwood - That's been a close race three times in a row. At the top of the ticket it's dem. Downticket more competitive.

D30 - GOP - Ottawa County

D32 - GOP - Saginaw and Gratiot County - Even weak democrat candidates keep this race close, and strong ones make this district down to the wire. The GOP wins here solely due to candidates, because on paper this is a democrat leaning state. It's not safe for the GOP, that's for sure. All of Saginaw county is here, including the city which is 3-1 democrat.

D33 - GOP - Clinton, Montcalm, Isabella, Ionia Counties - They consider it safe, but I'm hesitant to call it that. It's more safe with Huckleberry losing re-election.

D34 - GOP - Muskegon, Oceana, Newaygo, Mason - Like the 32nd, this is due to candidates. Gerald Van Woerkem and Goeff Hansen ran good campaigns since this is a swing district that leans slightly democrat at the top of the ticket. It's not safe GOP. Muskegon and Muskegon Heights make sure of that.

D35 - GOP - Northwest/Central Michigan

D36 - GOP - Northeast MI and Midland - It might now be almost safe after the 2010 shellacking the democrats took up North, but I need to see it before I believe it when it comes to this district being safe instead of the classic North Michigan swing district of GOP national, Dem state. Andy Neumann gave it a good run in 2002 and the dems passed in 06. Neumann lost in the wave in 2010. I think Gillard or Dale/Joel Sheltrown can make this a fight in 2012. I'll buy this being lean GOP now, but not safe. Too many ornery ticket-splitters.

D37 - GOP - Northwest Michigan and Eastern UP.

Swing:
D6 - Westland/Livonia based. Laura Toy won it for the GOP in 2002. Glenn Anderson, a very strong democrat, took the seat in 06 and held it in 2010. Livonia leans slightly GOP. Garden City, Westland, and Redford do it. I think demographic changes in Westland and Redford are going to make this seat solidly democrat soon.

D19 - Calhoun and most of Jackson County - Went for RINO Joe Schwarz, Democrat Mark Schauer, and Republican Mike Nofs. About a 50/50 district on paper.


Other:
D10 - Central Macomb (Sterling Heights, Roseville, Clinton Twp) - Normally democrat, but Tory Rocca took the seat. The seat is competitive but leans dem on paper, but Rocca won big.

D26 - East Genesee and North Oakland Considered a Dem seat with GOP aberration, but that's only because of the Cherrys. I ran the numbers on this way back in 2002 and was shocked at how close it was. This one snuck up on the pundits. Dave Robertson saw it and was the right candidate for the seat. It's a swing district.

D31 - Thumb and Bay County - This one is considered democrat with a GOP aberration win, but it's actually a swing district. Jim Barcia was just that popular in the district for the democrats. Mike Green is a strong candidate for the GOP (against all but Barcia) and won big in 2010 against one of the two best the Dems had.

D38 - Western/Central UP. They consider this a democrat seat with Casperson being an aberration. Until 2010, I didn't disagree with that. I figured Casperson was the only chance at this longtime democrat district, but was going to be surprised if he beat someone like Lahti from the westernmost part of the district. I was wrong. It wasn't even close, and that's why I'd consider it a swing district. I'd feel more comfortable about the district if it had Chippewa County added to it, but Casperson won by 10000 votes against a good opponent.

--------------------------------