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
Teri Lums
Splits up counties - doing so causes voter confusion.
Lucy Morell-Gengler
I think all of Gallatin County should go with the western district.
kenny pannell
This map isn't competitive. Two counties are split, which doesn't make sense. It isn't population equal, which is an important criteria.
Garth Neuffer
This map is a non-starter. It splits up counties and separates Gallatin County from its communities of interest in Western Montana. It doesn't set up a competitive district nor serve the interests of fair political representation for the citizens of the state. Next...
This is a biased electoral map.
James Deere
I think we need to stop thinking in the old east vs west way and more in the way that with the exception of Flathead county, the vast majority of population growth is along the I-90 corridor, cities like Billings (+12%) and Bozeman (+33%) have a completely different set of needs than the slow growing or stagnant cities of the north like Great Falls which only saw a 3% gain. And I see no reason our 3 largest cities, Billings, Missoula, and Bozeman should not be together, as they represent a majority of the economic growth as well as sharing many key interests with their urbanization, schools, healthcare, housing, etc. I strongly urge to keep these 3 cities together.
Anne Christensen
This map splits Gallatin County, which works against the shared interests of the individuals in this fast growing county. The population is very uneven in the two districts given the overall population of the state. It does not 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.
Laura Michele Nugent
I do not believe in Redistricting a state with barely 1M people and 147,040 sq miles. I believe both representatives should serve "At Large" Mark Allred perhaps you have forgotten that we have had Democratic representation in the not too recent past. Max Baucus, , Pat Williams, and Mike Mansfield to name a few. Of course all of these are before your time. And Montana has had Democratic Governors prior to current Trump lap dog.
Mary Alexine
This map is not competitive. Two counties are split in this map which makes no sense. Also, it is not population equal.
donna maughlin
CP5 should be disqualified for required population difference.
Mark T Beland
The population difference between the districts is around 7,500 which is the highest gap of all the maps. Map 5 is deliberately drawn to strengthen one party over the other and is undemocratic.
Marcus H Smith
The creation of two Republican districts, what this map would create, it unhealthy for our fragile democracy.
Nancy Metcalf Loeza
Both districts in this map unduly favor the republic party. It does not represent balanced populations. It does a poor job of keeping communities intact.
Justina Pape
I'm torn... this one does seem to take native population into account but the standard deviation is huge... will growth cover that?
Marita McDaniel
Again, this map would create 2 districts favoring one political party. No, thanks!
Andrew R. Brekke
As a resident of Havre, this map is my least favorite. Splitting a County is difficult to avoid, but splitting a community must be avoided at all cost. In this example a resident of North Havre would be part of the eastern district and someone literally across the highway, part of the western district. This also has an incredibly high deviation and does not comport well to the legal standards required by Montana law. I would reject this proposal.
Keith Baer
Theron Nelson
While this map does not meet the compaction test like CP1 and CP3, it does try to make the reservation influence more even for each side.
Marc L Sabin
Map #5: This has the needlessly high deviation of 7551. The eastward protrusion of the Western District (1) into Liberty and Hill Counties seems inconsistent with being compact. It also divides Hill County
Maria Loeza
This map also creates two Republican super districts. Everyone does not have a seat at the table in this scenario. I strongly oppose this map.
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 5 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 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: VERY unequal in population, and unequal in the chance for fair representation of all Montanans. It creates two districts that are pre-loaded with voters in one party. That is not fair competition for votes or ideas. 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 proposal creates two very unequal districts in terms of population, and does not create competitive voting districts. These are the two most important criteria for districts as far as I'm concerned. It splits two counties on top of that. Bad proposal.
Ethan Seiler
This proposal creates a massive population imbalance, makes two almost-guaranteed Republican districts, and divides counties for no reason. Do better.
Cammie Edgar
Very bad map!
Mitchell Edgar
Two GOP super districts
Jeff McNeish
No competitive districts.
Connie Rader
Map #1 is far superior - this one looks completely manipulated.
Linda Kenoyer
This would not be great because it splits counties
Megan Agnew
Not competitive
Linda G Semones
This map is not competitive and favors one party over the other. It is not population equal. It splits counties and communities and splits the Rocky Boy Reservation. lt should be rejected.
Gail Waldby
Map 5 is NOT population equal and NOT competitive.
Kaye D Suzuki
Not competitive
Elizabeth Ries
This would be my third favorite map. It allows for an even divide of the 4 fastest growing counties in Montana, 2 on each side, thus insuring the population growth in both seats would keep things even as we grow in the next decade. It definitely keeps communities of interest intact and doesn’t split any reservations. Again, if we consider the illegal requirement of competitiveness adopted by the commission, both of these districts are very competitive based upon 2016 Governor and 2018 US Senate race results, allowing for either major party in Montana a chance for victory. By using the voting records of Donald Trump, by far the most popular candidate in 2016 and 2020, the reporters failed to recognize the both the Republicans and Libertarians came out and voted for the best candidate. The data you should use for your creative gerrymandering is not the Trump triumph, but the 2016 and 2020 Governor races.
William D. Bain Jr.
This is an unfair map in that it strongly favors one political party over the other, and is obviously designed to disadvantage the tribes.
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.
Thomas Millett
Not the best map (CP-1 is the best) but this is better than most.
Marcia Riesselman
This map splits counties and communities and should be rejected.
David Rowell
I dislike this map because it is an attempt to get three tribes in the western district as its primary goal, and falls just under the requirement of .75%, with 7551 population deviation (.7%). It could be argued to fall just under our requirements for compact and contiguous in the effort to get three tribes in the west, splitting the Rocky Boy Reservation components in Hill and Choteau counties off.
Janet L Childress
No to this map. It is not competitive and favors one party which is unfair. The goal should be for everyone to have a equal voice in voting. Not competitive means there is no real choice. The outcome is certain that a Republican would be elected.
Maureen O'Mara
Creates a one-party super state. A great big no for this map.
Julia Shaida
This fails to create at least one competitive district in the state.
Clinton Nagel
For the same reason as the others, I see two counties that have been divided among the two districts. It certainly looks unfavorable to equal representation.
Perry Helt
This proposal does give a superior candidate the chance to win in either district, but the population disparity of 3700 + seems too high. CP1 and CP3 seem like better choices for MT. voters.
Sharon S Patton-Griffin
This map has all of the faults of the other Republican offerings. It divides Hill County and, while it looks pretty, it does provide an unequal advantage to one party.
Alyson Roberts
This map unduly favors one political party and does not divide the population equally.
Jake Dolan
I oppose this map as the two districts are not equal in population (as practicable) compared to other maps (7,551 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.
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 3,775 people between the two districts and should NOT even be considered.
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 2 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.
Vickie M Sehy
This map does a better job of keeping the Indian Reservations together. However, it splits up the interest block of Missoula and Bozeman. There is a chance that this map will produce two Republican seats. However, it seems that putting Kalispell against Missoula in the east and Bozeman against Billings in the west, could lead to a more balanced outcome.
Liane Johnson
1. Division by natural boundaries. Fail--our most natural boundary is the Rocky Mountain chain and this make for difficult travel with only U.S. 2 travel for the upper counties. It's a tough road during our long winter months. 2. Division by population. Pass 3. Division by exterior border with Canada. Pass 4. Division by county representation. Fail--this would be difficult for Hill County and makes no sense. 5. Division by Indian population. Pass 6. Division by Urban/Rural population. Scale of 1-5(best) = 4 7. Division by Commerce. Scale of 1-5(best) = 3 This does include a fair amount of tourism, but divides out dryland farm country which has almost no voice anymore. 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.
This map has a bad imbalance of population between the two districts, is not competitive, and randomly decides that a North/South divide is somehow "fair" when such a divide has nothing to do with representing the interests of those in the districts. To give voice to the 46% of Montanans who are NOT represented by the GOP, our new district needs to be at least competitive, not favoring the dominant party.
Greg Salveson
I agree with John Wright. Keep Hill County whole and put Teton county in the East district. Otherwise this is the best map.
Sue Beland
Map CP 5 splits the tribal vote. Map 5 blatantly favors one party thus suppressing votes north and south in the state by allowing any candidate who runs to automatically be elected before the election is held. This places Gallatin and Park County in District 2 which further suppresses votes. Two counties are split which is not in the best interests of those residents.
Charity Fechter Shirley
Population imbalance is largest of all while splitting counties.
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.
John Wright
Here is a modification of the CP5 Map which incorporates Cascade County into the Western district. This allows the Western district to be only 50.6% Republican according to the 2020 U.S. Senate results in a +10 GOP Senate election. The deviation is .44% with this map. Map Link with CP5 incorporating Cascade County:
John Wright
Here is a similar map that includes the Ft. Belknap Reservation with the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western district at .28% deviation Map Link:
Judy Lewis
This map splits counties, has a population variance that is .70% and and tends to be non competitive in favor of Republicans. The demographics of Montana have changed in the last 10 years. We need to have competitive districts.
John Wright
Constructive Criticism: This map needs to keep Hill county whole. This can be done by placing Teton county in the Eastern district. This new configuration lowers the deviation from .70% to .18%. The only county that is not whole is Choteau because of the Rocky Boy's Reservation. Having three reservations in the Western district makes it more diverse and competitive. The deviation from 0% can be justified by keeping counties whole, except Choteau because of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, which allows communities of interest to remain intact. The 2020 U.S. Senate result had the Western district at 52.6% Republican in a +10 Republican election. The 2018 U.S. Senate results should be considered for competitiveness of the Western district as well. CP5 with changes map link:
Breeann Johnson
This map is NOT competitive and will disproportionately favor republicans/ conservatives and undermine voters of color.