Daily Kos Elections is taking a state-by-state look at the impact of Republican gerrymanders on the 2016 and 2018 congressional elections. Read why in our introductory post, and click here for entries covering other states.
Republicans mercilessly gerrymandered Michigan’s congressional districts following the census in both 2000 and 2010, but the map they implemented this decade has proved far more durable than last decade’s gerrymander. This gerrymander (see here for a larger version) locked in a 9-to-5 Republican advantage in every election since 2012. That result persisted even when Obama won Michigan by 9 points, when Democratic House candidates also won more votes than Republicans in both 2012 and 2014, and when Donald Trump carried Michigan by just 0.2 points in 2016.
However, it shouldn’t have to be this way. As shown in our hypothetical nonpartisan version above, the districts could be drawn without respect to election data or where incumbents live. They could instead adhere to city and county boundaries and preserve communities of interest defined by their sociodemographic characteristics or common history. Our proposal splits zero county subdivisions other than Detroit, which is too big for a single district and must be divided anyway to maintain two predominantly black districts under the Voting Rights Act and 14th Amendment.
Our nonpartisan map would turn the 11th District in the highly-educated suburbs northwest of Detroit from a contorted mess of a district that favored Trump by 50-45 into a seat that backed Hillary Clinton by a wide 57-38 (you can find the electoral and demographic stats for our districts here). Republican Rep. Dave Trott almost certainly would have been unable to win such a blue district in 2016, and Democrats would have been heavily favored to flip the seat in 2018 if a map like this had existed instead of the real gerrymander.
Republicans skillfully split the blue-leaning Lansing metro area between three GOP districts and drowned out that Democratic stronghold with dark-red Detroit exurbs. Our proposal unites almost all of the greater Lansing area into the 7th District instead while removing exurban Detroit. That change turns the district from one that favored Trump by a brutal 56-39 to one where he prevailed by a miniscule 47.1-47.0 edge. Unlike the actual district, which favored Mitt Romney 51-48 in 2012, Obama won our version by 54-45. Republican Rep. Tim Walberg has a voting record that is well to the right of that district, and there is a very good chance that he would have lost this seat in 2016. It also would have been a great pickup opportunity in 2018 for Democrats, unlike the actual seat.
Lastly, the 6th District in southwestern Michigan would gain the city of Battle Creek under our map. Although Trump’s margin only narrows from 51-43 to 51-44, the district would flip from 50-49 Romney to 51-49 Obama. Longtime Republican Rep. Fred Upton almost certainly would have prevailed in 2016, but national Democrats have taken far more interest in challenging him in 2018. If the GOP just barely holds this seat next year under the real map, our nonpartisan proposal could have resulted in a different outcome.
Overall, Democrats likely would have won an extra one or two seats in 2016, with the more probable outcome producing an evenly divided 7-to-7 tie, almost perfectly matching the presidential outcome. If Michigan Democrats fail to pick up any districts in 2018, GOP gerrymandering may have cost them anywhere from one to three districts. Fortunately, redistricting reformers are poised to put an initiative on the 2018 ballot that would amend Michigan’s constitution to create an independent redistricting commission free from the influence of self-interested legislators.