DETROIT – Two days ago, Michigan voters and politicians finally found out what congressional districts they will be in next year — and a bunch of incumbents are unhappy.
U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Lenawee County) is likely to be very happy, however. His district will change from leaning Republican to one of the most solidly GOP districts in the country.
Two other Republican congressmen are bound to be far less happy. Fred Upton of Kalamazoo, who is currently the state’s longest-serving congressman (35 years) was thrown into a district with Bill Huizenga, who has been there a decade.
If both stay in, it could make for a bruising primary battle in the district, which includes Battle Creek and Kalamazoo.
Freshman Republican Peter Meijer, who angered Trump supporters by voting to impeach the former President, will be in a district a Democrat could easily win.
Some Black voters are also bound to be upset. For decades, Michigan has had two congressional districts with majority Black populations, something many felt was required by the federal Voting Rights Act. But the new map has no Black majority districts, and only one where Black voters slightly outnumber whites.
Ironically, that district is currently held by U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Muslim of Palestinian descent. That means it is entirely possible that Michigan may have no Black member of Congress in January 2023, for the first time since 1955.
Democratic U.S. Reps. Andy Levin and Haley Stevens both drew districts including their current homes — but Stevens then indicated she might challenge Levin in his old district.
Meanwhile, two others, Debbie Dingell and Brenda Lawrence, currently Michigan’s only black congresswoman, have been placed in the same district, though Ms. Dingell later announced she would run in another district instead.
Why all the upheaval — and why are the district boundaries being announced so late? Here’s how all this came about: Every ten years, states are obligated to draw new legislative and congressional districts when they get results of the latest census.
Until now, state legislatures have done that. Legally, every congressional district in a state is supposed to have exactly the same number of people; they have a little more leeway with legislative districts, but they need to differ by less than ten percent.
Historically, what usually happened is that the party in control tried to jigger the districts a bit to favor their candidates, while at the same time trying to protect incumbents of both parties.
But Michigan Republicans got greedy, and gerrymandered congressional and especially legislative districts to such an extent that Republicans won far more seats even in years when Democrats won more votes overall. Exasperated, a grass-roots coalition called Voters Not Politicians succeeded in amending the state constitution to turn over redistricting to a group of 13 randomly chosen citizens — four Republicans, four Democrats and five independents.
That is who drew redistricting maps this year. The maps were supposed to be done by Nov. 1, but the census data they needed to do the job arrived later than normal.
Finally, earlier this month, the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission made three different sets of them public, and waited for comment before making their final decision.
That came Tuesday. Under the rules, any plan had to have the support of at least half of each of the three groups on the commission.
No matter who did the redistricting, at least one member of congress was bound to be out of a job, since Michigan, like Ohio, lost another seat due to shifting population patterns.
But the independent commission has created three districts in which no current member of Congress now lives — plus the two in which two incumbent congressmen of the same party both live. While the law does not require congressmen to live in the district they represent, some are likely to move.
Protecting incumbents, however, isn’t what the Michigan Independent Redistricting Commission was elected to do; they were charged with creating as many competitive districts as possible, as well as ones that kept communities with common interests together.
They also were supposed to create more “swing” or competitive districts. A preliminary look indicates that they have done a much better job at satisfying those requirements than the politicians did. Battle Creek and Kalamazoo, for example, two cities with much in common, are again in the same district for the first time in decades.
That’s also true for the legislature, where the redistricting commission also adopted new maps for the state house and senate.
There, too, numerous incumbents were thrown together, but may be less likely to engage in expensive and nasty primaries because the stakes are lower; Michigan’s term limits mean that someone can only serve six years in the state house and eight in the senate before being banned from running again — for life.
Lawsuits by various parties are seen as inevitable, though probably unlikely to succeed. Though the overall maps still slightly favor Republicans, the GOP is likely to sue anyway.
African-American groups may well sue as well; the Michigan Department of Civil Rights has called the lack of any black majority districts “discrimination.” Michigan political junkies can expect a lot of drama in the weeks ahead, as some congressmen and legislators decide whether to retire or wage an expensive primary fight.
But for those who like politics, it should be sort of a statewide Olympics, one in which the games have only just begun.
-30-
