Michigan redistricting was fraught. But it’s a ‘poster child of what is possible’ in a Midwest battleground

The Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission largely avoided the deadlocks and partisan divides that plagued other states. And as their self-imposed end-of-year deadline loomed, commissioners approved a final product with fewer fireworks than many expected. Many national redistricting observers view that as a win.

“We didn’t have people running out of the room crying or killing each other,” the commission’s then-chair, independent Rebecca Szetela, joked as the votes concluded.

But Michigan’s redistricting story isn’t over. Even after the dust settles on current legal challenges to the lines, the redistricting overhaul’s ultimate measure of success comes down to whether the public is convinced the independently-drawn maps result in a more representative government.

Thoughts on whether commissioners met that mark varies widely, depending on who you ask.

The core of Voters Not Politicians’ message, the bet supporters made, is that the average Michigan resident cared about redistricting — or would care if offered educational material and a crash course in mapping basics.

This article was originally published by MLive. Continue reading here: https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/03/michigan-redistricting-was-fraught-but-its-a-poster-child-of-what-is-possible-in-a-midwest-battleground.html

Court dismisses one count in federal lawsuit challenging Mich.’s new congressional map

A three-judge panel dismissed a claim Friday by Michigan Republicans who alleged that the new congressional district map drawn by the state’s redistricting commission arbitrarily divided counties and municipalities.

The Republicans who sued the commissioners argued that counties and municipalities constitute “communities of interest” —  such as “populations that share cultural or historical characteristics or economic interests” — that the Michigan Constitution requires the commission to reflect in the new district lines.

They asserted that the new map would dilute the voting strength of those divided into separate voting districts.

The unanimous six-page opinion written by U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge called the claim “a blood relative” of claims of partisan gerrymandering courts are not capable of deciding under prior U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

…

Voters Not Politicians, the group that drafted the constitutional amendment laying out Michigan’s redistricting criteria and intervened in the lawsuit, similarly argued that those challenging the congressional map were attempting to redefine communities of interest.

The three-judge panel agreed. 

This article was originally published by the Detroit Free Press. Continue reading here: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2022/03/04/redistricting-commission-federal-lawsuit-one-count-dismissed/9346956002/

Voters Not Politicians seeks to defend new congressional map against challenge

The group behind the constitutional amendment that created Michigan’s citizen-led, independent redistricting process took steps Monday to defend the commission’s work in court against a lawsuit brought by Republicans challenging the new congressional map. 

Voters Not Politicians filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in the lawsuit against the commissioners who drew the map.

The lawsuit, filed by a group of Michigan Republicans in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleges that there is no legal justification for the population differences between the congressional districts drawn by the commission and that the new lines unnecessarily split up counties and municipalities.

A three-judge panel was recently appointed in the case. 

“We seek to intervene to ensure that the voice of Michigan’s voters are clearly heard in this case,” said Nancy Wang, executive director of Voters Not Politicians. 

“Independent redistricting commissions, like the one passed by Michigan voters in 2018, are designed to ensure that our political system remains by, of and for the people,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center, which is providing legal representation to Voters Not Politicians. “The court should reject this effort to prevent the commission from accomplishing the purpose for which it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.” 

This article was originally published by the Detroit Free Press. Continue reading here: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2022/02/07/michigan-redistricting-maps/6698405001/

Redistricting Amendment Criteria

The redistricting reform amendment includes a set of strict criteria to replace the loose guidelines that were previously followed by politicians. This set of criteria ensures that the Commission does not manipulate election map lines with partisan bias.

Michigan voters deserve election maps that represent them, not politicians or special interests. The redistricting reform amendment includes three major safeguards to protect the final election maps.

The process is transparent. Instead of maps being drawn behind closed doors, the Commission must operate in an open process that welcomes public input. Everything used to draw the maps, including computer software and data, must be published publicly so Michiganders know exactly why the Commission draw election map lines.

The process is fair, because it removes the people with the most conflict of interest and motivation to draw maps that give them unfair advantages and puts voters in charge of the process.

The process is impartial. The Commission is required to follow a strict set of criteria. These rules must be followed in the order of priority that they are listed in and will guide the Commission to draw maps that represent Michigan citizens.

Criteria A: Federal Laws

The Commission must follow all federal laws related to redistricting.

All districts must contain close to an equal number of Michiganders to meet the “equal population” requirement in the U.S. Constitution.

One of the federal laws every map is required to follow is the Voting Rights Act that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-part test to measure if a district dilutes minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Criteria B: Contiguous

Each district must be contiguous, which means that a district cannot be physically disconnected at any point.

Criteria C: Communities of Interest

The Commission is required to hold a series of public hearings to get feedback from real Michigan citizens about what they feel their shared values – also known as communities of interest – are. Commissioners will draw district lines while keeping shared cultural, historical, or economic interests in mind based on the feedback they receive from the public.

At least 24 other states across the country consider these communities of interest when drawing election maps in order to keep groups of people who share similar needs, cultures, and interests together. This helps keep these groups’ collective voices together and represented by the same elected representative.

For example, the Commission may learn that corn and livestock farmers in southern Michigan consider themselves a community with similar economic interests, and want to be represented together so their elected official can advocate for solutions that meet their collective needs. Parents and teachers may also advocate that their school districts be kept together and represented by a single elected official instead of several state Representatives like many school districts are today.

Criteria D: No Party Advantage

The Commission cannot draw maps where a district gives an unfair or disproportionate advantage to any political party. Commissioners will use an acceptable measure of partisan fairness in order to measure if its district maps are fair or if they give an unfair partisan advantage. While the U.S. Supreme Court Gill v. Whitford case made the “efficiency gap” a well-known measure of partisan fairness, there are several measures that the Commission can choose. As an example, the Citizen Research Council used three measures to analyze Michigan’s current level of partisan bias in a recent report.

The Commission can use these measures or others to determine whether the maps they propose will be likely to give any party more representatives than they should receive based on the statewide percentage of votes. Applying these tests to their draft maps will allow the Commission to make sure that no party will receive a disproportionate advantage.

Criteria E: No Favor or Disfavor for Incumbents and Candidates

The Commission cannot draw maps that favor or disfavor an incumbent, elected official, or candidate. Right now, politicians meet behind closed doors to draw safe seats for themselves and their peers, allowing them to stack the deck in their favor by picking and choosing their voters. Some may also get creative and “hijack” incumbents from their home districts and put them in districts with another incumbent or candidate from their party. Politicians have also been known to “kidnap” incumbents by drawing lines around their home address, effectively relocating them to a new district where they have less support.

These creative ways of manipulating maps are prohibited by this criteria.

Criteria F: Boundaries

The Commission must consider existing political boundaries when drawing maps, including city and county lines.

Criteria G: Compact

Finally, the Commission must draw districts that are reasonably compact. It will be up to the commissioners to decide how they will measure compactness. Currently, 37 states require their legislative districts to be “reasonably compact” and 18 states require congressional districts to be compact as well.

The Commission doesn’t just have to say they followed this set of criteria. According to our solution, Commissioners are required to publicly present and publish why and how they drew maps that met these criteria, so that Michigan voters can be sure their new set of election maps are fair and impartial.