MyDistricting | MONTANA
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
CP3
Provide your comments for consideration in the 2021 Redistricting process
Loading geometries...
District 1
District 2
Population and Geography based on 2020 Census Redistricting Data File
Loading...
Teri Lums
Does follow any type of standard boundary. Don't split up counties...and Gallatin twice. Doesn't make sense
Kenny Pannell
This map is not competitive.
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...
Sabine Mellmann-Brown
Clearly worse than Map 1. Gallatin county is split relatively close to town. We should be able to do better than that.
Amy Sowers
This map is clearly gerrymandered to favor the GOP. I do not support this map.
Amy Sowers
This map is a sick joke.
Anne Christensen
This map splits Gallatin County and Cascade County. The people in these counties have shared interests and should not be split into separate districts. It has an uneven division of the population and is not likely to create competitive districts.
Ashley Moon
This map is NOT population equal and it is NOT competitive. This map does not meet the 8 objectives the commission unanimously adopted. I strongly oppose.
Jacob Foster
This map runs right through the middle of towns like Gallatin Gateway and Cascade. It also splits Gallatin County and Cascade County. Cascade County is one of the most competitive counties in Montana and deserves to be kept whole. Gallatin County is the fastest growing and second largest county in Montana and deserves to be the anchor for its own Western Montana district like Yellowstone County is the anchor for the Eastern Montana district. Please don't choose this map.
Mary Alexine
I do not support this map. It is not competitive.
Dean Center
As with Map 1 and Map 7, this map places a portion of Gallatin County in the district with Flathead County, resulting in an inescapable population discrepancy between the two districts. There may have been a semblance of balance in 2020, but already the rapid growth in these counties have rendered the districts proposed in this map unequal in population. It will only grown worse and in 10 years, we will have to go through this contentious process all over again. The portion of Gallatin Valley included in District 2 with Flathead may seem small but it is rapidly growing and inequity will be inevitable.
Mark T Beland
Map 3 has over 1,000 differences in population which is probably unconstitutional. This map cuts Democratic voting into separate districts in order to weaken the party in both districts.
Marcus H Smith
To use a term favored by our former President, this map would create two RIGGED congressional districts for the GOP.
Nancy Metcalf Loeza
This map unduly favors the republican political party in both districts (fivethirtyeight.com). Two split counties, split towns, and district populations are not balanced.
Marita McDaniel
How could this map even be considered fair? It would clearly create 2 districts favoring one political party, again!
Maria Loeza
This map creates two Republican super districts. It’s really very simple. Not fair and I do not support it.
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 3 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.
Marc L Sabin
Map #3: Very similar to Map 1, but with a higher deviation of 560. Reject this map.
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 configuration.
Wendy Parciak
This results in a biased electoral map that doesn't reflect actual voter opinions
Danette Seiler
This map creates two unequal districts: unequal in population, and unequal in the chance for fair representation of all Montanans. In addition, this map is not supported by Montana's tribal communities. The purpose of redistricting is to give everyone a fair shot at congressional representation. This map is drawn in a way that totally prevents that.
Kristi DuBois
This is a horrible map. The districts are not competitive, not equal in population size, and it splits two counties. This would favor Republicans in both districts, disenfranchising almost half of Montana's residents.
Ethan Seiler
This map unnecessarily divides communities of interest, creates two GOP super-districts, and dissects Gallatin County like a high school biology class.
Cammie Edgar
This is a horrible map creating two R superdistricts!
Mitch Edgar
Two GOP super districts
Jeff McNeish
No competitive districts.
Connie Rader
Comparing this map with map 1, this one divides more counties, so not as good.
K Brad Lotton
This keeps my home county of Hill intact and splits the state into east and west districts so I could live with this map but I favor CP1
Linda Kenoyer
I don't like communities being split between districts. It creates confusion in voting, and keeps neighbors from hashing out their preferences.
Megan Agnew
Not competitive.
Kenda Kitchen
This map looks like a shoe in for the Republicans to me. It does look good as far as dividing the state in two fairly equal land masses. But I would be against this map. It also divides two countys which I don't think is good.
Linda G Semones
This map is non competitive and gives one party an advantage. It divides communities when there is no reason to do so. It should be rejected.
Gail Waldby
Map 3 is NOT population equal and NOT competitive.
Kaye D Suzuki
Oppose Division of counties and towns unacceptable non competitive, favors Republicans
Michael James Noonan
Rejected. This is a ridiculous attempt by democrats to keep their large populations of two counties together by gerrymandering our state into something they can control. Reject this and their CA values. If you want those values and mountains, CA still has plenty of space.
William D. Bain Jr.
This is a bad map. It divides counties and strongly favors one political party.
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 is an outrageous example of splitting up counties and communities, and should be rejected.
Janet L Childress
# 3>>>This map is as unfair as #1. It is not competitive and gives everything to the Republican party. Blatantly unfair as it favors one party.
Maureen O'Mara
This map creates two super districts for the R party taking away any sort of fair chance at an election. A big NO for this map.
Clinton Nagel
Again, what is it about dividing counties? Every time a map is presented with a divided county, town or reservation, it violates one of the goals that we are trying to reach.
Perry Helt
Not a bad geographic split, Bozeman and Great Falls inclusion in the east district will rapidly take care of the small eastern population deficit. Just like CP1 there is a chance for a superior candidate to win in either district
Sharon S Patton-Griffin
This map is like Map 1 ... awful. It divides Cascade and Gallatin Counties. The fact that a map looks nicely divided does not make it equally divided on the criteria that matter. This map gives a competitive edge to one party in both areas. And again, having all the Tribal nations except one in District 1 is advantageous to the tribes.
Alyson Roberts
All Montanans deserve representation, but by dividing communities of interest the way this map does, it will disenfranchise votes and will favor one political party unfairly.
Jake Dolan
I oppose this map as it divides Gallatin County and splits the communities of Big Sky, Gallatin Gateway, and Gallatin River Ranch. The two districts are not equal in population (as practicable) compared to other maps (1,119 difference) and it 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 one doesn't meet the basic requirements required by Montana law.
Connie Dale
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? This map does not meet those requirements it has a difference of 560 people between the two districts, which ELIMINATES this map as an option.
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. 5. Division by Indian population. Fail 6. Division by Urban/Rural population. Pass 7. Division by Commerce. Fail---farm/ranch and forestry/tourism are too divided. 8. Division by Tourist Trades. Pass 9. Division by political parties. Scale 1-5(best) = 4
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.
SHIRLEY N ATKINS
To those who are claiming this map does not favor either political party, do your homework. You like this map because it creates two Republican districts. This map continues to keep 46% of Montanans voiceless at the Federal level.
Sue Beland
Map CP 3 is a poor division for the state. Map 3 at first glance looks like a good north south division but this map is obviously geared toward one party and voter suppression and is not taking into account other factors which the commission has on their agenda. Map CP 3 does not allows voters to select representatives who have had to get out and try to demonstrate their agenda that will to align with voter needs. Please do not choose this map.
Charity Fechter Shirley
Very much dislike the way the 2 counties are split, especially Gallatin. Agree with the comment on the result of splitting Gallatin and Cascade.
Bev Hartline
Despite having an aesthetically pleasing nearly north/south dividing line, and quite close population balance, in my view it is a very serious deficiency to split two of the most populous counties (Cascade and Gallatin) and their communities between the districts. With these districts, we could, for example, easily have BOTH representatives reside in either Gallatin or Cascade Counties, which would not provide the Montana-wide representation we deserve. Gallatin and Cascade are two of the five most populous counties, and together they have ~20% of our population.
vicky ohara
Like all maps, nothing is perfect. This one comes close! Separate by population numbers not parties.
Breeann Johnson
This map is NOT competitive and will disproportionately favor republicans/ conservatives and undermine voters of color.