This is the most balanced map of the options available. it is balanced between political parties as well as rural and urban areas.

This Map clearly elevates the imbalance of the heavy population sights. having most of Gallatin and all of Yellow Stone and Park county offset Maddison, Louis & Clark and Granite county is the only equitable way to ensure balance. We are a representative rule first not majority rule at all costs.

This is the best map. It splits the population, reservations and college towns evenly without gerrymandering.

This map CP1 actually seems the most logical giving cities and rural populations equal representation.

Good split east and west grouping populations with similar interests

This map appears to be a good split between east and west.

THIS IS THE ONE! It was used when we last had two congressional districts and is fair and adheres to our constitution. The commission should just do their duty. Quit screwing around and adopt CP1 MAP

I believe CP1 is a fair, reasonable and legal alternative. CP1 is the fairest divide as it addresses the population. It is more arbitrary and properly does not address "competitiveness", or the Parties who are wishing to gain power by manipulating boundaries based on past voting records.

Map CP-1 as it’s the best map that adheres to the law.

CP-1 holds to not only common sense, it also upholds the Montana State Constitution, thereby lessening the possibility of having all this effort overturned in court at a later date. This should not be a complicated process. Plain, simple, fair. That is what Montanans expect in all aspects of the law and their government. Please demonstrate that common sense is still a Montana standard and adopt CP-1.

This is the map that follows the Monatana constitution and that follows Montana law. It should be adopted without question or hesitation.

Map CP-1 as it’s the best map that adheres to the law. It clearly divides into an eastern & western section & is least likely to be held up in courts due to carving out political interests.

CP-1 is the best map that adheres to the law. Please select this one.

Map CP-1 is the best map in adhering Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. It's similar to what was used before and worked very well. All these proposed changes are just manipulations from biased groups.

To me CP1 is the fairest of the options

Once again, CP1 is the best choice for all Montana. It meets all the requirements for HB 506. It you want to be fair and equitable and not have to fight this battle in count, CP1 is the best choice.

Subject: Congressional Redistricting Map Chair Smith and Commissioners. Map CP-1 as it’s the best map that adheres to the law. Thank you for your consideration.

I think this map is best as it equally divides the state without gerrymandering.

I Believe this is a fair and reasonable map without any gerrymandering

I support any of the maps that draw a straight-as possible line down the state; this one probably comes the closest. Unfortunately, this map splits a county, but may be unavoidable to achieve a boundary that is as objective and non-partisan as possible. I do not support CP11 or CP10 (the finalists) which clearly suggest gerrymandering by both parties. Proponents for the gerrymandered districts cite "competitiveness", but in my view that is code word for gerrymandering. Please stop. Draw a straight line down the state containing equal populations, or let the two representatives be elected at-large across the full state.

THIS IS THE MAP WE SHOULD USE. STOP THE GERRYMANDERING.

My second favorite map (I prefer CP3). It splits the state quite well considering the limitations, and preserves an accurate representation of Montanans that does not swing out of the way for either party. It is a shame to see Bozeman be in the east, but considering the population it is either Bozeman or Kalispell and one of them is at least somewhat East Montana-like. It is sad to see counties split, but this appears to be a necessity to maintain population balance and this map does OK at it. The separation of Three Forks in Gallatin County is a good pick as it is a somewhat-distinct community from Bozeman, but it appears to harm the folks in the Vaughn area of Cascade County (I think West Yellowstone is a better replacement, see CP3). However, this map is better than splitting Havre in half (CP5).

As a non partisan voter, self described Libertarian, I feel proposal 1, CP1 is the fairest divide as it addresses the population and not the Party's who are wishing to control by past voting records. If Republicans or Democrats wish to get more votes in any particular section it is up to them to convince the people why they better represent us.

This map would be great if all of Gallating and Cascade counties were included in the Eastern District. Changes I might suggest of MapsCP-3 and CP-5 would result in the same map. I think the criteria for competitiveness is transitory and represents a case for gerrymandering to accomplish an immediate political end.

I like this map. It has a clear cut line and each side has a fair representation of the whole of Montana. Each has college towns, border, reservations, cities. Any Montanan would have a voice instead of one group over another.

This east/west configuration seems to be a solid way of dividing the state.

If we have to split the state this seems to make the most sense, but I agree with the comment that having the representatives at large and not divide the state makes more sense.

There's great worry about the reservations being distributed equally and having fair representation. What about college towns and students? Should they ALL be stereo-typically thrown in with the side that many ASSUME speaks to them? We wouldn't want reservations all in ONE district, that wouldn't be "fair" so why are many not just OK -- but EXPECT -- a way huge liberal District 1 with ALL of the college towns? One could say that this map may "favor" conservatives for no other reason than it doesn't favor the Left, but it gives both Districts a border with Canada, both have similar geography, population, both could have a college culture (to a point), and bother districts would need to fairly represent their respective reservations. This isn't drawn all funny to OBVIOUSLY include some counties and not others, it's up-down, simple, looks clean, represents the state.

After reviewing all the proposed maps, this one is taking into account future population growth of the entire State and providing for a balanced approach to representation of the citizens of Montana. Additionally, the split of population is equal between all rural and city regions. I strongly support this redistricting plan.

Like this one, seems fair and meets all requireements

this map would be ok. It contains a good balance of various peoples

This is the best representation for our state.

Good split for fastest growing counties.

This map seems to provide the best overall balance of all the proposed options. It seems balanced between political parties and represented population in each district. Both proposed districts include a balance of urban and rural areas, which appropriately provides a voice for rural Montana in the state's affairs. It does this while recognizing the uniqueness of both the mountain and prairie portions of our state.

This map best represents the varied interest of Western and Eastern Montana.

I agree this map is the most fair for both sides and would be the most balanced for all,

This map most closely meets constitutional criteria

This map 1 is similar to our historical map. Very fair. The only drawback I see is the splitting of two counties.

2nd Choice: Map #1: This is very similar to Map 7, and has a population deviation of only 1, the smallest of any of the options. However the eastern border of District 2 (note district numbers 1 and 2 are reversed for this map as compared to most of the other maps) now divides both Gallatin and Cascade Counties. Two major cities, however are both intact in Eastern District 1: Great Falls and Bozeman with the dividing line in Gallatin being located west of Bozeman as compared to Map 7.

This is a very good map to divide Montana. It takes both parties fairly into account and it doesn’t gerrymander to any specific party. Dividing Montana by the East and the West is a very good way of going about it, which is why I hope that this map is the 1 to be approved. Thank you.

Considering the dynamics caused by population growth and increased diversity, this map is a great fit both now and for the future. All Montanans must be represented in a fair fashion, without the partisan politics we see in other states.

This is a good competitive map for both parties and splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between east and west. This map evenly splits the state demographically and geographically. I consider this a fair division, as the largest cities are split so that one side does not outpace the other.

2nd choice

This map is the fairest and most constitutional of all the choices. The other maps all seem to give preference to one party only. The nation is watching to be sure that Montana does this in a fair and equitable manner, and therefore, this is the ONLY choice that exhibits that philosophy.

I like this second for the same reasons I like #5.

I prefer this map. It splits the population almost exactly in half, it is basically an east/west split, and it doesn't look like a gerrymander job. It is simple and clean.

Nice east/west split -- almost exact per population! Contigious and good split between parties if you look at recent past elections (gov in '16 and Senate 18 race)s. Looks like low deviation per person (as required by state constitution?).

I like this map because it allows for two reservations to be included within the western district, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. there are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. when you follow the commissions’ illegal goals of competitive, it is the closest number of voters for each party using the 2016 Governor’s race and the 2018 Senate race for each district. This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available. most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.

This is the most competitive map for both parties and splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between east and west

Map 1 – I like this map because • it allows for two reservations to be included within the western district, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. • the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. • there are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). • this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. • when you follow the commissions’ illegal goals of competitive, it is the closest number of voters for each party using the 2016 Governor’s race and the 2018 Senate race for each district. This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available. • most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.

This map follows the criteria Montana law prescribes most closely with the least deviation and reflects our past history as well as the potential for future population growth. While it does split two Counties, it is nearly impossible to prevent this as the other map options illustrate as well.

This map satisfies the legal requirements of MCA 5-1-115. It shares the Canadian border between districts, put two tribes in the western district, places 2 of the 4 high growth counties in each district and although it splits Gallatin and Cascade county it keeps the cities intact in the eastern district.

This map evenly splits the state demographically and geographically. I consider this a fair division, as the largest cities are split so that one side does not outpace the other.

it allows for two reservations to be included within the western district, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. there are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. when you follow the commissions’ illegal goals of competitive, it is the closest number of voters for each party using the 2016 Governor’s race and the 2018 Senate race for each district. This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available. most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.

This is the best plan - divides counties/cities the least while making sense of boundaries. It also divides population very equally.

I like this map the best. It does however divide a couple counties which is something I am not thrilled about but it does avoid dividing communities. Clear north to south split which I like. My second choice is VP3

I believe the CP1 is the most balanced and fair along with following state law. It would be obvious one political party would have a great advantage if any of the other maps are used. Growth is typical in the cities, so to keep these larger cities spilt is common sense.

This map is not competitive.

I like this map because it follows state law, as the districts are compact, contiguous, and allow for both districts to have a border with Canada.

I like this map because it's a fair east west split for the state. I prefer that the largest towns in the state are properly split across the divide evenly as it helps distribute votes and power more evenly. I do not want the liberal agenda seeping into my county because the Democrats are maintaining more control by conquering another town. I believe in this split as it gives citizens a fair opportunity to vote and live with the values they believe in. My home state was redistricted like how the democrats are proposing and it ruined Virginia.

Based upon the available choices, this map is the most competitive one for the two main political parties. It also provides the best balance for population and tribe inclusion.

CP 1 has my endorsement. A balanced approach, it meets requirements of the law which many of the other maps fail to do. I believe it represents both the state's demographic and political factions equally while meeting the statutory requirements for compactness and contiguity, with the equal division of only a few counties to meet the fair distribution of growing populaces.

I like this map because the population only differs by just one citizen. This map also splits four of the largest growing cities in the state into each district evenly. Lastly this map is closest to the district divide from the past.

I prefer #1, with #3 my second choice. Both keep counties together and border Canada. East-West makes the most sense. The other maps are clearly examples of gerrymandering. Please do not put Flathead with eastern MT or split it up.

I like the CP 1 map the best. It displays a historical and logical divide between the East and West districts. It appropriately conforms to the MT Code 5-1-115 redistricting criteria. It evenly splits the (4) fastest growing counties and the (4) Native American Indian reservations. It's the most competitive map for both parties and creates an equal population growth split among the two districts.

I like this map best because this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. When you follow the commissions’ illegal goals of competitive, it is the closest number of voters for each party using the 2016 Governor’s race and the 2018 Senate race for each district. This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available.

Yes. Fair split of the state. Reject the games democrats play. I have lived in democrat-controlled states. They love to gerrymander in order to give control to their party and the federal government. Do not give them an inch. We must reject any proposal by them.

I like this map BEST because this map is fair for both parties and complies with the law. This map resembles the historical divide we have had in the past. The East/West line makes it easier for voters and candidates. Most importantly, it does not take away the voice of our Native Americans. Thank you.

I like map CP #1 because it is a straight line for western Montana and includes all of the cities without any gerrymandering like the other maps.

Map 1 is the most compact and constitutional districting possible

CP1 should strongly be considered for implementation by the committee as It shares crucial input regarding the Canadian border with both districts. It balances reservations and fastest growing counties in each district. It satisfies the contiguous and compactness requirement along with the communities of interest criteria. The population deviation is near non existent.

the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana.

this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade.

This map is the only map of the 9 submitted that most closely aligns with the intent of HB 506, therefore its the only map that complied with current Montana Law, it divides the least amount of counties and has the closest split of the total number of people.

CP1 • Big picture, this map appears political motivation is not the driving issue in development. Competitiveness of one party or the other is not inherent in this map. • Best meets intent of constitutional requirements, does not put competitiveness for one party over the other as a priority which is not part of the requirement. • 1 citizen deviation, wow. Splits fastest growing counties into both districts. Maintains a university town in each district. Best delineation of districts representing diversity of interests, the use of land and natural resources. This allows representatives to represent Montana fairly back in Washington and not be politically motivated. Looks to be the best fit for all the people of Montana. One negative is it splits 2 counties, which could make election integrity at those counties challenging. Higher degree of diversity of interests by allowing for reservations in both districts. Maintains a broader array of interests in both districts, which will make both parties competitive in both districts. • I think this is the best delineated map for the two elected representatives to represent all of Montanan’s.

I like this map the BEST because it resembles the historical divide we have had in the past. The East/West line makes it easier for voters and candidates. This map is fair for both parties and complies with the law. Most importantly, it does not take away the voice of our Native Americans. Thank you for letting us have a voice in this important decision.

I believe 1,3 or 5 are the best choices and I would be fine with any of them. Since moving to Kalispell in 2005 I have always heard Montana referred to in terms of Western and Eastern, never North and South. Map 2 should be in the dictionary as an example of gerrymander. 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are not much better. Obvious attempts to create a Democrat District ignoring the historical way Montanans think of the state.

This map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available. It also most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.

CP1 map complies with HB506 legal requirements, divides the population equally and is fair for both parties.

This map gives reservations a voice in both districts. It creates compact and contiguous districts which have common interests. Also, the fastest growing counties are split between the 2 districts maintaining a balance for a longer period of time. Issues with the Canadian border are divided evenly. Gerrymandering is eliminated preventing permanent republican and democrat districts which would disenfranchise many voters indefinitely.

A fair and balanced approach that represents both the demographic and partisan aspects of the state

This map seems to split the state in a fair way, taking growing cities into consideration and separating them in an attempt to keep things fair.

This map has several positive features, including the population deviation is 0%. This creates one of the tightest maps by district measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, which allows for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. There are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the Eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). This map also splits the fastest growing 4 counties in the East and West districts and put two reservations in the Western districts. This allows for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. This is the most competitive map for both parties and is my number one choice of all the maps.

I prefer this version as it seems to maintain what was historically done in MT as well as the only difference appears to be one person. (I say appears because we know that realistically not all people were counted).

This map is the most attractive. It divides in a manner that is fair, makes geographic sense, divides population equally, and is the least divisive as far as counties/cities.

I like Proposed Map CP1 as I believe it follows the precedent with east-west division and it divides the least number of counties. It allows for future growth in counties where the population is mostly occurring.

-This map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. -This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available. -This map most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.

Map 1 – I like this map because • it allows for two reservations to be included within the western district, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. • the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. • there are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). • this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. • when you follow the commissions’ illegal goals of comp

This map has several positive features, including: *the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. *there are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). *this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. *This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available.

This map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. It seems like a very good choice.

Map one makes the most sense for MT Congressional districts. It follows the law and best groups any culture, economic and culture concerns. Western MT is not Eastern MT.

I like this map for several reasons. It shares crucial imput regarding the Canadian border with both districts. It puts 2 reservations in the western district and 2 of the 4 fastest growing counties in each district. It satisfies the contiguous and compactness requirement along with the communities of interest criteria. The population deviation is 0% and even the illegal commissions competitive requirement is satisfied.

I like this map because it divides the population pretty equally without Gerrymandering the State of Montana.

This map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. This is my #1 choice of all the maps presented as it seems to meet the majority of considerations to be fair and equitable across all sectors.

Legal requirements are met and is the most fair map for both parties.

I like this map because it follows the specifics of the Constitution the best.

I like this map because this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade.

it allows for two reservations to be included within the western district, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. there are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. when you follow the commissions’ illegal goals of competitive, it is the closest number of voters for each party using the 2016 Governor’s race and the 2018 Senate race for each district. This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available. most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.

I like this map because it allows for two reservations to be included within the western district, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. there are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. when you follow the commissions’ illegal goals of competitive, it is the closest number of voters for each party using the 2016 Governor’s race and the 2018 Senate race for each district. This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available. most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.

I like this map as it seems to split the fast growing counties evenly properly setting the stage for the population growth over the next decade.

I feel this map is the most fair. Gallatin County should not be in the west.

This seems to be the best division

This looks like the best choice

I like this map because it is even and fair. Im not sure why people are complaining that it has more republican demographics? The recent election just showed that we are a majority republican leaning state. Of course any map will show that if it is divided fair and equally based on population. This should not be a political discussion, but rather represent the people that live across the state.We need to capture equal populations per sector and let the political chips fall where they do.

this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade.

I like this map. It looks very fair as compared to most of the others!

I like this map because the districts are based on the East/West portions of the state which have separate issues. The boundaries here will include all types of people, it will make the city folk and the country folks have to work together on issues in their district.

I support this map. While not perfect, it fulfills the direction provided by the MCA.

This looks like the best division of the state to meet criteria.

I like this map cause it allows for 2 reservations to be included within the western district, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. This map splits the fastest growing counties evenly between east and west districts, allowing for best reflection of poplulation growth

I like this map because it resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when Montana had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion. The population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. This map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade.

Flathead county belongs in the WEST, not the East that some of these maps show. Do what is right for Montana, not whatever party you belong to. We are sick of phony partisan politics. Just do the RIGHT thing!!!

During the 2021 legislative session, the Montana legislature passed HB506 which addressed how the two Congressional districts SHALL be divided and was signed into LAW by Governor Gianforte on 5/14/21. Why do we have laws if politicians do NOT follow them? Map CP1 is the ONLY map that fully meets the intent of HB506. It has a difference of only 1 person between the two congressional districts, it divides only 2 counties, and it is the MOST COMPACT of the 9 proposed maps with the north-south and east-west dimensions being the most equal.

The only thing wrong with this map. Is the Rocky Mountains the road is not nice when you are campaigning

This Map is fair.

This map in my opinion is preferred. Although it does split two counties, it balances urban and rural populations. If the political control is split, the split counties representation would be more fair to both parties. The division is straight forward and does not have the appearance of gerrymandering as most of the other proposals do. I am not sure why so many comments stress making sure the Indian reservations are all in one district. Are they not equally considered members of the state like the rest of us? Is the mentality of dividing and segregating the country on its way back? That is the last thing we need.

This is a good map, I believe it allows to adopt a map that complies with Montana law and rejects gerrymandered districts in the West.

Not only is there no gerrymandering on this map it also meets both the population requirements and all of the Montana Constitution requirements.

This map meets the population requirements as well as meets all the Montana Constitution requirements. With no gerrymandering.

The population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana.

This map is the best at meeting the constitutional requirements and cannot be accused of somehow being a gerrymandered map. Pick this one.

Map CP – 1 Looks visually like realistic districts. I very much respect the skill of lining up so many details for the districts to be compact and even balance with population and other details.The most important factor is to meet all the legal requirements!. Map CP-1 does that well.

This map seems to best comply with Montana law. Also the other maps seem to be gerrymandered in the West.

I like this map becaue both Congressional districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. Even though there Cascade and Gallatin are split, the map keeps both major cities intact )Great Falls and Bozeman). This map splits the fastest growing four counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade.

I like this map because it allows two reservation to be included. It is the closest in voters of each party and it most closely resembles the historical divide when we had two districts.

Map 1 – I like this map because • it allows for two reservations to be included within the western district, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. • the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. • there are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). • this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. • when you follow the commissions’ illegal goals of competitive, it is the closest number of voters for each party using the 2016 Governor’s race and the 2018 Senate race for each district. This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available. • most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.

Map 1 – I like this map because  it allows for two reservations to be included within the western district, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district.  the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana.  there are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman).  this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade.  when you follow the commissions’ illegal goals of competitive, it is the closest number of voters for each party using the 2016 Governor’s race and the 2018 Senate race for each district. This is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available.  most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.

this map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade.

This is the best map moving forward for our state.

This is the cleanest fairest division for the districts.

This map is the best of the 9 because it does not Gerrymander the districts, it has the best split of populations and splits just 2 counties.

As a Bozeman resident I am ok with splitting Gallatin county as long as it doesn't run through Bozeman and Belgrade proper. This map doesn't. I personally think the whole county should be in the east but understand the need to balance the populations of growing areas west of town.

This map passes the smell test. It is even, contiguous and fairly splits populations.

CP 1 provides the most compact geographical Congressional districts and keeps the population in the two districts as close as possible. Growth in the south and west is rapidly occurring, so CP 1 will likely maintain a better population balance between the two districts over the next decade than the maps that combine the south and west.

Proposal 1-CP1 is the best all around choice. The population is equal with is good for all parties. Bozeman and Great Falls both larger cities are in the Eastern district which is well thought out. This Proposal 1-CP1 gives Native Americans more say in Montana moving forward . After reviewing the other maps this one makes the most sense and is the most honest and fair districting.

Proposal 1-CP1 is the best all around choice. The population is equal with is good for all parties. Bozeman and Great Falls both larger cities are in the Eastern district which is well thought out. This Proposal 1-CP1 gives Native Americans more say in Montana moving forward . After reviewing the other maps this one makes the most sense and is the most honest and fair districting.

Unlike the other maps that are not compact maps and therefore do not meet the constitutional requirements, this map is contiguous, splits the population very evenly, follows the historical 80yr precident of west/east and keeps the major cities intact.

This map most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we used to have two districts, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion. This map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the past decade.

The population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. There are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). This map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade.

I like this map because it allows for two reservations to be included within the western district, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. Also, the population deviation is just 1 citizen (0%), creating one of the tightest maps by that measure, and both districts are almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. There are split counties in Cascade and Gallatin, but it keeps both major cities intact in the eastern district (Great Falls and Bozeman). This map splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the decade. When you follow the commissions’ illegal goals of competitive, it is the closest number of voters for each party using the 2016 Governor’s race and the 2018 Senate race for each district. I strongly believe this is the most competitive map for both parties in the choices available. This map most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.

Like this map, as map follows constitution to divide population evenly, width and length criteria are followed.

Although exactly balanced in population at the census moment, this is a very bad option due to splitting counties and communities in unfortunate ways.

Geography and population balanced, which is great, but two counties are divided.

Perfect.

I like this proposal because it creates two compact districts following a natural division (Continental Divide) that has also been a historical social division as well between eastern and western Montana.

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.

This map makes sense. The district boundary is logical and treats all people equally. It is not based on the racist presumption that all voters of color are democrats.

This map makes sense. District boundaries are logical and treats people equally. It ignores the racist presumption that all voters of color are democrats.

perfect, divided by population not parties..