Isabella County, Michigan
Precinct data
Results by precinct
52 precincts · 30,835 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -City of Mount Pleasant, Precinct 2City of Mount Pleasant, Precinct 2 | 1,928 | 1,184 | 56 | 3,168 | 60.9% | 37.4% | D+23.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Union Township, Precinct 1Union Township, Precinct 1 | 1,499 | 1,483 | 45 | 3,027 | 49.5% | 49.0% | D+0.5 |
| Precinct -City of Mount Pleasant, Precinct 1City of Mount Pleasant, Precinct 1 | 1,672 | 950 | 54 | 2,676 | 62.5% | 35.5% | D+27.0 |
| Precinct -Union Township, Precinct 2Union Township, Precinct 2 | 1,190 | 948 | 41 | 2,179 | 54.6% | 43.5% | D+11.1 |
| Precinct -City of Mount Pleasant, Precinct 3City of Mount Pleasant, Precinct 3 | 1,369 | 654 | 36 | 2,059 | 66.5% | 31.8% | D+34.7 |
| Precinct -Coe Township, Precinct 1Coe Township, Precinct 1 | 679 | 1,012 | 26 | 1,717 | 39.5% | 58.9% | R+19.4 |
| Precinct -Chippewa Township, Precinct 1Chippewa Township, Precinct 1 | 625 | 777 | 32 | 1,434 | 43.6% | 54.2% | R+10.6 |
| Precinct -Nottawa Township, Precinct 1Nottawa Township, Precinct 1 | 457 | 899 | 23 | 1,379 | 33.1% | 65.2% | R+32.1 |
| Precinct -Deerfield Township, Precinct 1Deerfield Township, Precinct 1 | 631 | 694 | 15 | 1,340 | 47.1% | 51.8% | R+4.7 |
| Precinct -Lincoln Township, Precinct 1Lincoln Township, Precinct 1 | 377 | 847 | 18 | 1,242 | 30.4% | 68.2% | R+37.8 |
| Precinct -Isabella Township, Precinct 1Isabella Township, Precinct 1 | 510 | 649 | 20 | 1,179 | 43.3% | 55.0% | R+11.8 |
| Precinct -Broomfield Township, Precinct 1Broomfield Township, Precinct 1 | 388 | 671 | 15 | 1,074 | 36.1% | 62.5% | R+26.4 |
| Precinct -Sherman Township, Precinct 1Sherman Township, Precinct 1 | 310 | 639 | 8 | 957 | 32.4% | 66.8% | R+34.4 |
| Precinct -Chippewa Township, Precinct 2Chippewa Township, Precinct 2 | 331 | 492 | 17 | 840 | 39.4% | 58.6% | R+19.2 |
| Precinct -Sherman Township, Precinct 2Sherman Township, Precinct 2 | 314 | 508 | 10 | 832 | 37.7% | 61.1% | R+23.3 |
| Precinct -Gilmore Township, Precinct 1Gilmore Township, Precinct 1 | 233 | 573 | 13 | 819 | 28.4% | 70.0% | R+41.5 |
| Precinct -Fremont Township, Precinct 1Fremont Township, Precinct 1 | 213 | 583 | 13 | 809 | 26.3% | 72.1% | R+45.7 |
| Precinct -Deerfield Township, Precinct 2Deerfield Township, Precinct 2 | 260 | 514 | 19 | 793 | 32.8% | 64.8% | R+32.0 |
| Precinct -Vernon Township, Precinct 1Vernon Township, Precinct 1 | 250 | 534 | 7 | 791 | 31.6% | 67.5% | R+35.9 |
| Precinct -Rolland Township, Precinct 1Rolland Township, Precinct 1 | 226 | 470 | 9 | 705 | 32.1% | 66.7% | R+34.6 |
| Precinct -Wise Township, Precinct 1Wise Township, Precinct 1 | 168 | 509 | 13 | 690 | 24.3% | 73.8% | R+49.4 |
| Precinct -Denver Township, Precinct 1Denver Township, Precinct 1 | 240 | 429 | 8 | 677 | 35.5% | 63.4% | R+27.9 |
| Precinct -Coldwater Township, Precinct 1Coldwater Township, Precinct 1 | 141 | 301 | 6 | 448 | 31.5% | 67.2% | R+35.7 |
| 0731114000001073-11140-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0731558000001073-15580-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0731558000002073-15580-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0731592000001073-15920-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0731688000001073-16880-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0731688000002073-16880-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0731706000001073-17060-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0732114000001073-21140-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0732114000002073-21140-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0732168000001073-21680-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0733068000001073-30680-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0733220000001073-32200-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0734116000001073-41160-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0734766000001073-47660-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0735602000001073-56020-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0735602000002073-56020-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0735602000003073-56020-00003 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0735602000004073-56020-00004 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0735602000005073-56020-00005 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0735602000006073-56020-00006 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0735602000007073-56020-00007 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0735936000001073-59360-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0736930000001073-69300-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0737320000001073-73200-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0738134000001073-81340-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0738134000002073-81340-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0738134000003073-81340-00003 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0738200000001073-82000-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 0738804000001073-88040-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
Presidential margin, 1892–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1892 | −2.4% |
| 1896 | +4.9% |
| 1900 | −19.2% |
| 1904 | −44.5% |
| 1908 | −30.1% |
| 1912 | −0.6% |
| 1916 | −11.1% |
| 1920 | −50.2% |
| 1924 | −59.3% |
| 1928 | −47.0% |
| 1932 | +0.7% |
| 1936 | −2.1% |
| 1940 | −42.4% |
| 1944 | −42.8% |
| 1948 | −36.7% |
| 1952 | −47.8% |
| 1956 | −45.0% |
| 1960 | −28.0% |
| 1964 | +20.2% |
| 1968 | −21.5% |
| 1972 | −12.8% |
| 1976 | −18.0% |
| 1980 | −15.0% |
| 1984 | −30.8% |
| 1988 | −13.0% |
| 1992 | +4.9% |
| 1996 | +11.2% |
| 2000 | +0.8% |
| 2004 | +2.4% |
| 2008 | +19.3% |
| 2012 | +9.2% |
| 2016 | −3.7% |
| 2020 | −2.5% |
| 2024 | −7.5% |
U.S. Senate
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 43,606 |
| 2018 | 42,971 |
| 2020 | 46,411 |
| 2022 | 47,940 |
| 2024 | 49,935 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
−316 net domestic migration · 2025
Net −4,236 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $40,383 in average income, against $69,829 for residents who stayed — 42% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+16.9 on average — 9.4 points more Republican-leaning than Isabella County, MI itself (R+7.5).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Gratiot County, MI180R+31.3
- Clare County, MI173R+37.6
- Midland County, MI146R+15.2
- Mecosta County, MI86R+30.0
- Kent County, MI74D+5.4
- Montcalm County, MI69R+39.0
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Gratiot County, MI162
- Midland County, MI147
- Clare County, MI136
- Oakland County, MI94
- Mecosta County, MI86
- Kent County, MI85
Migration is one input to a place’s political change, not its cause — a shift can also come from residents changing their minds, generational turnover, or turnout. These figures describe the places people moved between; they do not measure how any mover voted.
| Year | Net domestic migration |
|---|---|
| 2011 | −69 |
| 2012 | −377 |
| 2013 | −898 |
| 2014 | −624 |
| 2015 | +229 |
| 2016 | +119 |
| 2017 | −513 |
| 2018 | −933 |
| 2019 | −921 |
| 2021 | −215 |
| 2022 | +250 |
| 2023 | −256 |
| 2024 | +288 |
| 2025 | −316 |
Isabella County anchors the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe's sovereign territory and Central Michigan University's campus, yet the county has shifted toward Republican presidential margins in recent cycles, finishing 2024 at R+7.5.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 20.2 points in 1964 and a Republican high of 59.3 points in 1924. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 5.0 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 7.5 points.
A population of 64,565, a 83% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $55,237 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Vigo County and Cortland County.
The counties whose fingerprint — 2000–2024 trajectory, demographics, ancestry, religion — sits closest to this one, and why.
Twin score (0–100) = weighted cosine between tier-standardized fingerprints: presidential margins 2000–2024 with 12-yr trend and elasticity, ACS income, age, education, population and race, top reported ancestries, and religious adherence — chips name the closest-shared dimensions and the widest gap. Re-weight the groups in the twins explorer.
Browse places by community — income, education, race & ethnicity, language — all community cuts →
Compare two places, side by side
Twelve curated comparisons line up election history, demographics, and the divergence story for two places at a glance. Browse all comparisons →
Isabella County, Michigan. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/26073/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.