Michigan’s Redistricting Criteria Michigan’s constitutional amendment lays out seven redistricting criteria that the Commission must abide by when drawing its Congressional, state Senate, and state House maps. The following sections explain each criterion in descending order of priority. We focus on how tests for compliance, tradeoffs between criteria, and potential pitfalls.
CRITERION 1: FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS “Districts shall be of equal population as mandated by the United States Constitution, and shall comply with the Voting Rights Act and other federal laws.” (§6.13.A) TARGET DISTRICT POPULATIONS (2010 CENSUS)
Congress
MI Senate
MI House
705,974
260,096
89,851
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Hire expert counsel on voting rights and the use of race in redistricting. Legal counsel is crucial for compliance and reduction of legal risk. • Receive onboarding training to build Commissioners’ confidence in asking counsel the right questions on Voting Rights Act compliance, the use of race in redistricting, and other legal issues. • Congressional districts are held to a tighter legal standard of population equality than legislative districts. Excessive emphasis on population equality for legislative districts may interfere with fair representation. • Current interpretations of the Voting Rights Act Section 2 may require the creation of opportunity-to-elect districts. But despite common nomenclature, these do not necessarily need to be majority-minority.
BACKGROUND
It is desirable to let the population of state legislative districts vary somewhat.
The most meaningful federal constraints on redistricting are equal population requirements and the Voting Rights Act. Federal voting rights compliance is fairly settled law. A good-faith effort to comply with Voting Rights Act requirements is likely to hold up against a legal challenge. The following subsection highlights questions that members of the Commission should ask counsel. 31
TRADEOFFS
In state legislative districts, excessive attention to equal population leaves less flexibility to satisfy other criteria. For example, it can become harder to preserve a community of interest if the Commission decides to maintain strict population equality. Allowing population to vary within the legal range provides flexibility to meet the other criteria. Under current federal law, it is not always mandatory for opportunity-to-elect districts to have a majority of minority voters. This is why this report prefers to use the term “Voting Rights Act Section 2 Districts.” Indeed, a map composed of majority-minority districts in Virginia was found to be a racial gerrymander because it intentionally packed black voters more than necessary to elect representatives. Voting Rights Action Section 2 districts provide minorities an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
Majority-minority districts, opportunity-to-elect districts, and Voting Rights Act Section 2 Districts all refer to the same goal: they speak to the idea that minorities ought to have the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. However, the term majority-minority district may leave the false impression that the Voting Rights Act always requires a district created MICHIGAN’S REDISTRICTING CRITERIA
24
