I am an advocate of not splitting counties. Consideration should be given to separating the representation of rural & tribal communities and representation of more densely populated communities. Is this gerrymandering if this addresses Montanans representation in the more densely populated counties to which their needs are different from the rural parts of the state? Also, I do not think splitting districts to share the border of Canada is an issue.

This is one of the better maps for grouping the voters of Montana (rather than just dividing the dirt). Missoula and Bozeman are very similar cities and it makes sense to keep them in the same district. This also has an added benefit of keeping that district actually competitive.

This is by far the best map because it does not split the counties. Splitting counties is hard on the counties for elections. It is also obvious gerrymandering. The only problem with this map is that all the reservations are in District 2.

I like county lines are boundaries.

I support this map. It is population equal and competitive.

This proposal does not divide any of the counties and has fairly equal division of the population. It is both contiguous and compact.

Keeping the counties intact makes a lot of sense administratively and this is the only map that successfully does so. It's competitive, compact and contiguous.

I support this map. It is population equal, and it is competitive.

Map 2 is competitive and does not favor one party. Reservations are in a block.

This is one of the best maps. It is highly competitive, population equal, contiguous, splits the 4 fastest growing counties between the 2 districts, and has only one split, the southern boundary of the Flathead Reservation. This map is a good one.

This map works. It is compact and competitive. Competitive elections are what we need in our fragile democracy.

I could live with this map. One district is heavily republican and the other race will be highly competitive without giving either party an advantage. It is the only map that doesn't split counties. I also gives the urban and the rural voter a voice at the table.

I could live with this map. One district is heavily republican and the other race will be highly competitive without giving either party an advantage. It is the only map that doesn't split counties. I also gives the urban and the rural voter a voice at the table.

Definitely better than the first map, but still not ideal.

better than the first one in that the counties are intact... it isn't as pretty looking but meets the requirements.

This is a pretty good map. I like that all of the counties remain intact. The best part of the configuration is that is creates a truly competitive district where all the candidates have to works with their constituents, regardless of party affiliation. (Our legislature used to work this way. More compromise would be very welcomed!) This map is among my second choices for our new legislative districts.

This is a fair map.

This is not a bad map, and is fairly representative.

This map is a suitably equal division of the population, while maintaining the possibility of equal representation of voters. Another plus is that it doesn't split any counties. However a negative is that it is not supported by Montana's tribal communities.

This is one of the better maps as it allows some representation of the democrat party. No matter what way the lines are drawn, someone isn't going to be happy. To be able to represent all of Montana fairly, non republicans need to have a fighting chance.

I support this map, though it isn't my favorite. It does not split any counties, which is nice. It creates a competitive voting district.

The only responsible options are to have at least one district where the races are competitive. I recommend CP2, CP6, or CP8. As a democrat I am thinking of leaving the state because I am never represented here.

Not my most preferred, but a reasonable option

Good map

This map is competitive.

I like Map 2 is population equal, competitive, and follows county lines. any district that is considered population equal, competitive should be considered

Map 2 is population equal, competitive, and follows county lines. Park and Gallatin Counties are in the same District, which follows their close relationship.

This map is competitive and does not divide counties, it is competitive.

This is a good map. It doesn't split any counties, and it's competitive, contiguous and relatively compact. It keeps most of the Tribal votes together.

This is a good map. It doesn't split any counties, and it's competitive, contiguous and relatively compact.

This map keeps all counties intact. It also collects all reservations except for a small portion of Flathead into one district for a more powerful voice in their representation.

It creates both districts of almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. It splits the fastest growing 4 counties evenly between the east and west districts, allowing for the best reflection of population growth over the next decade.

No split counties and a chance for balanced representation.

Not the best map, and the tribal community is not in support, but it is better than a couple of the other maps.

I believe this map most reflects both our Montana constitution and will bring balanced representation to the U.S. Congress for Montana.

I too like this map as it does not split cities, towns or reservations; and has equal split in population. Again, what's with the deal of bordering Canada? Show me where that is a criteria.

This map meets almost all of the criteria and recognizes similarities in populations allow them to vote for their best interests. Cascade County belongs to District 2. I have lived here for 73 years and I know my county.

This map is best for equality. It supports reservations by keeping them in a block rather than dividing them. It favors rural areas and farmers as a block and republicans. It does not divide counties. Notice that it has the most red and green dots equality split suggesting equality and competitiveness, also allowing for equal representation.

I support this map because it creates districts of equal population without splitting counties. Additionally, it creates a competitive district which will give all Montanans the ability to have their views represented in Congress.

This map keeps the counties intact as well as recognizing that Cascade County has an interests more closely aligned with those of Gallatin and Missoula Counties than with the counties in District 1. Having the Tribes in District 1 (with the exception of the Little Shell in Great Falls) actually gives them more power in that District. Splitting the tribes between the two Districts weakens their power. District 2 will take the needs of the tribes into consideration regardless as there are many urban Native Americans in the cities.

This map is the only one to keep all counties intact, which is a goal. It also divides the population equally (as best as possible). This map provides the possibility of a competitive district while not unduly favoring one party or the other, meaning that all Montanans have the chance to elect a representative who reflects their values and understands the issues facing each district.

Obvious gerrymandering - representation for We the People should reflect the cooperation of the two, maturely acting politicial parties and not a personal view that Montana is changing and growing.

I support this map as the populations are equal in population (as practicable), it follows county lines and it creates one district that is competitive. Montanans deserve to have a competitive choice when electing our representatives.

This one does a good job of representing Montana in the way it is changing and growing.

This is the only proposal that retains county integrity, which I think is very important and would make the voting process simpler and effective. The population difference is minimal between the two districts z d within constitutional guidance. This proposal makes sense all the way around.

The primary benefit of this map is that it provides for one truly competitive district which won’t favor the republican party, thus ensuring that the representative from the 1st District will have to consider the needs of every voter, regardless of party. It also has the benefit of not splitting any of the counties. The downside is that Montana’s Native American tribes do not support this map, probably because it puts all of Montana’s tribal communities at the mercy of the republican party in the 2nd District. While I favor this map, it is not my first choice.

I feel this map is the most competitive. No counties are split and the tribes are all in one district, giving them a unified voice on issues of importance to them. The population is also evenly split.

Map 2 – I dislike this map because  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.  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.  this map creates only one congressional seat bordering the huge economic driver of Canada with the state.  this map doesn’t even begin to resemble the historical divide we had for 80 years with our previous two congressional seats, keeping communities of interest intact based upon the commonalities easily found in an east west divided map.  it encircles Helena, Missoula, Butte and Bozeman to create a Democrat Super District, and should be voted “most likely to be sued by both the GOP and all Tribal governments” Map of 2021!

This looks like the best map in that it keeps counties contiguous AND creates a "competitive" district. Why are the GOP so afraid of a "competitive" district? It certainly does not lean Democrat. The only reason I don't support this one as fully as CP8 is because the tribes endorse #8, and I believe we should also listen to the tribes who have been given short shrift for far too long.

No counties are split and tribal boundaries are maintained. This is the best map to represent Montanans.

As a resident of a gerrymandered county, I appreciate the value of redistricting fairly. This version respects traditional county boundaries and populations.

The only map to respect county boundaries. The indigenous people deserve a more effective voice nationally and locally, and this map includes tribal boundaries in a single district. Urban and rural interests may conflict over some issues; both populations deserve representation. This map allows for both.

This is the one. After carefully reading the MT Constitution this map best reflects the contemporary interests of a state that is rapidly growing in very specific areas. Our small towns are becoming micro metropolitan centers and have pressing interests that diverge from the ongoing and important needs of our farmers, ranchers and and rural Montanans. I like that we would have a representative specifically for rural interests and another that would reflect some of the challenges and opportunities present in growing urban areas. Other strengths of this map is the valiant effort to preserve a Native American voting block. This map meets the criteria for population balance, protects minority rights, is contiguous and opens a space for a competitive election (several of these maps insure alternatives to republican voices are never heard). Communities are kept as together as possible (e.g. Gallatin/Park counties, south eastern portion of the state with Billings as an economic driver, the northwestern part of the state with its economic ties to tourism and Canada. There are two repeated some of the proposed maps that I think are straw dog arguments: burden of travel (not an issue like it was in the 1800s and certainly was not an issue when we were one district) and the simplistic allure of an east/west divide as if the mountains have some political meaning). Well done on this map.

This map is a good split of the state. Native Nations in one district seems good. Both districts have diverse biogeography, so each representative might need to care about protecting wilderness.

Map CP 2 would be my second choice with Map CP 9 my first choice. It provides districts that are representative and more competitive than some other maps thus providing for a balanced democratic representation. Urban, rural and tribal requirements are met. Map CP 2 allows medical and economic hubs as well as bedroom communities to allow voters to participate freely in the election process that includes their interests. Map CP 2 meets the commission’s criteria as well as the Constitution and does split counties.

This map is great--no split counties--very intuitive and conducive to effective representative democracy

I prefer Map 2 because no counties are split (the only one to do so), deviation is only .02%, good balance between rural and urban counties, and conservative and moderate, puts all Indian Reservations together for more power for Native Americans. Additionally maps 1,3,5,7 divides large population areas within Gallatin County (Bozeman, Big Sky, Gallatin River Ranch, Gallatin Gateway).

This is good in that no counties are split, and provides good representation between rural and urban interests. District 1 is relatively compact and the reservations are kept together. I agree with the other support comments.

This map is competitive and a good representation of voter interests in the rural and urban areas of the state.

This map is close to balanced in terms of population at the time of the census. It has a major virtue that it does not split any counties or local governments/jurisdictions. District 1 is reasonably compact. I agree with the comments of the other supporters. Regarding one of the negative comments--I doubt it would be possible to devise districts that are close to equal in both population and geographic size, so geographic equality should not be a selection criterion.

I agree with the support comments for this map. Urban and rural areas both need legislative support and the lines need to be drawn to be fair to both sides of the political isle to allow representation. The Native American population needs a strong voting block as well.

This map does an excellent job of creating representatives districts for Montana's population. The first way it does that is through creating two districts that effectively divide between the more urban and more rural parts of the state, which guarantees appropriate representation on that basis, something that in a growing state such as Montana is the most important objective we can have. Additonally, this map maintains the power of the Native American voting block by keeping most of the native population in a single district and therefore giving them more influence over the representative chosen. This map is a fair and representative way for Montanans to be represented in congress and would be an excellent choice by the redistricting committee.

This map makes sense. Urban and rural areas have different needs. Communities of interest are addressed here while not so much in the east-west split type map. Population is within the +/- 1% deviation. It is contiguous without county splits. It allows a chance for either political party to win in local elections by being balanced.

When MT had a single seat, somehow one Representative was able to handle the entire state. I see no reason why that person can't now handle less. This map is the fairest in terms of population, contiguity, and to give ALL Montanans a chance at fair representation. It is one of the few with no county splits, making election administration easier.

This map is competitive and a good representation of voter interests in the rural and urban areas of the state.