Voters Not Politicians unhappy with Michigan redistricting maps

(The Center Square) – The group that started the petition that eventually spawned the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Committee (MICRC) isn’t happy about the maps the committee has drawn.

In 2018, Voters Not Politicians (VNP) pushed the petition voters approved by 61% to create the MICRC to draw political boundaries instead of in-power politicians. But on Tuesday, VNP cited independent analysis criticizing the MICRC and suggested the group change its proposed draft maps.

Michigan State University’s Institute for Public Policy & Social Research released a Michigan Redistricting Draft Map Analysis that cited concerns over the lack of data to support the Michigan Citizens Redistricting Commission’s attempts to adhere to the Voting Rights Act and other constitutionally ranked criteria.

“We support the voices of community leaders and independent analysts who are raising serious concerns over the impact of the current draft maps and whether they satisfy the Voting Rights Act and create true opportunities for minority communities to elect candidates. Right now, there are many open questions about the maps,” VNP Executive Director Nancy Wang said in a statement. “We recognize that the VRA requires a nuanced, fact-based inquiry. For this reason, it is imperative that the MICRC be open and transparent about how it is reaching its conclusions and make all analyses and supporting materials regarding Voting Rights Act compliance available to the public prior to any vote and without assertion of any privilege.”

VNP supports a recommendation from the report:

“We recommend that the MICRC reevaluate its approach toward compliance with the VRA in light of these questions. Since primary data is largely unavailable, they need to assess whether their districts are likely to enable preferred candidates to win racially-polarized primary elections. If the MICRC decides that its approach toward compliance with the VRA is indeed optimal, we suggest that it accompany its maps with a justification of how the plans comply with the Voting Rights Act and with the related Equal Protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.”

MICRC spokesman Edward Woods III said the two groups used different data sources.

“Unfortunately, the analysis provided by MSU’s Institute for Public Policy Social Research did not correspond with the data used by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission,” Woods wrote in an email. “We verified and checked again Monday and all U.S. Census blocks were assigned. Through our open and transparent process, this data is available on our website.”

Michigan is discovering how messy an independent, citizen-led redistricting process can be. Despite complaints from all sides, a Princeton project gave good marks to some MICRC maps. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) ranked five of the seven proposed maps for Congress and state Senate received an overall “A” grade, while the “Apple” map and the “Cherry” map received “B” grades.

PGP gave the three state House maps — Peach, Oak, and Pine— a “C” overall grade with an “F” in geographic features because commissioners split too many county lines.

Three of four proposed Congressional maps received an overall “A” grade.

PGP Legal Analyst Helen Brewer said the report cards evaluate maps by partisan fairness and minority composition metrics, but not by community of interest.

“These are communities that face similar issues and could benefit from being drawn into the same district, providing them with strong legislative representation,” Brewer wrote in an email. “Especially in Michigan, where communities of interest are one of the criteria the commissioners must prioritize, it is important for members of the public to testify at public hearings and let redistricters know where their communities are and why they should be preserved in the new maps.”

Disclaimer: This content is distributed by The Center Square