To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Michigan's 4th congressional district

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michigan's 4th congressional district
Michigan US Congressional District 4 (since 2013).tif
Michigan's 4th congressional district - since January 3, 2013.
U.S. Representative
  John Moolenaar
RMidland
Distribution
  • 36.67[1]% urban
  • 63.33% rural
Population (2016)700,487[2]
Median income$49,448[3]
Ethnicity
Cook PVIR+10[4]

Michigan's 4th congressional district is a United States Congressional district that from 2003 to 2013 included portions of Northern and Central Michigan, consisting of all of Clare, Clinton, Grand Traverse, Gratiot, Isabella, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Mecosta, Midland, Missaukee, Montcalm, Osceola, and Roscommon counties and the northern portion of Shiawassee and most of the western portion of Saginaw counties. The district was slightly altered in the 2012 redistricting.

The 4th is represented by John Moolenaar. This district has had Republican representation since the 1970s.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    Views:
    449
    307
  • ✪ Community Roundtable #32 - Congresswoman (District #4) - Mia Love
  • ✪ Peter Konetchy for Congress (MI-04) - 2014 Campaign Ad 1

Transcription

[ Music ] >> Welcome to Community Roundtable. I'm Nick Burns from the Salt Lake Community College, Division of Communication and Performing Arts. And I'm your host as we explore topics of special interest and concern to what we feel will be important to all residents, to all the cities, and all the un-incorporated areas of Salt Lake County. These are topics that we feel are equally important to the general public throughout all the state of Utah. And today, on Community Roundtable, we continue our special series focused on our political leaders, both here in Utah and in Washington, D.C. Today, on Community Roundtable, we welcome Utah's newest member of the House of Representatives. She's currently in her second year of her first term. She made her way onto two key committees and she's currently sponsoring six bills in the House, and co-sponsoring over 100 more. Representative Mia Love, welcome. >> How are you, Nick? >> I'm fine. How are you? >> I'm doing well. Excited to be here. >> Well good. Thank you for being here. So jump right in for people who aren't really familiar with you or aren't in the fourth district. Your parents were born in Haiti? >> Yes. >> And you studied musical theater in college? >> I did. I did. >> So take me through that. >> Well, my parents were born in Haiti, grew up in Haiti. My brother, my sister, were born in Haiti. My parent's moved to New York. I was born in December in New York, and they worked hard, got their citizenship, learned how to do all of that, and brought my sister and my brother over, and they became U.S. citizens. And that's how the American dream began. >> So, I mean, not to reflect on anyone's age, but immigration was quite different back then. >> It was a little different. >> I don't know if what your parent's did you could do now so easily. >> Well, I have to tell you that, you know, a lot of people -- this conflict with immigration, I mean the reason why we have more people here illegally is because of the policies. Washington has made it a lot easier to be here illegally than it is to be here legally. And so this is one of the reasons why we support legal immigration. We support making sure that Washington does their job to open up the front door, instead of alienating what has made our country so great. >> Mia, and yet many people, at least in today's political climate, seem to be going the other way. >> Yeah. Well, you know, I think that its time. It's a reflection and certainly one of the reasons why we as Americans really need to take reins. The time to let Washington make all the decisions have come and gone. We really have to -- the people really have to actively get involved in issues that are important to them. >> Yeah. And immigration should be one. I mean who's really not an immigrant? >> Right. >> Except for a few Native folks. So tell me about this musical theater? I mean, I'm fascinated. Musical theater to politics -- it just seems like a natural. >> Well, this is certainly not something I said I wanted to do when I grow up. I mean, politics -- it was always, I mean even just growing up was always one of those things that you just didn't want to get involved in. I went to the Hartt School of Music. I studied music theater. I did a lot of really cool shows. I did the National Tour of Smokey Joe's Café, did a lot of different community theaters. It was wonderful. Came here to Utah and still did a couple of things with the Hale Centre Theater. Really enjoyed that. A lot of people don't know that about me. But it's certainly not a -- not one of those transitions into politics. However, I think that traditionally the people that have gone into politics, attorneys and, you know, I think that that's part of the problem. Things have become way too complex. There's one law after another law, and it's very difficult to navigate through in Washington. People have lost touch of what we deal with on a day-to-day basis, you know, what real life is like. >> Aren't' you sponsoring or co-sponsoring a bill that would eliminate some of that, where bills would have to be one topic only? >> I have to tell you the biggest frustration that I have is multi-writer bills that have to be passed at the 11th hour, where it's difficult for anyone to sit down and read. You're talking about 1,000 to 2,000 plus page legislation, written by the way, it's not in plain English. It's written in attorney jargon. And it's difficult because what you've done is you've taken the American people out of the process. You're not giving them an ability to actually look at it, read it, understand it, and say "Hey, this is my opinion." So, what I've done is I said "Look, let's cut the nonsense. Let's make things a little simpler. Let's make sure that every bill that enacted by Congress deals with one subject at a time, and the subject has to be clearly stated in the title. Let's get back to some of the basics and get the American people involved in Government." >> So, if this bill passes, you've pretty much shot the Utah legislature all to heck. I mean -- because they do that here in Utah every second. >> You know, actually, in Utah they passed a bill. They passed a piece of legislation that actually states the same thing that you're going to deal with things one subject at a time. So I'm actually taking some of the reins from what Utah's been doing and moving it to Washington. The simpler the better. >> Let's see if it works. >> Let's see if it works. >> Because here we get that, you know, 11:59 on the last night, all the education, all the funding, everything's all done together and boom. Nobody knows what's what. >> And what you're left with are people who have to vote for some things that they necessarily wouldn't vote for, in order to keep the things that they really want. And so, this allows people to vote for things that they would vote for and vote against things that they wouldn't. Its better accountability. Then you know what a member of Congress or a legislator really supports and what they don't support. >> And it would put him or her on -- I don't want to say a target on their backs, but it would put them in a place where their constituents would know better. >> That's right. >> Right? >> That's right. >> What's going on. >> They would know better what's going on and be held accountable for the votes that they take. >> So, Congressional Black Caucus, I think you're the only Republican. >> I am the only Republican, yes. >> So do they make you sit in the corner or something? >> No. You know, I think that coming into the Congressional Black Caucus people were a little, you know, leery about me and, you know, what I was going to -- what I was going to do. But, just like you find in all places, there are people that really want to make a difference there. I mean, you find that there are people that are there that it's really about them, and it's more the political game. But I found some people that have really made this about, you know, getting things done, and like that somebody else is pushing up against those ideas, just having some different thought, diversity of thought there. It's different for the Congressional Black Caucus though. We found people that have actually co-sponsored my bill. I'd bring a bill over to them and say "What do you think about this?" And they're like "Yeah. I'm on. I'm on it." The best [phonetic] bill. Most of the members of the CBC are on that [inaudible], and so I found people that I get along with very well there. And -- >> How about women in Congress? I mean the Congressional Black Caucus is what, about 15 women and 45 men I want to guess? >> Its always that way. We're always in the minority. >> Yeah. So what would you do about that? I mean, it seems to me men have had plenty of opportunity, and aren't necessarily doing that great. >> Well, it's one of the reasons why I'm so incredibly proud of you, Todd. Not only did Utah elect a woman to Congress, but elected a black woman that's an American, that's a Utahan, that's a mother to Congress. As I said, you know, there are a lot of people that are like "How did you get elected in the state of Utah?" And because there's this perception of Utah out there that I think is quite different than who we really are. And so, I have to say that certainly proud to be from Utah, and doing everything I can to do -- to get women involved. One of the biggest problems that I think with women is that we're hard on each other, and we don't give ourselves permission to get out there and think that we're qualified enough to get out there. I mean if you think about it, women run the economy. They're the PTA moms. They're the ones that, you know, we're bringing our kids to the doctor's appointments. We're grocery shopping. We're doing all of these things, involved in education, and yet, we have the most real life experience. And so -- >> Well, and you're cleaning the motel rooms and taking the kids to the doctor and going to -- I mean -- >> That's right. That's right. It's just that that's who we are, and I think that it makes sense that we would get more women involved in politics. And, you know, really people who are there to make a difference. >> Yeah. Well, very good. We need to do a quick break. When we come back I want to ask specifically about some of the bills that you're running. I know you've got some interest in education, and I want to ask about some of the committees that you're serving on. >> Absolutely. >> Keep it tuned. We'll be right back with more Community Roundtable [music]. We are back on Community Roundtable, talking with Representative Mia Love. When we left off we were talking about some of the bills that you're running. And so, I guess that's a good place to jump in. The Flexibility to Innovate for College Affordability Act, which I hope is one of those bills that's just one thing with a name that makes sense. >> Its College Affordability Act. I mean it's really interesting how we've -- I just call it the College Affordability Act. But what it does is it allows different colleges or different administrators, or a representative from that college, to come together as a committee, not Washington committees, but to come together as a committee, and to cut red tape that drives up the cost of higher education. So, you'll get together and say "You know what, this is unnecessary red tape. This is what really drives us nuts. This costs way too much and that is reflected in what is charged for tuition." So it's another way of bringing the cost of higher education down. The rates that higher education is climbing, it makes it difficult for the poorest among us, and even, you know, middleclass families to go to school to get an education. >> Do you have examples of the kinds of red tape that gets in the way of college? >> Well, we have -- >> That's running up the cost? >> Well, we haven't formed the committee yet. >> OK. >> But there are a couple of things that we have heard of, different curriculum between different -- whether it's a state college or a university or a private college. This will only affect those who are -- who really want to be involved. So you've got black colleges that are going to be involved in some of these. You've got a couple of different -- and they have -- they all have different types of red tape that they have to go through in terms of what qualifies them in higher education. So we're just getting into that. I'd love to continue to have those conversations and to see what type of issues are driving up the price of -- >> Yeah, because I mean one thing that's driving up the cost is you see state contributions dropping. I mean here at the Community College, 15 years ago, maybe 20 years ago, the state picked up about 75% of the cost of -- and students picked up about 25%. Then, we were down to about 50/50, now, thanks to the legislature, we're moving up to about 60% on the public, 40% on the student, so -- >> And what we want to know is why that is actually happening? Why is that the states aren't contributing as much? And are there red tape -- is there red tape that comes from a federal government that is really driving [multiple speakers]. Yeah, [inaudible] is great. One of the things that I really like about higher education is being able to take that money and sending it to the states, and so that way our educators can actually use those funds for what they believe is the best use for them, instead of the funds coming back to us saying "By the way, you've got to put it into this area." That may not necessarily be what we need here at Slick [phonetic], or even in our state, so. >> So, can you just write me a check that I can use here at the college, because that -- I have lots of ideas. >> Well, that's -- again, that's one of the areas that we'd like to discuss, whether we can actually get those funds back without strings attached, so that we can take care of our students and their needs. >> So, one thing that I am hearing, though, that I like is you seem to still feel there is a place for the Federal Government to be involved in higher education. >> Well, I think that there's a place for government period. When I talk about limited government, I don't talk about, you know, I'm not talking about cutting everything. I think that we have to see what's applied at the appropriate places. As a mayor, it was very difficult for me to deal with issues that my constituents wanted me to deal with because of whether it was a state law or federal law. And my ability to be able to take care of those issues became limited every single year. One thing that I want to point out that I think is very important to know, is I think that the closer you get the decision making to people, the more party lines go away. In the 10 years that I was in municipal government, not one issue was a Republican or a Democrat issue. Not one because everybody's driving over the same potholes. All of our kids are going to the same schools. And so, this is again, you know, I think the best thing in some areas. I mean governments got to take care of certain things. I think that there's a place in government, but the way that we've set it up is that there's a limited government, and there are times where our states can better deal with issues, and our municipalities can deal with issues that are reflective when it comes to their communities. >> You don't see a contradiction in that rather than being mayor now or working in the state level? You're in the federal level, but you're busy trying to kind of put yourself out of a job to some degree? >> Well, I'm fine with that. I am actually fine with being less powerful than when I came in. Actually, I think that would be a measure of success for me. >> OK. >> Because again, I think that where the rubber hits the road is where people are dealing and face-to-face with their constituents. I remember going into a Walmart and dealing with a lot of constituent issues right there at Walmart. You know, just "Hey Mayor, this is what I need to deal with. Can you help fix this? Or can you help us with this? Or, what do you think about this project?" You know, this is again, you push the decision making closer to people, you see party lines go away, because our issues are our issues. >> Are you an outlier when you say that, that you would just assume be less powerful, because that's not the drift I get from most politicians? >> I really don't care, you know, I tell you, I'm more interested in policies than I am politics. And if, again, this is about going to Washington, wasn't something I've always wanted to do. Its -- I'm doing it as a mother, as a Utahan, and I want to see a shift. The bi-polarization, just the polarization in Washington is a result of too much power there. And again, I've got -- we've got to make sure that we get the decision making as close to people as possible. >> OK. So, the other one, the other bill I want to ask about, the Student Right to Know Before You Go. >> Yes. >> So, another interesting name. Right to know what? >> To know the information before you get into -- before you get yourself into an institution that may or may not work for you. So, this is a piece of legislation that was picked up by Senator Marco Rubio, in the senate. And it pretty much has the Department of Education give you your information back. All of the data that they've collected in how much student loans are being taken out, the success rate of students. It really puts Flick [assumed spelling] for instance, up against the most popular universities and show that they can actually do just as good, if not a better job, because of the results. So somebody can look at, you know, the information that the Department of Education has given them, and say "Actually, they've got a better success rate. The students are graduating and they don't have as much debt, and they're getting jobs when they're graduating." I think that information is critical before you're making a decision when it comes to higher education. >> So would this apply to public as well as private institutions? >> Any institution that takes Title IV funding. Any institution that takes those federal funding it would apply to. >> So private institutions? Because I know there's been a lot of controversy recently over kind of fake diploma mails [phonetic] that are private, some here in Utah. So, I'm curious -- I'm all in favor of higher education and jobs, I mean that's my career here, its higher education. But I'm also a big proponent of higher education as just something to make better citizens. And so often when I hear this kind of talk, I'm a little concerned that the focus is all just "What kind of job can you get? What kind of work?" And I don't want to get downplay that, but gosh, what about -- I mean I know people who are janitors at colleges just so they can take classes for free. They don't have aspirations for another job, they just want to be better citizens and have more knowledge. >> Well look, there's so many people that look at a higher education as a return on investment, so they'll say "You know what? I want to be able to provide." But the idea of all of this is to make higher education accessible to anyone. And that is the goal here. No matter what your purpose for higher education is, it's important for it to be available to as many people as possible. And I'm concerned, again, that the rising costs of higher education is making it so that there are few people, fewer -- more and more people that don't have access to higher education. >> Right. It's -- >> It's a problem. >> Its becoming a leadist [phonetic] again. >> But that's right. So when you graduate college, you have two choices. You're either completely indebted or you don't go. >> Or you have a trust fund. >> Or you have a trust fund. And so what does that say? That higher education is only available to the richest among us. And that's not OK. I think that we as Americans, the more opportunities we have, to have a higher education, whether -- no matter what that is. I mean it could just be skills training. It could be, you know, it could be anything. >> Well, that's why I love Community College, because you can transfer to a four year or you can become a plumber. What do you think of President Obama's move to put two year campuses along the lines of K though 12, and make them publically funded and free for all students who maintain good grades, etc. etc.? >> The first thing I'd like to ask with the amount of debt that we're in, it's very difficult -- it's easy to say this is what I'd like to do. The harder question is how do you pay for it? How do you deal with all of that? And I think instead of throwing money at something, we owe it to our constituents to bring down the costs of higher education first and foremost. We have to do everything we can to get rid of the red tape, to see what's actually driving the cost of higher education up. We have to do everything we can to give people the opportunity to -- >> Well, some people have said that [multiple speakers] >> Even work through school if they can. >> Yeah. I worked in a motel. That's actually kind of fun. >> It is fun. It's a great learning experience also. >> Yeah. I got all my people skills from working the front desk. I just think that, you know, some people have said "Gee, there's sixty some billion dollars in federal student loans, right, currently out there." I mean there's more debt owed than that, but some people have said "Gee, if you just took that $60 billion, you could take that instead and give free two years to everybody." You could pay for it that way. >> The logic behind it, and this is a conversation that I've actually had with the Congressional Black Caucus in a meeting with the President, they don't know how they're going to implement that. You've got -- we had some conversation with some of the black colleges saying "Whoa, wait a minute. When you put those funds into community colleges now you're taking them out of our institutions," and so now there's that conflict going on. It's very -- we have to be careful in government that we're not picking winners and losers here also. So its again, I find the best way that we can do that is to drive a little bit of competition, you know, be able to put, you know, community colleges up against, you know, the Harvard's, and see where some of those results are. And when you get some of that, I bet you what ends up happening is that you've got some of these colleges that say "Well, we're going to have to drive our costs down because we have to compete with some of these other universities." >> Yeah, I hate to see that becoming pitting students against students, because I totally get that that if Salt Lake Community College was free, enrollment at the U and the Y would drop. I mean that goes without saying. Yeah. So we need to take another break. When we come back you've got some other bills that you're standing behind, including the Safe Justice Act. I want to ask about that. And if we have time I want to get your take on the current political crop out there for President. >> Great. >> Keep it tuned. We'll be right back with more Community Roundtable with Representative Mia Love [music]. We are back on Community Roundtable. With us today Representative Mia Love. We just were talking about education and these bills you're sponsoring. Everybody's on favor of more people in college for less money, but I want to ask about this Safe Justice Act. >> Right. >> Everybody's on board, you know, from Mike Lee to the most [inaudible] senator you want to pick, so you're on board? >> Yes. I've actually co-sponsored that bill. Its seriously one of the best pieces of legislation that's come out of Congress in terms of bipartisan support from Heritage Foundation to, you know, the NAACP. Just different ends of the spectrum just coming together and doing something that I think is not just a cost benefit, but a moral, really morally the right thing to do in this country. >> So this would what? Rehab instead of jail for drug offenses? >> Well, one of the things that it does is it eliminates the minimum sentencing that judges have to go through. So they could actually use their discretion a little bit. So first offenders, instead of locking them, you know, away, they can say make sure that the sentence is minimal, or find a way that somebody can do community service. But it's at the judge's discretion instead of them saying, you know, "Here's a kid who has never done anything wrong, has gotten himself into trouble or herself into trouble, and now we're going to lock them up." And it becomes this revolving door of school for the criminally -- >> School to prison pipeline. >> Yeah. That's right. So there's not a light at the end of the tunnel after somebody gets out of these institutions. They can't get the credit that they need. They can't get the housing that they need. And they're right back into -- >> Can't vote. >> They can't vote and they're right back into the institution. And it's this revolving door back into prison and out and back into prison. So we've got to -- I think that this is one of those that we're actually doing, what is morally right and financially. >> Do you see it passing in an election year like this? >> Oh, I do. You've got Cory Booker and Rand Paul co-sponsoring this bill. >> Wow. Take a picture. >> It's something that the President wants to do. It's moving along. And so we're really proud of it. I'm very proud of the fact that I've been involved in this. >> I mean my fear is that one side or the other will say no because it will make the other side look like they're doing something. >> Well, this is one of those that again, it's miraculously -- we've come together and able to do something that I think is right. >> But with minimum sentencing it sounds like this is exactly what we were talking about a few minutes ago, that that is the powers not in the legislative body saying this is what a judge has to do. It's a local judge in a district or a federal court, locally saying what the sentence should be for [multiple speakers] for Tom or Maria or Sally or Bob. >> That's right. That's right. Especially, you know, depending on how often they see the same individual in front of them. And, you know, it gives them a better idea of what to do instead of Washington saying "Hey, by the way, you minimally -- you have to sentence someone to this amount of time." >> Or the three strikes you're out. That kind of crazy, a pack of cigarettes and you're locked up for 40 years. >> That's right. That's right. >> Whatever it might be. A few minutes left. I have to ask. >> OK. >> I presume you're going to run again? >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> And you're running against Doug Owens again? >> Yes. >> It was fairly close last time. >> Well, it was about five percentage points, almost six percentage points, and, you know, I think, again, this is more about getting things done. I am less concerned about campaigning, more concerned about doing the work that I need to do before Utah constituents. The best part of the job for me is when somebody comes in, whether it's a Veteran that we've been able to pass legislation through for them, or whether it's a senior citizen or someone who has trouble with getting through the right process for immigration. When our office is able to fix those problems I'm doing my job. And it's the best part for me. I'm making a difference in the lives of people here in our state, and I'm just going to focus on that. >> I mean you've seen much more a people politician than like a policy [inaudible] type politician. >> Well, and I think that that's what we need in Washington. We need people who can relate to real life and what's going on. And I couldn't be prouder than the state that I'm from, and couldn't be more honored to have been elected from this state. I talk about Utah all the time and what we're doing right, and how we treat people, and this sense and love for country. And so, again, I couldn't be happier to be from this state. >> I mean this whole state has such a small town feel. It's like, you know, anyway -- >> It does. >> Not to go off on that because we could talk for an hour about Utah values, but contrary to that, with the crop running, at least in your party, the Republican Party, has massive amounts of vitriol and hatred that seems to just come from not only candidates but some of their supporters. >> Well, you know, again, this is -- I think that you're getting this on both sides. I mean you see Bernie Sanders and Hillary starting to go at each other quite a bit. It's too bad. What I'm looking for in someone is someone who has a positive agenda moving forward. I think we're, you know, we're tired of the doom and gloom. I'm tired of the doom and gloom. I want someone who loves this country and has some positive agendas, and say "You know what? I'm willing to work with everyone who has a great idea" Someone who is -- we're going to get back to some of the things that have worked for us in this country and move some of these politics aside, and really to start working for people. >> Is there anybody out there that you could support based on those guidelines? >> Well, I've already put it out there that I'm supporting Marco Rubio. >> OK. >> Marco Rubio seems to be the adult in the room. He really -- he's -- one of the biggest issues that he's got the most experience in is national security and what's happening right now. And who knew that we would have to deal with the threats of terrorism the way that we're dealing with it right now. It's become a new age threat for us, and something that we have to pay attention to, in making sure we keep Americans safe. It also, you know, his background is quite a bit like mine in terms of parents coming in and being proud of being a U.S. citizen, worked hard to become a U.S. citizen. My dad said that the day that he became a U.S. citizen he knew exactly what he was saying when he pledged his allegiance to the American flag, and meant every word of it. He wasn't just willing to take on the benefits of being in this country, but the responsibilities of being in this country. I don't know if you've ever seen a naturalization ceremony, but I think every American should take that oath. >> That would be nice, wouldn't it? >> It would be great to take that oath and the promises that they make in this country. So -- >> Last couple of minutes -- when you're not campaigning, because that's only every couple of years, when you're not fundraising, when you're not in D.C., what do you like to do? >> Gosh, you know, when I was -- during the Christmas break, I spent a lot of time in the kitchen with my kids and we baked pies and made a lot of food and we did a lot of cooking and a lot of eating. And we love board games and -- >> Haitian food? >> Oh yeah. Yeah. Like, you know, all of the above. My husband and I are foodies. We love food. We love all sorts of different foods. It's a way -- it's our way of experiencing cultures. So our kids, thank goodness, aren't very picky. They love food also. >> Very good. And so one last question. Down the road for you, I mean, Senator Love, Governor Love? >> Oh gosh, you know, no. You know, this -- I've got my hands full. There's a lot of work to do. I have hope for this country and I'm going to stay the course. I'm going to stay focused and keep the promises I made to Utah. >> OK. Come back and see us again. >> I will. I will. Had a great time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Representative Mia Love, Fourth District, running for office again next year, this year rather later. Thank you for joining us on Community Roundtable. If you have a comment, if you have a question, maybe you have an idea for a future show, get in touch. Our email address -- theroundtable@slcctv.com. Don't' forget you can watch all the episodes online slcctv.com. I'm Nick Burns. Keep it tuned for more SLCC TV. [ Music ]

Contents

Major cities

Voting

Election results from presidential races
Year Office Results
2016 President Trump 60 - 35%
2012 President Romney 54 - 46%
2008 President Obama 50 - 48%
2004 President Bush 55 - 44%
2000 President Bush 54 - 44%
1996 President Clinton 47 - 41%
1992 President Clinton 38 - 37%

United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2010 | United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2012 | United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2014

History

Michigan's 4th Congressional District was first formed in 1852. At this time It covered everywhere from Macomb County to the western end of the Upper Peninsula. Ingham County was not in the district, and then the boundary turned northward after Eaton County only going west again Midland County was reached. It went west again along Midland and subsequent counties southern lines and then headed north again on the east side of Muskegon County, with Manistee being its southern county that bordered Lake Michigan.

In 1863 it gained the areas around Grand Rapids and Muskegon but lost everything east of Ionia County and most of the Upper Peninsula. In 1872 it was redrawn to cover Berrien, Cass, Kalamazoo, Van Buren and St. Joseph Counties. In 1892 these boundaries were altered by the addition of Allegan and Barry Counties but the subtraction of Kalamazoo County. This remained the district boundaries for the next 72 years.

In 1964 the 4th district was redrawn. Barry County was subtracted from the district while Branch and Hillsdale Counties were added. In 1972 the district boundaries were altered by adding small sections of Calhoun County and subtracting small portions of Hillsdale and St. Joseph Counties.

The 1982 redistricting removed from the district all of Hillsdale County and the portion of Calhoun County that was in the district. Quincy and Butler Townships in Branch County were also removed. In Kalamazoo County Schoolcraft Township and most of Portage were added to the district. The southern and western portions of Allegan County and most of western Ottawa County including Holland, Michigan were also in the district.

In the renumbering of 1992 this district essentially became the 6th, while the old 10th became the new 6th.

The old 10th and 1990s 6th

The old 10th included most of Grand Traverse and all of Kalkaska County which were lost to the new 1st (old 11th) in the 1992 redistricting. It also included Wexford County that was moved to the new 2nd (old 9th) in the 1992 redistricting. The only other areas lost were small parts of Antrim and Iosco Counties and a portion of Shiawasee County consisting of Durand and Vernon Township.

The new 4th gained Montcalm county from the old 9th district. It gained the Clinton and most of the Shiawasee portions of the old 6th district and the northern half of Oscoda County. It also gained a portion of south-west Saginaw County and the portion of Midland County that had not been in the old 10th.

In 2002 Leelaunau County and a small section of north-west Grand Traverse County were the only areas gerrymandered from the 1st and other districts into the 4th that had not been in the old 10th.

List of representatives

Representative Party Years Congress Notes
District created March 4, 1853
No image.svg
Hestor L. Stevens
Democratic March 4, 1853 - March 3, 1855 33rd
George Washington Peck (Michigan Congressman).jpg
George Washington Peck
Democratic March 4, 1855 - March 3, 1857 34th
DeWitt C. Leach, Representative from Michigan, Thirty-fifth Congress, half-length portrait LCCN2010649420.jpg
De Witt C. Leach
Republican March 4, 1857 - March 3, 1861 35th-36th
RowlandETrowbridge.jpg
Rowland E. Trowbridge
Republican March 4, 1861 - March 3, 1863 37th
Francis William Kellogg - Brady-Handy.jpg
Francis William Kellogg
Republican March 4, 1863 - March 3, 1865 38th Redistricted from the 3rd district
TWFerry.jpg
Thomas W. Ferry [5]
Republican March 4, 1865 - March 3, 1871 39th-41st
Vacant March 4, 1871 –
December 4, 1871
45th
Wilder D. Foster (Michigan Congressman).jpg
Wilder D. Foster [5]
Republican December 4, 1871 - March 3, 1873 42nd Redistricted to the 5th district
Julius Caesar Burrows.jpg
Julius C. Burrows
Republican March 4, 1873 - March 3, 1875 43rd
Allen Potter (Michigan Congressman).jpg
Allen Potter
Democratic March 4, 1875 - March 3, 1877 44th
Edwin W. Keightley (Michigan Congressman).jpg
Edwin W. Keightley
Republican March 4, 1877 - March 3, 1879 45th
Julius Caesar Burrows.jpg
Julius C. Burrows
Republican March 4, 1879 - March 3, 1883 46th-47th
George L. Yaple (Michigan Congressman).jpg
George L. Yaple
Democratic [6] March 4, 1883 - March 3, 1885 48th
Julius Caesar Burrows.jpg
Julius C. Burrows
Republican March 4, 1885 - March 3, 1893 49th-52nd Redistricted to the 3rd district
Henry F. Thomas.jpg
Henry F. Thomas
Republican March 4, 1893 - March 3, 1897 53rd-54th
Edward L. Hamilton.jpg
Edward L. Hamilton
Republican March 4, 1897 - March 3, 1921 55th-66th
No image.svg
John C. Ketcham
Republican March 4, 1921 - March 3, 1933 67th-72nd
No image.svg
George E. Foulkes
Democratic March 4, 1933 - January 3, 1935 73rd
Clare Eugene Hoffman.jpg
Clare Hoffman
Republican January 3, 1935 - January 3, 1963 74th-87th
J. Edward Hutchinson.jpg
Edward Hutchinson
Republican January 3, 1963 - January 3, 1977 88th-94th
David Stockman Michigan.png
David Stockman [7]
Republican January 3, 1977- January 21, 1981 95th-97th Resigned after being appointed Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Vacant January 21, 1981 –
April 21, 1981
97th
Mark D. Siljander.jpg
Mark D. Siljander [7]
Republican April 21, 1981 - January 3, 1987 97th-99th
FredUpton.jpg
Fred Upton
Republican January 3, 1987 - January 3, 1993 100th-102nd Redistricted to the 6th district
Dave Camp.jpg
Dave Camp
Republican January 3, 1993 – January 3, 2015 103rd-113th Redistricted from the 10th district, Retired
John Moolenaar.jpg
John Moolenaar
Republican January 3, 2015 – Present 114th-

Historical district boundaries

1993 - 2003
1993 - 2003
2003 - 2013
2003 - 2013

See also

Notes

  1. ^ https://www2.census.gov/geo/relfiles/cdsld13/26/ur_cd_26.txt
  2. ^ https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=26&cd=04
  3. ^ https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=26&cd=04
  4. ^ "Partisan Voting Index – Districts of the 115th Congress" (PDF). The Cook Political Report. April 7, 2017. Retrieved April 7, 2017.
  5. ^ a b Thomas W. Ferry was re-elected to the House in the general election November 8, 1870; the Michigan Legislature subsequently elected him to U.S. Senate January 18, 1871; Wilder D. Foster was elected April 4, 1871 to fill the vacancy in the House.
  6. ^ George L. Yaple was elected as a fusion candidate, but was seated in Congress with the Democratic Party.
  7. ^ a b Dave Stockman resigned on January 27, 1981, to accept appointment as Director of the Office of Management and Budget under U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Mark D. Siljander was elected in a special election to fill the vacancy and assumed office on April 21, 1981.

References

This page was last edited on 12 April 2019, at 04:54
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.