A handful of Michigan Democrats have joined bipartisan groups of current and former lawmakers encouraging the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize and invalidate political gerrymandering practices as outlined in the Gill v. Whitford case.

One amicus brief, filed by Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP on behalf of 65 current and former state legislators from eight different states, was supported by 26 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

Former state Reps. Dianne Byrum and Lisa Brown joined current state Reps. Abdullah Hammoud, D-Dearborn; Kevin Hertel, D-St. Clair Shores; Donna Lasinski, D-Scio Township; and Robert Wittenberg, D-Oak Park, in signing on to the brief. No Michigan Republican state lawmakers were listed on the brief.

In a separate amicus brief, U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Flint Twp., joined current and former members of the House of Representatives -- 18 Republicans and 18 Democrats -- from 23 different states asking the court to abolish partisan gerrymandering.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case earlier this year, which alleges Wisconsin's state legislative districts drawn in 2011 are unconstitutionally limiting Democrats' constitutional rights.

In a divided decision, the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin ruled the state's district map was unconstitutional and ordered the lines to be redrawn, although the U.S. Supreme Court stayed that ruling in a 5-4 decision.

In Michigan, lawmakers are required to abide by federal law as well as state requirements, known as Apol standards, that have been in use since the 1980s in the redistricting process.

The standards require districts to be contiguous, compact and attempt to preserve county lines in state House and Senate districts.

Byrum said she felt the reality of political redistricting when the district she'd been representing shifted just enough so she was no longer living in it. She ended up moving and running in the district again, but said the experience gave her "a personal feeling of what it means to be gerrymandered."

Drawing district lines to suit a party or candidate is "dangerous for our country and our democracy," she said, because it can drive partisanship in the state legislature and curb consensus building. Byrum said a less partisan redistricting process could better represent constituents closer to the middle of the political spectrum.

"You elect extremes on both sides whether it's Republican or Democrat, because of the ways lines are drawn in a forgone conclusion," Byrum said. "It's bad

and not healthy for the political process."

Kildee said in a statement the issue of gerrymandering has contributed to "a crisis of confidence in government" and said ending partisan gerrymandering could give power back to voters.

Wittenberg said regardless of party, he believes districts should be drawn by people who don't have a vested interest in the final outcome.

"The best way to do it is to get people involved who don't have a stake in it," he said.

Others have questioned the legitimacy of arguments that gerrymandering exists in Michigan or other states.

Republican strategist Robert LaBrant previously told MLive he believes the U.S. Supreme Court stay on the lower court's ruling indicates Wisconsin's district lines will be upheld, a decision which would make any change to Michigan's district boundaries unlikely.

A ballot petition from the group Voters Not Politicians to create an independent redistricting commission was recently approved to form by the Board of State Canvassers, and organizers are currently collecting signatures. LaBrant filed a complaint against the state Elections Bureau following the approval, alleging state officials improperly gave the group drafting and legal advice when considering the proposal.

Read the brief from current and former U.S. House members here, and read the brief from current and former state lawmakers below.

Reporter Emily Lawler contributed to this report.

Gill v. Whitford Brief by Lauren Gibbons on Scribd