MyDistricting | MONTANA
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
Provide your comments for consideration in the 2021 Redistricting process
Loading geometries...
District 1
District 2
Census Legend
Labels visible at zoom level 10.
Labels visible at zoom level 13.
Labels visible at zoom level 17.
Current Map Zoom: 8
Population and Geography based on 2020 Census Redistricting Data File
Mark F Pearson
I am not in favor of splitting counties.
Nate Norberg
This map looks like it's just deliberately trying to separate Bozeman and Missoula, even though they're very similar cities and would make sense to be in the same district. It's hard to think of a reason for this except to keep either district from being competitive
Marilyn Enneberg
I don’t want to choose between map 12 or 13. They don’t seem to meet the criteria required by law or our constitution. I believe map 1 would be the closest to meeting requirements.
Eric Olsen
I have to ask why all demarcations are East West. Why not North and South splits. Montana is a huge State with a majority of populations in the Western Half. This leaves the great expanse of the Eastern Plains with minimal input into future elections. The Eastern part of Montana represents a huge portion of the Ag Economy which is important to Montana. It is certainly a Partisan effort to control the new House seat by concentrating votes in the Western Counties which have higher concentrations of Democratic voters by far. It is unfair to include the Democratic strongholds of Missoula, Butte, Helena and Bozeman in one voter district.
Teri Lums
Splitting counties will cause confusion. This also have a gerrymandering feel to it. The only positive is the nice straight line.
Lucy Morell-Gengler
Splitting Gallatin County is not recommended; the entire county should go with the western district.
Kenny Pannell
I don't support this map. It splits counties, which doesn't make any sense. This map doesn't meet the competitiveness criteria.
I don't support this. It splits counties, which doesn't make sense. Lines should be drawn based on competitiveness, and this map does not meet that criteria.
Splitting counties violates the "contiguous" rule. This map follows the general concept that I submitted on July 7. My suggestion, although never submitted on these map choices, would be to put Cascade County in the East, and Gallatin County in the West. To be sure, some college sports fans would object, but the Big sky Conference already have them in the same League anyway. In order to gain a near equal balance in populations, a number of Counties that are contiguous to their easterly or westerly neighboring counties could be shifted to the east or west. These counties would be on the "border " as shown in map .
Jacob Foster
This map splits the town of Ulm and all of Cascade County, and Gallatin County. It is also uncompetitive and favors one political party across the entire state. It may look clean if all you're considering is a straight line and geographic area, but in terms of splitting up Montana communities, this map is a mess.
Garth Neuffer
This map is a non-starter. Splitting up Gallatin and Cascade counties does not serve the interests of those communities, nor the citizens of the state. Next...
Debra Hanneman
Splitting Gallatin County makes a division in southwestern Montana's communities that further polarizes our population. This is not a good idea.
Sabine Mellmann-Brown
Splitting Gallatin and Cascade county seems problematic. Also, I would think that A majority of Bozemen’s population would not feel they are adequately represented being thrown in with eastern Montana.
Amy Sowers
This map clearly favors one party and is a case study in gerrymandering. I do not support this map.
Anne Christensen
This map splits both Gallatin and Cascade Counties into two separate districts, which is not consistent with the interests of the people in those two counties. It does not create any competitive districts.
Ashley Moon
While this map is population equal, it is NOT competitive. This map does not allow for the representation of all of Montana's diverse populations. Nor does it account for rising populations in particular areas. This map does not meet the 8 objectives the commission unanimously adopted. I strongly oppose.
Robyn Morrison
This map does not create a competitive race. I also object to splitting counties..
Katherine Vargas
I do not support this map because it proposes splitting Gallatin County (2nd largest county in the state) in two as well as separating Cascade County. Also, it is not competitive, unduly favoring one political party, which leaves a huge number of citizens feeling as if their vote does not count.
Mary Alexine
I do not support this map. It splits counties which makes absolutely no sense. Map lines should be drawn based on competitiveness, and this map does not meet that criteria.
Dean Center
One important consideration in drawing districts is the rate of population growth or decline in the various districts. In particular, Flathead and Gallatin Counties should be in different districts. If not, one district will increase in population more rapidly than the other, and representation will be unequal for the next 10 years. At which time, we'll have to do this whole contentious process again. This map includes a small but rapidly growing portion of Gallatin County in the district with Flathead, promoting population inequity. I am unfamiliar with the ramifications of dividing Cascade County, but this seems unwise on its face.
Mark T Beland
Apparently whoever drew and accepted this map wanted one party to rule both districts. That is what Gerrymandering means: setting boundaries to help one party win and weaken the other party. The goal is to stop competition and automatically elect whoever pays the fee for the office.
Marcus H Smith
This map is an example of results-oriented winner take all gerrymandering by the Republicans. This map will not give the people of Montana the healthy, competitive system we deserve. Butchering Gallatin County, by far the fastest growing county in the state, is nonsense.
Nancy Loeza
This map does not meet the 8 objectives the commission unanimously adopted. It is not fair, with one heavily leaning republican district and another leaning republican to a lesser degree. Splits towns and counties unnecessarily.
Marita McDaniel
This map clearly favors one political party. If these district lines are chosen, the republican party will have two super districts and will have no incentive to consider the opinions of anyone who isn't an ultra-conservative (as is the case now in the legislature). I strongly oppose this district configuration.
Justina Pape
Dumb. Why split counties? The only argument for this one it that it looks almost like a straight line
Michelle Vered
I am opposed to this map. It is not a good idea to split Gallatin County, one of the state's most populated counties. Gallatin County residents throughout the Gallatin Valley share similar interests, and many people from Manhattan commute to work in Bozeman, but this map separates them into 2 different districts. This map also unfairly advantages one political party. We need to have a map with competitive districts so politicians have an incentive to compete for the votes of all Montanans, not just their base.
Maria Loeza
I am staunchly against this map. It is not competitive and clearly favors one party.
Patti Steinmuller
Having lived in rural Gallatin County and in Bozeman for a combined 30-year period, I urge the commission not to select map 1 because it divides Gallatin County into two Congressional districts. Even with the diversity that exists in the county, there are many shared interests and commonalities among residents in Gallatin County. This proposed map favors one political party. As the second largest county in the state, the entire county deserves to be in one Congressional district.
Edward Merle Wrzesinski
This map clearly violates the objective of not favoring a political party. If these district lines are chosen, the republican party will have two super districts and will have no incentive to consider the opinions of anyone who isn't an ultra-conservative (as is the case now in the legislature). I strongly oppose this district configuraton.
Wendy Parciak
This results in a biased electoral map that doesn't reflect actual voter opinions
Danette Seiler
This map is biased to create two Republican districts, and is not approved by Montana's tribal communities. Montana is a purple state. Our districts should be created in such a way that candidates are forced to appeal to all voters based on their ideas, and not just appeal to a district pre-loaded with a majority of people from their party. This map is not competitive.
Ethan Seiler
This districting proposal does not consult the Native communities, chops up counties and towns, and creates two GOP superblocks. This map makes a farce out of the redistricting process, and pursues resembling our old district map at the sacrifice of being competitive in any way. Also worth noting we no longer have the old districting for a reason: The world, and Montana, has changed a lot since we last had 2 Representatives!
Connie Ostrovsky
Though this version is the easiest geographical division, it is biased and ensures a Republican majority in both Districts. It would have been more fair had all of Gallatin County been included in District 1 and not split. A very poor choice.
Kristi DuBois
I oppose this split. It is biased, not competitive, and splits too many counties.
Jeff McNeish
No competitive districts.
Mitch Edgar
Biased and unbalanced
Cammie Edgar
This is a bad map
Linda Kenoyer
I have lived in Idaho, where communities were split to give one party an advantage as on this map. It makes you feel like your vote has been taken away. No matter what happens, Democrats will never have that kind of control in Montana, but at least allow the substantial number of non-Republicans in this state to have some chance of representation.
Linda G Semones
This map is uncompetitive, giving one party an exteme advantage. It splits counties and communities of interest. This map should be eliminated due to its extreme bias.
Megan Agnew
Not competitive
Kaye D Suzuki
I dislike and OPPOSE this map configuration because it splits counties and hence splits communities of interest and unduly favors the Republicans. The redistricting committee should be working to alleviate partisanship and strive to improve collaboration and compromise for the good of the entire state.
Kenda Kitchen
This map would make sure that their are two Republican reps. Though it looks good at a glance, state divided half and half it would never work for a fair election.
William D. Bain Jr.
This map is not at all competitive, strongly favoring one party. Also, it splits counties and towns. Very poor choice.
Karen Cramer
it is one of the worst examples of gerrymandering one could draw. Although it meets the population deviation requirement at 175 citizens (.02%), it is a travesty of compactness and a contiguous nightmare. A candidate would have to traverse over 700 miles to get from Libby to Miles City, spending 10 hours of time, and when they got to either, the needs of both communities are polar opposites as well.
jasmine krotkov
This map does not allow for the representation of all of Montana's diverse population. It divides communities of interest. It will not benefit our democracy.
Marcia Riesselman
This map unnecessarily splits counties and communities.
kathy hadley
This map splits two counties going against one of the goals of the Commission to keep cities, towns and counties together and it favors the Republican party. It is not competitive and will result in disenfranchising many voters.
Denise Faulkner
Splitting counties and small towns?? Why would I have a different rep than someone who lives 2 streets away?
Janet L Childress
This map clearly favors one party. (GOP) The goal should be to give every voter an equal voice. Why should 40 to 45 % of the population have NO voice in who represents them? This map is NOT at all competitive.
Maureen O'Mara
This map creates 2 super districts for the R party, making it impossible for a fair election.
Sandra Baril
This isn't a good choice. It clearly favors one party. It seems that the goal of redistricting should be to provide the best representation of all voters. It makes more sense to me that divisions be made considering like needs; i.e. rural, urban, native, etc. We should think outside the box and the traditional way of doing things in order to best serve all Montanans in this time of rapid change.
Clinton Nagel
Again, I dislike this map as it splits two counties. I know people like the split because it looks clean, but that isn't why or how we should choose district boundaries. This map violates the goal of not splitting entities such as towns, cities, counties or reservations.
Julie L Lauritzen
I dislike this map because it obviously breaks the law, violating 5-1-115(3b,c,d) because when you search the political affiliation of registered voters in the counties represented, it creates a very strong democrat district in the SW, and a very strong Republican district everywhere else.
Linda S Beischel
CP1 fails the commission’s criteria on multiple counts. It capriciously divides Gallatin and Cascade County. As a Helena resident with many social and cultural ties to the nearby cities of Great Falls and Bozeman, it makes no sense to split their voters into the “far eastern” district. It certainly appears that the intent is to curtail the voting power of urban interests, in addition to minimizing competitiveness in District 2. This plan is blatantly drawn to unduly favor the Republican party.
perry helt
Best overall choice with even populations,clear eastern 3/5 & western 2/5 land area district split. No lopsided dump of either party's supporters on 1 side of the line, any clearly superior candidate could win in either district
Sharon S Patton-Griffin
This map is horrible. It splits Cascade and Gallatin Counties putting Bozeman and Great Falls in the District 1, hence nullifying their power.
Alyson Roberts
This map unduly favors one political party and divides Gallatin County, which will disenfranchise voters who share common issues, concerns, economies, values, and needs.
Jake Dolan
I oppose this map as it divides Gallatin County and splits the communities of Big Sky and Gallatin River Ranch. It also creates two districts that are not competitive. Montanans deserve to keep our communities of interest intact and to have a competitive choice when electing our representatives.
Sandra Baril
This plan looks tidy, but what's the reason to divide the state like this? Is it not more important to create districts that are competitive and reflect shared values? We are failing our state if we do not try to reduce polarization and increase collaboration. I oppose this plan.
Debra McNeill
This map clearly favors one party for both districts, creating two republican super districts. There is no reason to run the divide north to south except to ineffectively hide blatant partisanship. Neither district is competitive and it only benefits the republican party. Just because the state districts used to be cut from north to south doesn’t mean it’s fair or considers the demographic needs of urban voters. Montana has changed considerably in the decades since it last had two U.S. legislative districts. We don’t drive our cars from the rear view mirror and we certainly shouldn’t run our state from a rear view mirror. This plan clearly disenfranchises our urban areas. Furthermore, Montana’s Native American tribes do not support this map. I adamantly oppose this map.
Liane Johnson
1. Division by natural boundaries. Fail 2. Division by population. Pass 3. Division by exterior border with Canada. Pass 4. Division by county representation. Scale 1-5(best) = 4--could be difficult for the western parts of Cascade and Gallatin Counties. 5. Division by Indian population. FAIL 6. Division by Urban/Rural population. Pass 7. Division by Commerce. Scale 1-5(best) 3 8. Division by Tourist Trades. Pass 9. Division by political parties. Scale 1-5(best) 4---I could support this map, but prefer the Rocky Mountains as a our states most natural boundary and crossing this causes travel problems in the northern counties many of the winter months.
Courtney Miranda
I am a Montana voter and this map is unfair. This map is not a balanced and should not be used to determine Montana's Congressional districts. It would create non-competitive districts and would not represent equal populations.
Thomas Cuezze
This map does not meet the constitutional requirement to not draw lines for the purpose of favoring a political party. It's blatantly clear Republican members of the commission want to split Gallatin County and group it with Billings in order to gerrymander the state for their own gain. I urge you to reject this blatant partisanship and draw lines based on communities of interest, compactness and competitiveness instead.
Once again, this map does not offer an opportunity for the 46% of Montanans who are currently voiceless at the Federal level to receive representation. Suddenly all those who were complaining about split counties in other proposals that resulted in one out of two competitive districts are quiet. There is nothing magical about a North-South divide between districts.
Terry Apa
Why split up Gallatin county? Man up and take it or leave it - I think it should be in District 2
Sue Beland
Map CP 1 is an obvious example of Gerrymandering by favoring one party vote by not forcing a candidate to prove they are worthy to serve Montanans and decide the future of our state. The candidate who runs will be elected before the election is held. Two counties are split. The dividing line does not meet the commission’s criteria. Please under no circumstances choose this map as it is not an example of representative government provided for in our constitution.
Charity Fechter Shirley
Looks good until you realize it is splitting similar communities and counties unfairly. Splitting counties is never good, but the split of Gallatin County is pretty bad for representation.
Shelby Fisher
This map is a plan drawn to unduly favor the Republican Party and eliminate competition in our state so they can send someone to Congress who lives in Santa Barbara instead of Montana.
Timothy Cuddy
This map creates a trivial barrier between the east and west with limited consideration for the demographics needs of each group. The map chosen should make an effort to preserve the voices of urban and rural voters by creating an urban-focused district and a rural-focused district. This map fails to do that and would disenfranchise many of the urban voters whose voices need to be taken into account. Additionally, this splits Montana's reservations, which would take away the power of the extremely important Native American voting block. As we now have two districts this should be seen as an opportunity to make their voices more heard not less.
Pamela Diedrich
This map favors a single party representation for all of Montana voters. We have a chance to have equitable party representation for Montana and should take this opportunity to adhere to our constitutional responsibilities.
Julia Shaida
This map does not minimize dividing counties, and it creates two districts that favor one party.
Judy Lewis
This map splits 2 counties, one of them being Gallatin. It does not minimize dividing cites, towns and counties which is one of the basic requirements. It tends to favor one political party over another. Montana has changed. There are urban areas with specific interests that need equal representation.
Breeann Johnson
This map is NOT competitive and disproportionately will favor republicans/ conservatives and undermine voters of color.