Sanilac County, Michigan
Precinct data
Results by precinct
61 precincts · 23,339 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -Lexington Township, Precinct 1Lexington Township, Precinct 1 | 837 | 1,466 | 37 | 2,340 | 35.8% | 62.6% | R+26.9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Worth Township, Precinct 1Worth Township, Precinct 1 | 758 | 1,550 | 22 | 2,330 | 32.5% | 66.5% | R+34.0 |
| Precinct -Sanilac Township, Precinct 1Sanilac Township, Precinct 1 | 512 | 1,044 | 20 | 1,576 | 32.5% | 66.2% | R+33.8 |
| Precinct -City of Sandusky, Precinct 1City of Sandusky, Precinct 1 | 407 | 875 | 19 | 1,301 | 31.3% | 67.3% | R+36.0 |
| Precinct -City of Croswell, Precinct 1City of Croswell, Precinct 1 | 401 | 747 | 19 | 1,167 | 34.4% | 64.0% | R+29.6 |
| Precinct -Marlette Township, Precinct 1Marlette Township, Precinct 1 | 176 | 801 | 13 | 990 | 17.8% | 80.9% | R+63.1 |
| Precinct -City of Marlette, Precinct 1City of Marlette, Precinct 1 | 248 | 617 | 15 | 880 | 28.2% | 70.1% | R+41.9 |
| Precinct -Elk Township, Precinct 1Elk Township, Precinct 1 | 191 | 670 | 17 | 878 | 21.8% | 76.3% | R+54.6 |
| Precinct -Speaker Township, Precinct 1Speaker Township, Precinct 1 | 177 | 642 | 16 | 835 | 21.2% | 76.9% | R+55.7 |
| Precinct -Washington Township, Precinct 1Washington Township, Precinct 1 | 176 | 646 | 10 | 832 | 21.2% | 77.6% | R+56.5 |
| Precinct -Watertown Township, Precinct 1Watertown Township, Precinct 1 | 128 | 664 | 8 | 800 | 16.0% | 83.0% | R+67.0 |
| Precinct -Marion Township, Precinct 1Marion Township, Precinct 1 | 166 | 616 | 8 | 790 | 21.0% | 78.0% | R+57.0 |
| Precinct -City of Brown City, Precinct 1City of Brown City, Precinct 1 | 142 | 536 | 9 | 687 | 20.7% | 78.0% | R+57.4 |
| Precinct -Buel Township, Precinct 1Buel Township, Precinct 1 | 141 | 529 | 12 | 682 | 20.7% | 77.6% | R+56.9 |
| Precinct -Forester Township, Precinct 1Forester Township, Precinct 1 | 185 | 418 | 4 | 607 | 30.5% | 68.9% | R+38.4 |
| Precinct -Maple Valley Township, Precinct 1Maple Valley Township, Precinct 1 | 113 | 489 | 4 | 606 | 18.6% | 80.7% | R+62.0 |
| Precinct -Fremont Township, Precinct 1Fremont Township, Precinct 1 | 119 | 453 | 10 | 582 | 20.4% | 77.8% | R+57.4 |
| Precinct -Custer Township, Precinct 1Custer Township, Precinct 1 | 136 | 413 | 8 | 557 | 24.4% | 74.1% | R+49.7 |
| Precinct -Moore Township, Precinct 1Moore Township, Precinct 1 | 92 | 453 | 8 | 553 | 16.6% | 81.9% | R+65.3 |
| Precinct -Delaware Township, Precinct 1Delaware Township, Precinct 1 | 98 | 431 | 6 | 535 | 18.3% | 80.6% | R+62.2 |
| Precinct -Flynn Township, Precinct 1Flynn Township, Precinct 1 | 87 | 403 | 9 | 499 | 17.4% | 80.8% | R+63.3 |
| Precinct -Lamotte Township, Precinct 1Lamotte Township, Precinct 1 | 82 | 353 | 3 | 438 | 18.7% | 80.6% | R+61.9 |
| Precinct -Bridgehampton Township, Precinct 1Bridgehampton Township, Precinct 1 | 67 | 338 | 4 | 409 | 16.4% | 82.6% | R+66.3 |
| Precinct -Elmer Township, Precinct 1Elmer Township, Precinct 1 | 78 | 325 | 3 | 406 | 19.2% | 80.0% | R+60.8 |
| Precinct -Argyle Township, Precinct 1Argyle Township, Precinct 1 | 67 | 300 | 3 | 370 | 18.1% | 81.1% | R+63.0 |
| Precinct -Evergreen Township, Precinct 1Evergreen Township, Precinct 1 | 44 | 322 | 4 | 370 | 11.9% | 87.0% | R+75.1 |
| Precinct -Greenleaf Township, Precinct 1Greenleaf Township, Precinct 1 | 87 | 280 | 2 | 369 | 23.6% | 75.9% | R+52.3 |
| Precinct -Austin Township, Precinct 1Austin Township, Precinct 1 | 113 | 243 | 2 | 358 | 31.6% | 67.9% | R+36.3 |
| Precinct -Minden Township, Precinct 1Minden Township, Precinct 1 | 75 | 238 | 4 | 317 | 23.7% | 75.1% | R+51.4 |
| Precinct -Wheatland Township, Precinct 1Wheatland Township, Precinct 1 | 54 | 218 | 3 | 275 | 19.6% | 79.3% | R+59.6 |
| 1510346000001151-03460-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1510440000001151-04400-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1511042000001151-10420-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1511118000001151-11180-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1511154000001151-11540-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1511892000001151-18920-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1511946000001151-19460-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1512138000001151-21380-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1512528000001151-25280-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1512554000001151-25540-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1512674000001151-26740-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1512924000001151-29240-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1512950000001151-29500-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1513074000001151-30740-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1513502000001151-35020-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1514546000001151-45460-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1514730000001151-47300-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1515138000001151-51380-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1515172000001151-51720-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1515182000001151-51820-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1515184000001151-51840-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1515454000001151-54540-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1515532000001151-55320-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1517154000001151-71540-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1517158000001151-71580-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1517550000001151-75500-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1518414000001151-84140-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1518444000001151-84440-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1518658000001151-86580-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1518876000001151-88760-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1518876000002151-88760-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
Presidential margin, 1892–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1892 | −16.6% |
| 1896 | −6.8% |
| 1900 | −32.3% |
| 1904 | −55.0% |
| 1908 | −44.6% |
| 1912 | −14.9% |
| 1916 | −41.6% |
| 1920 | −71.3% |
| 1924 | −73.8% |
| 1928 | −63.6% |
| 1932 | −24.8% |
| 1936 | −33.4% |
| 1940 | −64.6% |
| 1944 | −64.7% |
| 1948 | −57.2% |
| 1952 | −65.5% |
| 1956 | −57.9% |
| 1960 | −45.1% |
| 1964 | −9.5% |
| 1968 | −42.9% |
| 1972 | −47.9% |
| 1976 | −27.0% |
| 1980 | −40.1% |
| 1984 | −50.6% |
| 1988 | −32.1% |
| 1992 | −10.8% |
| 1996 | −4.2% |
| 2000 | −20.5% |
| 2004 | −22.9% |
| 2008 | −8.1% |
| 2012 | −20.3% |
| 2016 | −44.5% |
| 2020 | −45.6% |
| 2024 | −47.7% |
U.S. Senate
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 29,510 |
| 2018 | 29,444 |
| 2020 | 31,730 |
| 2022 | 32,529 |
| 2024 | 33,038 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
+10 net domestic migration · 2025
Net −1,129 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $59,988 in average income, against $61,755 for residents who stayed — 3% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+23.3 on average — 24 points more Democratic-leaning than Sanilac County, MI itself (R+47.7).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- St. Clair County, MI217R+34.6
- Macomb County, MI132R+13.7
- Lapeer County, MI82R+39.8
- Huron County, MI56R+40.6
- Oakland County, MI55D+10.6
- Tuscola County, MI51R+43.0
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- St. Clair County, MI204
- Macomb County, MI94
- Lapeer County, MI81
- Tuscola County, MI66
- Oakland County, MI42
- Huron County, MI36
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 | −421 |
| 2012 | −406 |
| 2013 | −391 |
| 2014 | −214 |
| 2015 | −136 |
| 2016 | −30 |
| 2017 | −68 |
| 2018 | +31 |
| 2019 | +42 |
| 2021 | +216 |
| 2022 | +175 |
| 2023 | +55 |
| 2024 | +8 |
| 2025 | +10 |
This rural county at the tip of Michigan's Thumb peninsula recorded an R+47.7 margin in 2024, among the largest in the state, driven by a predominantly white, non-college population spread across small farming communities and shoreline townships.
Across the recorded series it reached a Republican high of 73.8 points in 1924. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 2.1 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 47.7 points.
A population of 40,462, a 92% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $58,863 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Lapeer County and Tuscola 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 →
Sanilac County, Michigan. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/26151/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.