Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 3 / Act 221 of 1999
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.63 (2026)

Redistricting plan; guidelines.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING ACT


Act 221 of 1999


3.63 Redistricting plan; guidelines.

Sec. 3.

    Except as otherwise required by federal law for congressional districts in this state, the redistricting plan shall be enacted using only these guidelines in the following order of priority:

    (a) The constitutional guideline is that each congressional district shall achieve precise mathematical equality of population in each district.

    (b) The federal statutory guidelines in no order of priority are as follows:

    (i) Each congressional district shall be entitled to elect a single member.

    (ii) Each congressional district shall not violate section 2 of title I of the voting rights act of 1965, Public Law 89-110, 42 U.S.C. 1973.

    (c) The secondary guidelines in order of priority are as follows:

    (i) Each congressional district shall consist of areas of convenient territory contiguous by land. Areas that meet only at points of adjoining corners are not contiguous.

    (ii) Congressional district lines shall break as few county boundaries as is reasonably possible.

    (iii) If it is necessary to break county lines to achieve equality of population between congressional districts as provided in subdivision (a), the number of people necessary to achieve population equality shall be shifted between the 2 districts affected by the shift.

    (iv) Congressional district lines shall break as few city and township boundaries as is reasonably possible.

    (v) If it is necessary to break city or township lines to achieve equality of population between congressional districts as provided in subdivision (a), the number of people necessary to achieve population equality shall be shifted between the 2 districts affected by the shift.

    (vi) Within a city or township to which there is apportioned more than 1 congressional district, district lines shall be drawn to achieve the maximum compactness possible.

    (vii) Compactness shall be determined by circumscribing each district within a circle of minimum radius and measuring the area, not part of the Great Lakes and not part of another state, inside the circle but not inside the district.

    (viii) If a discontiguous township island exists within an incorporated city or discontiguous portions of townships are split by an incorporated city, the splitting of the township shall not be considered a split if any of the following circumstances exist:

    (A) The city must be split to achieve equality of population between congressional districts as provided in subdivision (a) and it is practicable to keep the township together within 1 district.

    (B) A township island is contained within a whole city and a split of the city would be required to keep the township intact.

    (C) The discontiguous portion of a township cannot be included in the same district with another portion of the same township without creating a noncontiguous district.

    (ix) Each congressional district shall be numbered in a regular series, beginning with congressional district 1 in the northwest corner of the state and ending with the highest numbered district in the southeast corner of the state.

History: 1999, Act 221, Eff. Mar. 10, 2000

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1958–2019 · leading case: LeRoux v. Sec'y of State, 640 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
LeRoux v. Sec'y of State, 640 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 39× “§ 3.63, established standards to be used in drawing districts.”
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Sec'y of State, 921 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 8× “261; MCL 3.63. 152 MCL 4.261(c); MCL 3.63(c)(i).”
League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Benson, 373 F. Supp. 3d 867 (E.D. Mich. 2019). · cites it 12× “The Apol criteria contain a hierarchical set of requirements and provide, among other things, that districts be contiguous, contain either a population within 5% of the ideal district size (for the Senate and House districts) or exactly equal population (for the congressional…”
League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Johnson, 352 F. Supp. 3d 777 (E.D. Mich. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.63 (Congressional Districts) and § 4.”
In re Senate Jt. Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012). “Const, art. IV, pt. 2, § 1(14)(A); Cal. Const, art.”
Corinne Brown v. Sec'y of State of the State of Florida, 668 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2012). “21-A, § 1206 (requiring congressional districts to be compact, contiguous, and of equal population, and to respect political boundaries); Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.63 (establishing exclusive guidelines for congressional redistricting, which require districts to comply with the Voting…”
Plaza Inv. Co. v. Abel, 153 N.W.2d 379 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “5 1 American Law of Property, § 3.63, p 314; 2 MeAdam, Landlord and Tenant (5th ed, 1934), p 1010; Jones v.”
Colman v. Shimer, 163 F. Supp. 347 (W.D. Mich. 1958). “This is the situation where, though a trustee, agent or depositary has possession of property or funds rights in which are the subject of litigation, he holds them merely in a subordinate or possessory capacity as to which there is no dispute.”
Leroux v. Sec'y of State, 635 N.W.2d 692 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 4× “§ 3.63 apply to review of the redistricting plan adopted in 2001 PA 115 ? (A) If the standards of M.”
Corinne Brown v. Sec'y of State of the State of Florida (11th Cir. 2012). “21-A, § 1206 (requiring congressional districts to be compact, contiguous, and of equal population, and to respect political boundaries); Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.63 (establishing exclusive guidelines for congressional redistricting, which require districts to comply with the Voting…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.63(a) — 1 case
LeRoux v. Sec'y of State, 640 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. 2002). “§ 3.63, established standards to be used in drawing districts.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.63(c) — 3 cases
LeRoux v. Sec'y of State, 640 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. 2002). “§ 3.63, established standards to be used in drawing districts.”
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Sec'y of State, 921 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. 2018). “261; MCL 3.63. 152 MCL 4.261(c); MCL 3.63(c)(i).”
Leroux v. Sec'y of State, 635 N.W.2d 692 (Mich. 2001). “§ 3.63 apply to review of the redistricting plan adopted in 2001 PA 115 ? (A) If the standards of M.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.63(c)(i) — 1 case
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Sec'y of State, 921 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. 2018). “261; MCL 3.63. 152 MCL 4.261(c); MCL 3.63(c)(i).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.63(c)(ii) — 1 case
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Sec'y of State, 921 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. 2018). “261; MCL 3.63. 152 MCL 4.261(c); MCL 3.63(c)(i).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.63(c)(vi) — 1 case
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Sec'y of State, 921 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. 2018). “261; MCL 3.63. 152 MCL 4.261(c); MCL 3.63(c)(i).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.