Michigan

Overview

  • Redistricting Process

  • Congressional and legislative plans are drawn and adopted by Michigan’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, a 13-member body of citizen-applicants.

  • 2020 APPORTIONMENT REPORT

  • Michigan’s congressional delegation shrunk from 14 seats to 13 (a loss of 1 seat) following the 2020 reapportionment.

  • Executive Branch
  • Democrat
    Gretchen Whitmer
    Governor
  • Democrat
    Garlin Gilchrist, II
    Lt. Governor
  • Democrat
    Jocelyn Benson
    Secretary of State
  • Democrat
    Dana Nessel
    Attorney General
  • Supreme Court
  • Nonpartisan
    Elizabeth Clement
    Chief Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Brian K. Zahra
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    David F. Viviano
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Elizabeth Welch
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Kyra Harris Bolden
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Megan Cavanagh
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Richard H. Bernstein
    Associate Justice
Current Congressional Boundaries
Current State House Boundaries
Current State Senate Boundaries

To view past district shapefiles, see our Map Archive Page.

Useful Links
State Data Resources
Redistricting Resources
Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission Members

Michigan Redistricting Process

Congressional & Legislative

Primary Authority: Plans are drawn and adopted by the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, a 13-member body of citizen-applicants.

  • Members: The Secretary of State makes applications to serve available to the general public and mails out a specified number of applications to randomly selected Michigan voters. After eliminating ineligible applicants, the Secretary then randomly selects 60 applicants from each pool of applicants identifying with Michigan’s two major political parties and 80 applicants from the pool identifying as unaffiliated. A specified proportion of these narrowed down applicants must come from responses to the mailed-out applications and the overall breakdown should mirror the state’s geographic and demographic makeup as closely as possible. The majority and minority leaders of Michigan’s Senate and the Speaker and minority leader of Michigan’s House may each strike up to 5 individuals from any of the pools. The Secretary then randomly selects the names of 4 commissioners from each of the pools affiliated with the two major parties and 5 commissioners from the pool of unaffiliated applicants. [Mich. Const. art. IV, § 6(2)]
  • Timing: Applications to serve must be made available to the general public by January 1 of the decennial census year and are accepted until June 1 of the decennial census year. The Secretary must submit the narrowed down pools of eligible applicants to the Michigan Legislature’s legislative leaders by July 1 of the decennial census year, and the leaders must make their strikes by August 1 of that year. The final commissioner selections must be made by September 1 of the decennial census year. The Secretary must formally convene the Commission by October 15 of the decennial census year. [Mich. Const. art. IV, §§ 6(2), (7)]
  • Eligibility: Commissioners must be registered and eligible Michigan voters. They must not be currently, or have been in the prior 6 six years: a candidate for partisan federal, state, or local office; an elected federal, state, or local official; an officer or member of the governing body of a national, state, or local political party; a paid consultant or employee of a federal, state, or local elected official, political candidate, a campaign committee, or PAC; an employee of the Michigan Legislature; a registered lobbyist or employee of a lobbyist; an unclassified state employee who is exempt from classification in state civil service except for court employees, state-run college employees, or persons in the armed forces of the state. They also must not be a parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, or spouse of any disqualified individual. Commissioners are prohibited from holding partisan elected office at the state, county, city, village, or township level in Michigan for a period of 5 years after their appointment. [Mich. Const. art. IV, § 6(1)]
  • Voting: At least 9 commissioners, including at least one from each selection pool, is required for a quorum. Final decisions require a majority vote. Adoption of final plans requires a majority vote, including at least 2 commissioners who affiliate with each major party and 2 commissioners who are unaffiliated with either. If no final plan reaches this threshold, each commissioner can submit one proposed plan for each type of district for the Commission’s consideration and each commissioner ranks all possible plans according to preference, with each preference corresponding to a point value. The Commission adopts the plan that receives the highest total points that is also ranked in the top half of plans by at least 2 unaffiliated commissioners, if it was submitted by a party-affiliated commissioner, or in the top of half of plans by at least 2 party-affiliated commissioners, if it was submitted by an unaffiliated commissioner. [Mich. Const. art. IV, §§ 6(10), (12), (14)]
  • Public Input & Transparency: All commission business must be conducted in open meetings, advance public notice must be given of meetings and hearings, and technology must be used to provide contemporaneous public observation and meaningful public participation in all such meetings and hearings. The Commission must accept testimony, comments, and plan proposals submitted by the public, which become public records. Commissioners and staff are prohibited from discussing redistricting matters with anyone in the public outside of an open meeting of the Commission, except for in writing or in a previously publicly noticed open forum. The Commission must hold public hearings prior to developing proposed plans, after releasing proposed plans, and prior to adopting final plans. A 45-day public comment period is required on final plan proposals prior to adopting them. All data and supporting materials used to develop plans must be published and available to the public. [Mich. Const. art. IV, §§ 6(8), (9), (10), (11), (14)]

Mapping Timeline: The Commission must hold at least 10 public hearings throughout the state to solicit public input prior to drafting proposed plans. After publishing proposed plans, the Commission must hold at least 5 hearings throughout the state to collect public input. A 45-day public comment period must be held on all plan proposals prior to adopting them as final, and final plans must be adopted by November 1 of the year immediately following the decennial census. Data and supporting materials for final plans along with an explanatory report must be published within 30 days of adopting a plan, and adopted plans become legally effective 60 days after their publication. [Mich. Const. art. IV, §§ 6(7), (8), (9), (14), (17)]

Redistricting Criteria: Equal population; Contiguous (island contiguity based on county); Reflect state’s diverse population and communities of interest (including but not limited to shared cultural or historical characteristics or economic interest and excluding relationships with political parties, incumbents, or candidates); Reflect consideration of county, city, and township boundaries; Reasonably compact.

PROHIBITED: Providing a disproportionate advantage to any political party (as determined by accepted measures of partisan fairness); Favoring/disfavoring an incumbent or candidate. [Mich. Const. art. IV, § 6(13)]

Map Challenges: Filed in the Michigan Supreme Court. The Court has authority to direct the Secretary or Commission to perform their duties, to review challenges to any adopted plan, and to remand the plan back to the Commission for further action if it finds it fails to comply with federal or state constitutional or statutory requirements. In no event may any other body besides the Commission create and adopt redistricting plans for the state. [Mich. Const. art. IV, § 6(18)]

Ballot Measure & Referendum Processes

Types of Measures: Indirect initiatives and referendums are permitted to amend statutes. Direct initiatives are not permitted to amend the state constitution. Legislatively initiated ballot measures may amend both statutes and the state constitution.

Single-Subject Rule: No.

Initiative Subject Restrictions: Initiatives must be applicable to laws that the Legislature could enact. Referendums cannot target laws that incorporated appropriations for state institutions or other state funding.

Signature Requirements: Constitutional amendments require 10% of all votes cast for all candidates for governor in the last gubernatorial election, 8% for all other initiatives, and 5% for a veto referendum. 4,461,972 people voted for a gubernatorial candidate in the 2022 general election in Michigan, so 446,198 signatures are required for constitutional amendments; 356,958 signatures are required for any other initiative; and 223,099 signatures are required for a veto referendum.

Submission Deadlines: Constitutional amendment petitions must be submitted no less than 120 days prior to the general election in which the measure is to appear on the ballot (July 8, 2024), and statutory petitions must be submitted at least 160 days prior (May 29, 2024). Referendums must be submitted within 90 days after the adjournment of the legislative session in which the law was enacted.

Circulation Period: The circulation period for initiative petitions is 120 days.

Ballot Title and Summary: The ballot title and summary are written by the proponent and approved by the Board of Canvassers. Expedited reviews for titles and summaries are permitted.

Other Requirements: A fiscal impact statement is not required. There are no supermajority requirements. The Legislature can make changes to or repeal statutes passed by the voters with a ¾ vote in each chamber. To change or repeal a constitutional amendment passed by voters, the Legislature must submit a new amendment to the voters with an affirmative 2/3 vote in each chamber. Initiatives are permitted on general election ballots but not on primary, special, or odd-year election ballots.

[Mich. Const. art. II, § 9; art. 12, § 2; Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.471 – 168.488; Michigan Initiative and Referendum Petition Instructions]

Previous Redistricting Cycles

2010

  • Congressional
    • Original Plan – HB 4780
      • Passed = June 29, 2011 (R-controlled)
      • Signed = August 9, 2011
      • Preclearance = Granted on February 28, 2012
    • Litigation History
      • League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson, 373 F.Supp.3d 867 (E.D. Mich. 2019): Several registered voters and the League of Women Voters of Michigan filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s enacted congressional and legislative plans as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the 1st Amendment’s free speech and association rights and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The district court originally ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and struck down both sets of plans as partisan gerrymanders in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, but the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Court’s ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering challenges were nonjusticiable by federal courts.
  • Legislative
    • Original Plans – SB 498
      • Passed = June 29, 2011 (R-controlled)
      • Signed = August 9, 2011
      • Preclearance = Granted on February 28, 2012
    • Litigation History
      • NAACP v. Snyder, 879 F.Supp.2d 662 (E.D. Mich. 2012): A coalition of civil rights groups, a union, and Michigan residents filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s enacted legislative plans as violating minority voters’ rights in violation of Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the one person, one vote constitutional requirement, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On April 6, 2012, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case on the grounds the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege facts to support their alleged violations.
      • League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson, 373 F.Supp.3d 867 (E.D. Mich. 2019): Several registered voters and the League of Women Voters of Michigan filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s enacted congressional and legislative plans as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the 1st Amendment’s free speech and association rights and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The district court originally ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and struck down both sets of plans as partisan gerrymanders in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, but the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Court’s ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering challenges were nonjusticiable by federal courts.

2000

  • Congressional
    • Original Plan – SB 546
      • Passed = July 11, 2001 (R-controlled)
      • Signed = September 19, 2001
      • Preclearance = Granted on February 11, 2001
    • Litigation History
      • LeRoux v. Secretary of State, 640 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. 2002): Plaintiff-voters filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s enacted congressional plans as invalid on the grounds that the plan was changed by the Secretary of State after being passed and before being presenting to the governor and that it failed to comply with the redistricting requirements established by Michigan law. On March 25, 2002, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants and upheld the plan, finding that the Secretary’s changes were technical in nature and thus constitutionally permissible and that the statutory redistricting guidelines cited were not binding on the Legislature’s 2001 congressional redistricting.
      • O’lear v. Miller, 222 F.Supp.2d 850 (E.D. Mich. 2002): A group of registered voters filed a federal lawsuit challenging Michigan’s enacted congressional plan as a partisan gerrymander in violation of Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Privileges and Immunities Clauses, and the 1st Amendment, in addition to claims under the 15th Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On May 24, 2002, the district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs claims after finding they had failed to sufficiently demonstrate support for their alleged violations, but it left plaintiffs the opportunity to file an amended complaint with a corrected version of their Equal Protection Clause claim.
  • Legislative
    • Original Plan – HB 4965
      • Passed = July 12, 2002 (R-controlled)
      • Signed = September 20, 2001
      • Preclearance = Granted on February 11, 2001
    • Litigation History
      • None

In The News

Privacy Policy    |     Terms of Service
Copyright ©2024