US House Redistricting: Michigan

[Torie]

Below is the map to draw I think, with the dark blue in Washtenaw, the olive green in Westland, and the magenta in the northeast corner of Oakland depicting the two options. The Pubbie numbers in MI-09 and MI-11 should be pretty close, both with Pubbie PVI's of above 6% I suspect.  But we shall have to tote up the partisan numbers to be sure. The issue is what to do with the 28,000 in excess population for the quin county Detroit metro area, after MI-08, MI-09, MI-11, MI-13 and MI-14 hit their required population numbers.

Ideally,  if MI-07 or MI-10 have clean county lines everywhere else, the excess population could go to MI-10 in the quin county area; MI-10 will have to wander around into strange places in Genesee, Saginaw and Bay Counties plus the thumb to get to its population numbers, and could probably use a slug of Pubbies, and that is what it would get out of Oakland. This approach would also avoid MI-7 having to pick up about 28,000 folks in Dem precincts in Washtenaw (not massively Dem, but probably 60-40 Obama stuff). Notice just how close we came to disaster in Washtenaw with MI-07. If MI-07 had to pick up but two more precincts, than it would have had to drop Pittsfield Township, and cut into Ann Arbor itself, and the gerrymander would be massively degraded! Ouch!  But we just avoided that, with one precinct to spare.

Anyway, the alternative of helping out MI-07 and MI-10 a bit would result in MI-11 taking in more Dem precincts in Westland, but MI-11 is plenty Pubbie as it is, and can easily absorb them without its PVI heading down to an undesirable number.  It's only Dem area is Westland really (and MI-11 under either version can shed Westland's most Dem precincts to MI-08 in any event), with Garden City modestly Dem, along with Farmington City, and that is about it. The balance is just a sea of Pubbies. So if we can get away with it legally, it should and will be done. If not, it will not. It is that simple.

However, MI-07 will probably have to be part of the Ingham County chop, and if so, that MI-10 magenta chop into Oakland may be too legally dangerous if it creates another county split within the state that could otherwise be avoided. But if we can jiggle things elsewhere in creative and Machiavellian ways (due to MI-10 or MI-07 having clean lines elsewhere for example), this would be a better Gerrymander with a view to helping out MI-07 and MI-10, but if - and only if, we can make it legally copacetic to do it. And just who is more suited to do this task, than moi, I ask you? Who? 

In all events, we certainly do not want to take the 28,000 in excess population out of northern Macomb, making it more Dem. That would be way beyond the Pubbie pale. No!  Just no!

[Torie]

Ok, new question. Will Michigan Republicans pair Mike Rogers (Howell) and Thad McCotter (Livonia) in one district in order to create a new Pubbie district in outer Oakland?

The Pubbies will have to, in order to avoid the risk of a successful legal challenge that the Pubbie Gerrymander created an unnecessary county split. That risk just cannot be run. Rogers will have to move to Oakland County. Period. Game over. This puppy is just not subject to debate - at all!

[Torie]

The Pubbies will have to, in order to avoid the risk of a successful legal challenge that the Pubbie Gerrymander created an unnecessary county split. That risk just cannot be run. Rogers will have to move to Oakland County. Period. Game over. This puppy is just not subject to debate - at all!

Rogers was a state senator for many years and a majority floor leader (per Wikipedia.) What happens if he tells the legislature that he's not moving, especially if some ambitious Republican from Oakland decides the seat has his name on it? Is there no other way to preserve McCotter (using Oakland), Rogers (using Ingham and points west), and Miller (using 7/8 of Macomb) following Michigan's legal rules? The legislature probably wouldn't care if Walberg was screwed over in the process.

Is this not subject to debate because it's McCotter's only fighting chance to stay in Congress?

Well McCotter and Rogers can chat about it, but McCotter is really tied to his slug of Wayne. No, the Pubbies are not going to lose a seat because Rogers or McCotter will not move. In fact, I am not sure screwing over Walberg would solve the legal problem.

Brittain33, you seem so intent in feeding to the wolves my Pubbie Congresspersons that I work so hard to protect (or in Michigan, quite arguably since Wayne helped us by dropping 170,000 more people, to hatch a brand new Pubbie Congresscritter). It is not going to happen. The Pubbies are going for the max - each and every seat in reach will be Pubbified. Deal with it. The Dems are just not going to control both the presidency and Congress again in the next ten years. We tried that once in recent times, and once is enough! 

[Torie]

Brittain33, you seem so intent in feeding to the wolves my Pubbie Congresspersons that I work so hard to protect (or in Michigan, quite arguably since Wayne helped us by dropping 170,000 more people, to hatch a brand new Pubbie Congresscritter). It is not going to happen. The Pubbies are going for the max - each and every seat in reach will be Pubbified. Deal with it. The Dems are just not going to control both the presidency and Congress again in the next ten years. We tried that once in recent times, and once is enough!  

I genuinely don't understand where your confidence in this outcome comes from--but I do love seeing your maps and talking about possibilities. Some legislature's going to have to come out with a map soon to shut me up!

Clearly!

[Torie]

Thanks--that map answers my question and is what the Republicans almost certainly will do, assuming it's legal on counties and such.

@Mr. X, I'm guessing that if they decide to give a Pubbie some more marginal territory, Walberg will be the odd man out.

We need to make some kind of bet, because I assure you, the Pubbies will do nothing remotely like the Verily plan. What shall it be? 

[Torie]

His maps are not what he wants but what he thinks the drawers want. Notice how he is drawing CA to comply with the guidelines and not to apply any partisan influences in his drawing of it.

Oh I see.  Has he tried his hand at any of the (admittedly few) Democratic gerrymander opportunities like Illinois?  Although I guess there intra-(Democratic) party factional and incumbent-protection (in Democratic primaries) considerations might prevent what would otherwise be the best plan for them.

Illinois will be next, after I get my maps for WI, MI, OH, IN and PA all nicely wrapped with supporting data to the Pubbie influence peddlers in each state. I intend to make a difference; I mean that, and will devote a lot of energy to the task - like a white hot laser beam.  And then I will gut Pubbies in Illinois just as brutally as I gut Dems in my little Great Lakes/PA zone, which I know well, and love so much. And I know Illinois well as part of that package. I went to college and business school in Chicago, and is my want, explored each and every corner of the city; no hood was "too dangerous" for a Tore visitation - none. But no, I won't push my Illinois map on the Dems in Illinois. I will leave that to the "usual suspects" on this very forum.

Cheers.

[Torie]

Here are the numbers for the newly drawn MI-12. At 1.6% GOP PVI, MI-12 slips into the "lean GOP" category (which is from 1.5% to 3.0% in GOP PVI). More later, including this adjusted incumbent PVI thingy in the event it is a Miller versus Levin race in 2012.

Getting the most efficient chop of Warren took about two hours, as I played "let's make a deal," where I exchanged precincts between MI-13 and MI-12 (sometimes the exchange deals were package ones, where I had to take or leave two or three precincts at once, and then I totaled the numbers for the package, to see if I was gaining any McCain basis points for the precincts packages available for exchange), until the last exchange deal was consummated that generated any Pubbie basis point profit. (I had the precinct on a spreadsheet ranked by McCain percentages, to speed up the pace of the game, but it still took awhile, as I had to hunt with my mouse to see just where the precincts subject to profitable exchange were located, and whether they were within reach of inclusion or excisement, as the case might have been.) Playing the game for that long gained about 30 basis points or so in Pubbie PVI.  In this PVI range, every basis point has meaning, each and every one, so the game is not over until it's over.  

[Torie]

Wouldn't MI-13 have to add that last precinct of Grosse Pointe Shores in Macomb County, due to the "minimize township splits" provision of the statute?  

I think it could go either way, but come to think of it, I think it is a good idea to absorb the one town that crosses over into Macomb in to MI12, and in exchange, MI-13 could take a few more Dem precincts in Warren. Doing that much anyway, should be legally safe. That might generate a few basis points. I will try it.

Wait a minute. Gross Pointe Shores does not cross over. The lines on the Bradlee software imply that it does, but the city is wholly within Wayne, and that precinct that looks like it is Macomb, is Lake Township. So no, there is no cross over.

[Torie]

The solution that suggests itself, in getting Rogers to move: Make the district both he and McCotter are in losable (but not too losable, obviously - you want to actually hold it). Make the new district that includes a lot of his old territory, but not his home, and no incumbent whatsoever, unlosable. in other words, give him an incentive to move. He's much too influential to just be forced out by McCotter.

Rogers already had a sizable chunk of Oakland. Geography and Michigan law limits how the pawns can be moved around, particularly with that wall that MI-14 generates via its trip to Pontiac.

[Torie]

None of the maps above are legal. Sorry.

[Torie]

OK, after further review my map is not legal; the cycle of the Kildee/Rogers/Dingell/McCotter/bronze districts, each edge of which splits a county, could be rotated in some fashion (since none are VRA protected) so as to eliminate one county split.  Nuts.  

But I think some of Torie's assumptions are incorrect as well.  First off, since the statute's secondary guidelines say that avoiding county splits takes precedence over city/town splits, there is no "nose under the tent" argument - you can't create a county split in order to avoid a town split.  So you can't sneak a Macomb district into the Pointes just for that reason.  

More importantly, I think that you can't argue that the VRA districts demand a double crossing of the Oakland-Wayne border.  Yes, if one of the districts contains the Pointes, then the other district must go into Oakland; this is (probably) true.  But that just argues for using that district to be the sole population equalizer.  For instance, you could have 1 black district (including Pointes) plus one white district entirely within Wayne, use the 2nd black district to split the Oakland Wayne border, put one more district entirely within Oakland, and then go from there.  Unless there's a fortuitous way to somehow avoid yet one more county split by doing the double crossing, I think you have to avoid it.  

Where is the text about county lines taking precedence in the statute?  [Oh, I see, breaking as few county lines as possible is a higher priority. I think you may be right. In any event, I would only break into Wayne to take the two precincts in Gross Pointe Shores on the grounds of avoiding a town split. That might be deemed reasonable. But it is not worth litigating.]

Are you saying Dingell's white CD in Wayne needs to take over McCotter's MI-11 territory in Wayne?  If so, where does MI-11 get its population back?  Won't it have to split another county?

[Torie]

Are you saying Dingell's white CD in Wayne needs to take over McCotter's MI-11 territory in Wayne?  If so, where does MI-11 get its population back?  Won't it have to split another county?

Count your county splits.  You've got 4 districts hence 3 splits in Wayne, 2 splits in Oakland, 1 in Macomb, 1 in Washtenaw already, and 6 districts down.  Each new district you add will add another split (eg, the district that takes the rest of Washtenaw will likely terminate in a partial county somewhere) except for the last one. So that's 7 more splits, for a total of 14. 

You can definitely do it with 13 splits only; what I suggested involved one black district in Wayne, one white district in Wayne, and one black district spanning Wayne/Oakland.  That's 2 splits there.  Add one district entirely in Oakland.  Oakland is now split twice, since there are leftovers, and I have four splits for four districts down.  Each new district adds a new split where it terminates (save the last district) so this ends with 13 splits.   

Yes, you have one less split because you excised Wastenaw from the map. Unless there is one county somewhere that has exactly 33,000 people or whatever, there will be another split elsewhere. I will engage in the exercise however, of seeing if another map results in fewer splits than mine. I tend to doubt it however.

[Torie]

Yes, you have one less split because you excised Wastenaw from the map. Unless there is one county somewhere that has exactly 33,000 people or whatever, there will be another split elsewhere. I will engage in the exercise however, of seeing if another map results in fewer splits than mine. I tend to doubt it however.

Count the splits.  I've got one fewer than you; once you take care of Oakland and Wayne, the remaining county splits needed should be exactly one less than the number of districts you need to draw (at most).  It doesn't matter that Washtenaw isn't drawn yet. 

In fact, I just rejiggered some things so that there are 11 county splits.  If districts 1 and 2 take in everything north of the Clare-Isabella latitude line, plus everything on Lake Michigan from Ottawa north, plus Newaygo, Mecosta and Lake, that's exactly right.  

Would you put up your map again, and explain to me which CD's of yours are 50% black VAP? So many maps are flying around, that I am confused now. It would be nice if each map were attended by some stats on these sorts of things. Thanks.

[Torie]

OK, you have a chop in Monroe rather than Washtenaw. Other than that, if you select my plan A where there is no third CD in Oakland, we have the same number of chops in the Livingston, Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland, Monroe and Macomb package.  The issue is whether my plan B, with has a tri-chop of Oakland, rather than a bi-chop, can be offset by one less chop on the other side of the CD's in play, either directly with MI-07 or MI-10, or indirectly by the generation of clean lines in the next ring of CD's out. At the end of the day, we both have to have an extra chop for that 130,000 in excess population in the five county region (the above mentioned counties sans Monroe); there is no escaping that. You took care of it by cutting out Livingston, which was replaced with Dingell taking the rest of Wastenaw, less the bite out of his CD on the south end by MI-07.  There is no magic wand here - just county lines and numbers.

And I assure you, that the Pubbies will pick one of my chops depending on the final number of county splits dictating which one, rather than yours. Sorry about that.

[Torie]

OK, you have a chop in Monroe rather than Washtenaw. Other than that, if you select my plan A where there is no third CD in Oakland, we have the same number of chops in the Livingston, Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland, Monroe and Macomb package.  

Which is your "plan A" map?  I too am lost amid this flurry of mapmaking.    

Plan A



Plan B

[Torie]

Torie, I count three CDs in Oakland on that map.  2 splits of Oakland, 1 in Macomb, 3 in Wayne, and 1 in Washtenaw = 7.  On my map I had 1-1-3-0 (plus one in Monroe) for 6.  

It looks like you are relying on the near equality of population for your CD 6. I get a value that is over by 299 persons. That isn't going to be exact enough for MI, so you will need at least one additional county split somewhere.

Ah, OK.  Didn't realize it needed to be that close.  We'll need 13 splits for my map, then (I had CDs 1 + 2 in a set of whole counties as well, but that was only good to within 100 or so.)  

Oh, I see your point. MI-13 gets black enough from Macomb, that MI-14 does not need to cross into Oakland anymore. In any event, if both my plans are illegal, then the Macomb chop needs to be from the north, as per my old plan, and Dingell takes most of Wastenaw. Your plan of course is totally unacceptable to the Pubbies. You created a Dem CD in Oakland!  That ain't happening. Yes, a north Macomb chop still results in an extra chop in the five county region, but now the Dems are reduced to arguing that yes, one black CD needs to leave Wayne, but the chop has to be into Macomb rather than Oakland, because that results in one less chop, because you get a "twofer" for going into Macomb, at once taking up Macomb's excess population and making both CD's black at the same time. That is a pretty weak argument. The court is really micromanaging the map now.

I guess the "dp" in dpmapper stands for "Democrat Plan" or Democrat Planner" or Democratic Planner" doesn't it?  You are a pretty clever little adversary, I must admit. Well it is better to know now, rather than later. See you in court pal!  

In any event, if the law is that strict, then just why was the existing map deemed legal, with its quad chop of Oakland? MI-12 could have been shoved into Macomb, and MI-09 take in the lost territory from MI-12 in Oakland, and then MI-08 takes more territory in Oakland, and MI-08 has its population equalizing chop off to the east somewhere, just like now, but obviously somewhere to the east and south of where it is under the 2000 map.

Indeed, MI-11 could have been also ejected MI-08 from Oakland as well (to get your bichop), and that would result in two less chops assuming that did not result in a second chop by MI-08 elsewhere (which is the question that needs to be resolved with my various alternatives: just how does minimizing the chops in the Detroit area play vis a vis chops elsewhere?  I think entirely into Oakland, taking the territory lost by MI-12 and MI-08. I guess if the 2000 map was litigated, the court decisions should be read, and that needs to be made a priority. Maybe that will give guidance, or maybe not. Or maybe the prior map was not litigated. 

Anyway, excellent caution dmapper, and the pubs will need a plan C I guess, as a backup to its first two plans if they end up biting the legal dust.

[Torie]

Oh, one other thought. If the Michigan Supremes do micromanage, and demand the Macomb chop "twofer," the Pubbies are going to change the redistricting law. They simply will not tolerate a Dem CD being drawn in Oakland County - period! Someone might let the Supremes know that in advance.

As to the above map, it's interesting, but your Livingston-Oakland CD looks like but lean GOP to me. Pontiac + West Bloomfield + Farmington is just a bit too many Dems. The gerry in short is rather hideously inefficient, with Pubbie points being lost all over the place.

The green CD is lean Dem or soft safe Dem (the only Pubbie areas, and they are soft Pubbie, is the green zone north of Westland, to wit Livonia, and a grab bag of burbs in the northwest corner of Wayne, plus Monroe is soft Pubbie. The balance is heavily Dem (less so in 2010, but that was a GOP wave number, and we don't draw CD's based on wave mathematics). So, you give the  Dems 4 CD's, plus close to a 5th, plus a marginal CD in Macomb, plus another marginal or but lean CD in Livingston-Oakland. That ain't happening. The Dems to get that will have to get it from the Supremes, and somehow prevent the GOP from changing the law. Maybe they can leave the state like the Dems in Wisconsin and Indiana did. Does Michigan have a supra majority quorum law?  

Ah this twofer thingy is an evil attempt to deny giving the Pubbies one extra chop under the guise of the  VRA. It's not fair!

[Torie]

Wait... does this still fulfill all the other requirements?

7 districts down, 7 splits made.  I'm fine there.  The black percentages are over 50.  You can't see the township lines but I've only split one town between each pair of districts (Detroit between the two black districts and Dingell's, Westland between Dingell and the 11th, one in Macomb, and Farmington Hills and Novi between the bronze district and the other two Oakland districts, respectively.  

The only question is, now that I've used the thumb plus Hillsdale and Lenawee to gain an extra district in the Detroit area, is there enough left to deal with whatever is leftover from the Flint pack?  I'm not sure; I think one of them might have to be swingy.  But I think I'm done for the time being.  Someone can take over from here.  

Yes, I would like to see the northern part of your map please. Great job! You figured out the larger formula first, which is necessary to really know what you are doing. There are still legal arguments to be made (in part because of this from the statute: "(ii) Congressional district lines shall break as few county boundaries as is reasonably possible".), but one part of the game is surely to see what is possible if you meet your # of CD-s - 1 chop formula.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can see this as making some sense, if, and only if, the two fragments are appended to one other CD. Take Kent County for example (MI-03). Let us say, it can hold one CD, but with 20,000 extra people. If that 20,000 is appended to MI-02, with 10,000 from the NW corner, and 10,000 from the SW corner, then Kent has been split once. But if the NW corner goes to MI-02, while the SE corner goes to MI-04, then to me that is two splits. Why wouldn't it be?  You could avoid an extra chop, just by having the entire 20,000, either in one fragment or two, go to just one one CD as one chop. If it isn't, one then can use different fragments of Kent, or Wayne, to equalize population for other CD's, thereby cutting down on the splits, giving one a chance to chop up some county elsewhere for gerrymandering purposes.

For example, to get down to actual cases, look at my map below. MI-12 and MI-09 are wholly contained in Oakland and Macomb respectively. MI-14 goes into Oakland for one chop, and MI-13 goes into Macomb for a second. Fine - so far so good. Now are you saying that my MI-10 pink dip down does not count as a second chop?  And if it doesn't, then why can't MI-14 also go into Macomb from Oakland or Wayne as a "non-chop" event?  Heck we could send MI-05 from Flint to pick up Pontiac if we want as well.  It suddenly becomes like the Wild West!  



Otherwise, I agree completely with Muon2's analysis. It is the only one that makes sense really.

[Torie]

In other news, I sweet talked this really nice lady at the Wayne County elections department to fax me all 44 pages of Wayne County precinct returns for 2008 at no charge. She was particular impressed that I could name all 40+ towns in Wayne from memory. She could just sense how much I cared. And I shared with her the story of Inkster just for bonding purposes. I am getting really dangerous out there! 

[Torie]

You seem to have a spare Okemos precinct in the Lansing/Flint district.  Have you split it Okemos/East Lansing, then?  That would be... strange, but Okemos would probably like it.

Yeah, I know.  It's a precinct that has two disjoint parts, one of which is part of the East Lansing block.  I don't know what the rule is about those. 

That is a really hideous looking map! 

[Torie]

MI-07, MI-08 and MI-12 are all marginal, with MI-08 looking even lean Dem in Muon2's map.  If that is what Michigan law dictates, the law is going to be changed. What I am trying to figure out is whether the minimum number of splits were done in 2000.  I don't think that was the case.

[Torie]

MI-07, MI-08 and MI-12 are all marginal, with MI-08 looking even lean Dem in Muon2's map.  If that is what Michigan law dictates, the law is going to be changed. What I am trying to figure out is whether the minimum number of splits were done in 2000.  I don't think that was the case.

The 2000 map has the minimum number of splits given only three districts are wholly inside a single county. I see that the 2000 map did not place a district wholly inside Macomb as I did. If I assume that they did minimize county splits according to some rule, and did not make a Macomb district as I did, then I would have to revise my assessment of their counting rules.

I would now conclude that if two discontiguous parts of a county are attached to other counties, but not to the same district then that counts as two county breaks. That is still consistent with the current map in Oakland where one split is divided between CDs 8 and 11, and a separate split has the piece of CD 12.

With this interpretation, which is the only way to legally justify the 2000 map, my map would now count as 11 splits not 9. To get to 10 splits I need to have the pieces of CDs 10 and 11 adjoin in Macomb. That would require running a thin line of CD 11 across Warren and another thin line up to New Baltimore. Since that would split two towns it fails. I suspect that is why a Macomb-only district didn't appear in 2000. Even so it still leaves my map with the two-split of Wayne that cannot be eliminated if two majority-black districts are both in Wayne.

As I see it, you get one free chop depending on what county you start counting from. That principle derives from the concept that if you have two CD's in 3 counties, with each CD taking one whole county, the split of the third county counts as but one chop. So in your map, either you count the MI-07 salient into Wayne as a chop, or the MI-10 salient into Macomb as one. Per this way of counting,  you have 5 chops for 8 CD's (MI 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 11, 13 and 14). If you choose to count the MI-10 chop into Macomb as a chop, then from Wayne you have one chop into Oakland with MI-11, another chop into Oakland with MI-05, a third chop into Macomb with MI-11, a 4th chop into Macomb with MI-10, and a 5th chop into Wastenaw with MI-05.  Your free chop is MI-07 in to Wayne,. Since you avoid chops on the other side of MI-05, MI-10 and MI-07,  the only population equalizing mechanism out of the geographic area encompassing the 8 CD's is via Washtenaw and MI-05. That is about as efficient as you can get I think. You get 8 CD's covered with only 5 chops, for an efficiency rating of 3.

I am trying to get the same efficiency rating of 3 with a map that might be acceptable to the Pubbies. As I said, your map just isn't acceptable from a Pubbie perspective. (The first and most immediate thing to do is get MI-13 into Macomb, and MI-11 the hell out; another I think is to get MI-05 to suck up both Pontiac and Ann Arbor.) Either there is an alternative map that works from a partisan perspective, or there isn't. If there isn't, then we know that the law will have to be changed.

This is a tough nut to both understand and then crack. It's a nightmare. I also suspect that the 2000 map does have a maximum efficiency rating, but I am still not entirely sure.

[Torie]

Well here is my version of a plus 3 minimum chop map. Yes, MI-11 is short by 3,200 or so folks, offset (deliberately) by an equal excess in MI-05, but that can be equalized by shaving the size of MI-05's two link precincts to Pontiac in far north West Bloomfield, down from 5,500 or so in population down to an equalizing number of around 2,300.  



No precinct can be switched there, because that would mean that MI-05 is bounced entirely from Pontiac (or mostly), and the whole map collapses. Making the city chops "work" in Wayne was also a rather terrifying exercise, but I found the slot to squeeze between the Scylla and Charybdis legal monsters to make that work too - again just barely.

At least while the strong Pubbie incumbents hang around, this map actually has a lot of potential if, and only if, the Pubbies have guts - a lot of guts. McCotter in MI-11 has but a lean GOP seat I suspect, but can probably hold it, while Dingell is axed. And Candice Miller should be able to hold MI-12 if she has guts. MI-09 is also probably a lean GOP CD (maybe even in the marginal category, albeit on the GOP side, with a PVI as low as +1% GOP PVI potentially), considerably short of "safe" in any event, so that should be a barn burner of a contest for the incumbent Dem Peters, (but the Pubbie should have a edge I would think in 2012 at least, with economic issues dominating the landscape almost totally is my guess). It will be a close contest however. Overall, if all goes well, and assuming the Pubs choose a competent nominee to run not only in MI-09 but also in weak safe to lean GOP MI-10, and assuming further that Walberg can hold a weak safe to strong lean GOP CD in MI-07, that means the Dems will be held to but 3 seats in Michigan. (Rogers should be able to hold his CD from his Livingston base despite having to such up half of Ann Arbor and all of Ypsilianti in Wastenaw County (both 3-1 Obama - I gave Rogers the more GOP half of Ann Arbor -the balance was more like 85-15 Obama ), with the Dutch via Kent and Ottawa being used to pacify Lansing.) MI-02 and MI-03 will both become considerably weaker "safe" CD's for the GOP.

Everything was just so close in this map, and it threatened to collapse at any moment. Notice how both black CD's are just barely over 50% black VAP. And there was no margin for error at all vis a vis MI-05. I lived in terror of its Pontiac salient collapsing. And then I need to play the county game with MI-10, and MI-07 to get the numbers very close to what was required for a Detroit metro map where there was very little play at all - almost none. I had maybe 20,000 folks to pay with. Yikes! But there was, just barely, an objective function which emerged for the Pubbies, at least for those with some courage.

Will the Pubbies have such guts? I tend to doubt it. They will probably change the law. Among other things, the Pubbie incumbents will perforce be saddled with a lot of new territory, in the case of most of them. But it should be an interesting discussion behind closed doors!  They should hire me as a "consultant" to "help" them with some of this.  

By the way, a note of caution to you Michigan cartographers. Some of what look like "cities" in the Michigan map as depicted by the Dave Bradlee software are but villages, and villages under the Michigan law don't count as equal to townships from it comes to intra-county splits - only cities do. So you can't split a township claiming you are just sucking up a village; that dog just won't hunt legally. For example, all those little areas with lines around them in Southfield Township north of the City of Southfield, are but villages, and so they must all be in but one CD, unless your chop is going to be in Southfield Township rather than somewhere else.

[Torie]

And here is an all Oakland use for MI-05 that might actually be a bit safer, at least for McCotter in MI-11.  He could be made even safer with a more favorable Washtenaw chop, but that would be at the expense of Rogers in MI-08.