Date: March 25, 2024
To: Executive Director Edward Woods III and the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission
From: Jamie Lyons-Eddy, Executive Director of Voters Not Politicians
We at Voters Not Politicians would first like to congratulate you for successfully submitting a final draft House map to the court. We know that this redrawing session was not easy. As monitors of the redrawing process, we are writing to provide our observations on what went well and what might be improved upon as you prepare for the Senate redraw.
As the group that crafted the amendment, we consider ourselves defenders of the process that our thousands of volunteers worked tirelessly to bring to our great state. We want to emphasize that this is not an effort to influence the maps, but rather to offer helpful observations that will improve the process moving forward.
During this redraw process, there were many things the commission did well and should proceed with in the future. A few worth noting:
- First and perhaps most importantly, the commissioners were committed to producing the best possible maps to represent Michigan and the communities in and around Detroit.
- We agree with Jonathan Rodden, who said in Exhibit A (attached to your response to the plaintiffs’ objections to your remedial map) that in reading through your meeting transcripts, he “encountered serious engagement with and sensitivity to the interests of a wide range of individuals and groups, and subsequent movements of district boundaries.”
- The increased public outreach toward the end of the process appeared to produce positive results. We hope to see this level of public outreach throughout the entire Senate redraw process so that the public has ample opportunity to provide input.
- We, along with many voters, found it extremely helpful that the maps were printed on large poster boards at public hearings for the public to view. We also appreciated that the commissioners spoke directly to the public during the in-person hearings in Detroit to explain the rationale behind specific mapping plans.
- As the redistricting process is quite complicated, we found that holding multiple town hall sessions was instrumental for participants to ask questions about the process. To enable participants to attend future commission meetings and public hearings feeling empowered to speak about their communities, when you are planning your public education and outreach for the Senate redraw, you should consider scheduling more of these informational town halls.
- We appreciate the commission reaching out to Detroit’s Department of Neighborhoods to receive guidance on Detroit’s neighborhood and district boundaries. Along with receiving public comment from Detroit-area community leaders, it is helpful for the commission to hear from local experts and even historians on Detroit’s neighborhoods and communities of interest.
- Without taking anything away from the commissioners who have served faithfully for years, we were extremely pleased that the three new commissioners whose names were drawn from the semifinalist pool on January 3rd all accepted their roles and were sworn in the next day, getting to work right away while learning from staff and colleagues.
- We appreciate the commission going above and beyond in hosting more in-person public hearings than required, both during the 2021 redistricting process and during the House redraw. Through your additional engagement with the public, you made participation in the redistricting process much more accessible.
We believe there are some opportunities for a stronger second phase of the court-ordered redraw, and have grouped these into categories below.
Public Input:
- We disagree that mapping plans submitted by public policy experts and nonpartisan democracy organizations should be blocked from being passed on to the public hearing phase. We believe such maps should be more carefully considered, especially if they receive significant support from the public. While we understand commissioners’ concerns about the rationale behind how certain districts were drawn, to dismiss these maps entirely only rejects expert opinions and silences the voices of many community members.
- The argument that maps drawn by anyone other than the commission are somehow invalid because the commission can’t verify intent is overly conservative, and directly in conflict with the amendment, which clearly states: “The commission shall receive for consideration written submissions of proposed redistricting plans and any supporting materials, including underlying data, from any member of the public.”
- If the commission decides against putting certain maps forward for public comment, they should at least be examined as examples in drawing collaborative maps, and their best attributes should be incorporated.
- We want to ensure that the commission is mindful of how it considers public input both during meetings and hearings and virtually. To avoid recency bias, we ask that the commission conduct as thorough a review of past comments as possible.
- Before the Michigan Senate redraw begins, it is important to make clear to the public what type of input the commission will consider, and from what sources.
Providing information to the public:
- For comparison, the historical mapping plans adopted in 2011 and 2021 should be readily available alongside the maps put forward for public comment.
- In addition to the maps themselves, the public needs easy access to summaries of the analysis and assessments against each of the constitutional criteria. To participate fully, the public needs to be able to find this information all in one place without downloading pages of documents and sifting through them.
Partisan fairness:
- Oversimplification and misunderstanding of partisan fairness measures led to a missed opportunity to improve on this important constitutional requirement while addressing the problems identified by the court.
- The seats/votes score may be the easiest to understand. But the way it is calculated for the commission, by combining several elections together, it’s sensitive to “landslide” elections where one party overperforms because of ballot initiatives or statewide or national candidates.
- A better practice is to consider the seats/votes score (or the other scores) as separate measures for several election cycles, along with appropriate context.
- The commission would benefit from having an advisor readily available to answer questions about the impact of changes to partisan fairness scores. Either a current or new expert would help the commissioners understand the practical meaning of small or large shifts in the various partisan fairness scores.
- While it isn’t always possible to balance all criteria and move all partisan fairness measures to zero, moving them to zero must always be the goal. The Hickory plan’s partisan fairness measures do not set the benchmark, and neither do the Linden plan’s scores. In all four partisan fairness measures, a score of zero represents an absence of bias and is therefore the goal.
Mapping process:
- Drawing several maps collaboratively uses up a great deal of time that might be better spent collecting and analyzing input and data, and making decisions based on that information.
- We think the process would be more efficient and produce a better outcome if the commission:
- Spends some time upfront coming to agreements about what the objectives are.
- Agrees on what constitutes a community of interest and what doesn’t.
- Starts from a basis of several individual commissioner’s maps and maps submitted by the public, and analyzes, combines, and revises those maps to get the best final product.
- You do not have to be limited by the data you already have. If you’d like to see, for example, how the population of Detroit has shifted over the last few decades, ask your consultants to provide map overlays that show that. Or you might ask a community-specific Chamber of Commerce to provide you with an overlay of businesses to help define communities.
- All commissioners should fully participate, rather than relying on those who live in the communities in question to lead the process.
Thank you for your work. Your public service is extremely valuable and important, and what you’re learning will inform all future redistricting commissions in Michigan. We hope you find these suggestions helpful as you prepare to undertake the Michigan Senate redraw.
Jamie Lyons-Eddy
Executive Director
Voters Not Politicians
