Michigan

Overview

  • Redistricting Process

  • The Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission draws the state’s legislative and congressional maps.

    2020 Cycle Map Adoption Dates

    Congressional:

    • December 28, 2021

    Legislative:

    • December 28, 2021
    Redistricting Deadlines

    Congressional & Legislative:

    • Pre-Draft Hearings: Must hold at least 10 hearings throughout state, but no date specified.
    • Proposed Plan Hearings: Must publish and hold at least 1 45 day public comment period prior to voting on a plan, so released by 9/17/21.
    • Adoption Deadline: By 11/1/21.

    Press Releases: Michigan's Redistricting Commission adopted the following redistricting timeline:

    • Draft Proposed Maps: Commission votes on 9/30/21 and publishes maps on 10/8/21.
    • Proposed Maps: Vote on 11/5/21.
    • 45 Day Public Comment Period: Starts on 11/12/21.
    • Final Maps: First day Commission can vote to approve is 12/28/21.
    • Commission's Final Report: By 2/2/22.
    • Maps Become Law: On 3/3/22.
  • 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
    Bridget Mary McCormack
    Chief Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Brian K. Zahra
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    David F. Viviano
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Elizabeth Clement
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Elizabeth Welch
    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
Independent Redistricting Commission

The Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission draws the state’s legislative and congressional maps.

Commissioners
Redistricting Criteria
Congressional, State Senate, and State House
  • Contiguous, Reflect state's diverse population and communities of interest, Consider subdivision boundaries, Reasonably compact
  • PROHIBITED: Providing disproportionate advantage to any political party, Favoring or disfavoring incumbents or candidates

Source: Mich. Const. art. IV, § 6.

Michigan Redistricting Process

Congressional and Legislative

The Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission draws the state’s legislative and congressional maps. The 13-member commission is made of four republicans, four democrats, and five members who are independent or members of third parties. The Commission must hold at least ten public hearings throughout the state for the purpose of soliciting comments, information and plan proposals before drafting any plan. After drafting a proposed plan, the Commission must then hold at least five more public hearings throughout the state. Underlying data about plans must be publicly available. The votes of seven Commissioners are required to enact any plan. At least two members of each party must vote for a plan for it to be enacted.

If the Commission is unable to enact a plan, then the Commissioners must rank a set of plans. Each Commissioner may submit one plan. The plans are then scored based upon their rank with those ranked last getting a score of 1 and those ranked first receiving a score equal to the total number of plans ranked (a maximum of 13). The plan receiving the highest number of points is enacted as long as the plan is in the top half of the plans scored by two members of the other major political party. If the highest scoring plan is submitted by one of the five unaffiliated members then the plan must be in the top half of those plans ranked by two members of one of the major political party commissioners. If two plans are tied, then the Secretary of State must randomly select one of the plans. If no plan meets the criteria, then the Secretary of State will randomly select one plan from all the proposed plans.

The Michigan Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all challenges to the enacted plans.

The commission is composed of individuals selected through a complex process overseen by the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State must continue to recruit members until there are 30 republicans, 30 democrats, and 40 unaffiliated/third-party applicants deemed qualified to serve. Michigan voters and eligible voters are eligible to apply as long as they have not been, in the past six years, a declared candidate for partisan federal, state, or local office; an elected official to partisan federal, state, or local office; 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 or political candidate, of a federal, state, or local political candidate’s campaign, or of a political action committee; an employee of the legislature; and person who is registered as a lobbyist agent with the Michigan Bureau of Elections, or any employee of such person; or an unclassified state employee who is exempt from classification in state civil service pursuant to Article XI, Section 5, except for employees of courts of record, employees of the state institutions of higher education, and persons in the armed forces of the state. Parents, stepparents, children, stepchildren, and spouses of any of the disqualified individuals above may not be commissioners either.

Once a pool of at least 30 republicans, 30 democrats, and 40 unaffiliated/third-party applicants is populated the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the minority leader of the House may each strike five applicants.

The Secretary of State must then randomly select four republicans, four democrats, and five unaffiliated/third-party applicants who become the commissioners.

Source: Mich. Const. art. IV, § 6.

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

Ballot Measure Process

Kinds of Ballot 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 Constitution.

Single-Subject Rule
There is not a single-subject rule.

Initiative Subject Restrictions
Initiatives must be applicable to laws that the Legislature may enact; referendums cannot target bills that incorporated appropriations for state institutions or state funds.

Signature Requirements
The signature requirement for constitutional amendments is 10% of all votes cast for all candidates for governor in the previous gubernatorial election at which a governor was elected, 8% for all other initiatives, and 5% for a veto referendum. 4,250,585 people voted for a candidate for governor in the 2018 General Election in Michigan, so 425,059 signatures are required for constitutional amendments, 340,047 signatures are required for any other initiative, and 212,530 signatures are required for a veto referendum.

Submission Deadlines
Constitutional amendments must be submitted not less than 120 days prior to the general election in which the measure is to be placed on the ballot (July 11, 2022), and 160 days for statutes (June 1, 2022). Referendums must be submitted within 90 days after the end of the legislative session at 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, by a three-fourths vote in both chambers, make changes to or repeal statutes passed by voters. To make a change to or repeal an amendment passed by voters, the Legislature must send an amendment it has passed by a two-thirds majority vote to the ballot. Referendums cannot target acts making appropriations for state institutions and they cannot be meant to meet deficiencies in state funds. Initiatives are permitted on general election ballots, but not on primary, special, or odd-year election ballots.

Source: Mich. Const. art. II, §9; art. 12, §2. Mich. Comp. Laws, § 168.116.XXII (2020). Michigan Initiative and Referendum Petition Instructions

In The News

Privacy Policy    |     Terms of Service
Copyright ©2022