I favor this map as it is a wide spectrum for eastern and western districts. Meaning of course we are a very diverse population spectrum racially, politically. Equality for both political parties so we do not become too polarized as a state as this is unhealthy for all of us.

This map is my second favorite as it fairly represents ALL Montanans.

My favorite map. 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 us or Kalispell and one of us is at least somewhat East Montana-like. It is also a shame to split Gallatin County, but county-splitting appears to be a necessity and this looks like our best option as Three Forks and West Yellowstone are at least somewhat independent from Bozeman (Alternatives include removing Vaughn from Great Falls (CP1) or splitting Havre in half (CP5).

This is about the fairest looking thing going - straight down the middle...no gerrymandering to push minority interests together to try and win seat arbitrarily.

I like the straight lines and cuts. Those complaining of population differences... one thousand is not a huge difference, and guess what.. populations change. The map needs to make sure that all voices are heard from all walks of life, not one huge democratic group taking over everyone.

Like this one, seems fair and meets all requireements

This map would be ok. It does have a reasonable balance.

Fair representation of Democrat and Republican parties and splits fastest growing population areas relatively well.

This map could work fine

It's a relatively straight line, no gerrymandering. It doesn't favor a political party. No one has to drive through one district to get to another. Population deviation is insignificant.

Although not nearly as compact as CP1, this map does a good job of not gerrymandering and keeps the East and West intact.

This does not support a political party. I highly recommend this map 3.

It does not favor a political party. 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.

I think this is a fair option

Great to have the east/west split so the rep can easily do the job and represent the people. More deviation than Map 1, so not as good as that, but better than those with more deviation. Also both parties evenly represented and reflecting growth.

Maybe 3rd place

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 because it does not favor a political party is similar to CP-1 and meets Montana legal requirements

This map is fair to both of the main political parties and accurately reflects expected population growth.

This is a legal map which satisfies our historical north - south divide and sharing of the Canadian border. It splits the 4 high grow counties between the 2 districts and is compact and contiguous.

I like this map because it has all the characteristics of the CP-1 map, with a slightly larger population deviation at -560 (-0.1%). The only difference is the southern part of Gallatin around West Yellowstone and Hebgen Lake Estates will be in the western drawn map. Slight changes in the western parts of the county as well, but the cities of Great Falls and Bozeman remain intact and in the east. it does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat. 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.

I prefer CP5 better but this is very good also. Allows for even divide of fastest growing counties. Reservations are represented in both districts. Places University towns in both districts. Competitiveness of one party or the other is not inherent in this map.

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 does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat. Additionally, it creates both districts of almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana.

This map would be a good compromise if the socialists on the commission reject map 1 because it does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat. 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. Just a suggestion, the parties should not have the same people on the commission over and over. New people and new ideas are what is needed.

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.

This is how I would redistrict for the fairness to all voters. I feel it is fair to both parties even though if it was up to most they would choose to favor their party--that is the problem we have going on in this country today--greed, not only for money but for political power to transform this great country into another banana republic.

it does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat.

This is a good map because it is very similar to the CP-1 map with a slightly larger population deviation. It also doesn't favor a political party.

CP3 • I could support this map over CP2, CP4, CP6, CP8 and CP9, but prefer CP1. • Pretty similar to CP1. However, I do not favor the splitting of Gallatin County in 3 separate blocks. Although overall the map may meet the contiguous parameter, it deviates from compactness and will make election integrity harder at the county level. As in CP1, I like that there is reservation representation in both districts for diversity within; splits fastest growing counties in both districts; and represents an East West interest for use of lands and natural resources. • Larger deviation of population than CP1. • Generally, does not appear politically motivated to create a district to favor one party over the other. • Allows representatives to better meet with their constituents on-the-ground, without long East West travel distances as in CP2, CP4, CP6, CP8 and CP9.

This map splits the fastest growing four counties evenly allowing for either political parties to win with strong candidates in the coming years.

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. Maps 2 or 4 should be in the dictionary as an example of gerrymander. 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.

I like this map because it has all the characteristics of the CP-1 map, with a slightly larger population deviation at -560 (-0.1%). The only difference is the southern part of Gallatin around West Yellowstone and Hebgen Lake Estates will be in the western drawn map. Slight changes in the western parts of the county as well, but the cities of Great Falls and Bozeman remain intact and in the east.

Similar in ways to CP1 this map is fair and balanced to demographic and partisan characteristics

-This map does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat. -This map creates both districts of almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana This 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.

This is favorable in that it does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat. Further, it creates both districts of almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana. Finally, 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.

This map again acheives compact and contigious goals, splits the fastest growing counties, shares the canadian border between districts and appears to allow success for either party in a fair election with a strong candidate.

This map does not favor either political party. It also 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.

I like this map because it does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat.

it has all the characteristics of the CP-1 map, with a slightly larger population deviation at -560 (-0.1%). The only difference is the southern part of Gallatin around West Yellowstone and Hebgen Lake Estates will be in the western drawn map. Slight changes in the western parts of the county as well, but the cities of Great Falls and Bozeman remain intact and in the east. it does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat. 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.

I like this map because it has all the characteristics of the CP-1 map, with a slightly larger population deviation at -560 (-0.1%). The only difference is the southern part of Gallatin around West Yellowstone and Hebgen Lake Estates will be in the western drawn map. Slight changes in the western parts of the county as well, but the cities of Great Falls and Bozeman remain intact and in the east. it does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat. 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.

This could wor

I like this map because its similar to CP-1, I like the East/West division and splits the fastest growing counties.

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.

This Map is fair.

Looks good

Map 3 – I like this map because  it has all the characteristics of the CP-1 map, with a slightly larger population deviation at -560 (-0.1%). The only difference is the southern part of Gallatin around West Yellowstone and Hebgen Lake Estates will be in the western drawn map. Slight changes in the western parts of the county as well, but the cities of Great Falls and Bozeman remain intact and in the east.  it does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat.  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.

I like this map... 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.

I like this map because it has all the characteristics of the CP-1 map, with a slightly larger population deviation at -560 (-0.1%). The only difference is the southern part of Gallatin around West Yellowstone and Hebgen Lake Estates will be in the western drawn map. Slight changes in the western parts of the county as well, but the cities of Great Falls and Bozeman remain intact and in the east. It does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat. 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.

I like this map for it doesn't favor either political party. Either party could win either district. it creates both districts of almost the same shape, allowing for compact and contiguous parameters to meet the legal requirements in Montana and prevents any lawsuits. This map has similar characteristics of the first map, with less than a 0.1% population deviation. The only difference is the southern part of Gallatin around West Yellowstone and Hebgen Lake Estates will be in the western drawn map. Slight changes in the western parts of the county as well, but the cities of Great Falls and Bozeman remain intact.

The map does not favor a political party. Either district could be won by Republican or Democrat. 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.

Boundary makes sense, doesn't "look" like anyone is trying to pick one county and not the other; however, could Cascade or Gallatin county be "all in" or "all out," in one district or the other, so the counties are not divided?

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.

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.