In 2018, Michiganders voted and passed Proposal 2, which shifted the role of redistricting state legislative and congressional boundaries from the legislature to an independent citizen commission. The proposal was originated and pushed by a group called Voters Not Politicians.

The group sought to end the prevalent gerrymandering in Michigan in favor of the majority party controlling the state legislature. Historically, the majority party in the state legislature had been in charge of redistricting after every U.S decennial census.

Currently, Michigan has a thirteen-member independent commission composed of four Republicans, four Democrats, and five independents established under the new law. The commission is tasked with state redistricting after the 2020 U.S. Census. The decisions made by the commission will affect elections and policymaking in the state for the next ten years when the next redistricting will be done.

While I do not justify gerrymandering in Michigan, I have objections to the voter-approved commission, and I believe its operations should be halted.  First, the commission restrictions are outrightly unconstitutional.

The commission's admission criteria are very restrictive and lockout eight categories of people with political affiliation. For instance, the selection guidelines prohibit elected officials, partisan candidates, legislative staffers, lobbyists, and the family members of these groups. This is an unfair process that grossly violates the U.S Constitution -- which promotes the equality of all people.

Moreover, the commission restricts the members from openly discussing redistricting activities. Such a restriction violates the freedom of speech and press protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Just because a citizen is a commission member, they should not be denied the right to share their opinions with the public or press.

Additionally, the eligibility for joining the commission is contradictory. The guidelines seek to make the commission devoid of partisan interests, yet the commissioners are selected based on their political affiliation. The state of Michigan does not require residents to declare their political affiliation; therefore, a person could fabricate their affiliation. The commission could end up having more than four members from the same political party, thereby defeating the purpose of the selection process.

The commission's independence from partisan meddling cited by the Courts of Appeal Judges in dismissing the Republican suit is logically unachievable. This is because everyone, including those who identify as independent, has some aspect of political leaning.

Also, state legislators still impact redistricting in Michigan because they exercise some veto powers in the selection process for commissioners. Additionally, the state secretary who mails applications to voters is also partisan. Despite their best efforts regarding the inseparable political will in the selection process, the commission may not effectively end gerrymandering in Michigan.

In conclusion, Michigan's redistricting plans should remain with the state’s legislature. The eligibility criteria for the voter-approved commission are broadly restrictive and violate the U.S Constitution's First Amendment. The commission's composition is not devoid of partisan interests as purported by the proponents, and the result may escalate gerrymandering in Michigan rather than eliminate it.