This Map clearly elevates the imbalance of the heavy population sights. having all of Gallatin 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 not majority rule.

This looks pretty fairly split down the middle

I like this one as well. There is an attempt to make sure things are split more on an even side giving everyone a voice.

Should put Helena and Bozeman in the purple. It will be competitive and no single party can count on it.

I think this is the best map for several reasons: counties are almost 100% intact, the districts are compact and contiguous, there is a balance of reservations on each district for equal representation, and each district is within 1% of equal population.

this map is our preferred map because it contains a good balance and the districts are fairly contiguous. Not bad!

Keeps communities of interest intact and allows for fair representation in fastest growing areas.

#5 is the one I recommend because it seems most like the one we used to have. It keeps communities of similar interest intact and doesn't split reservations. It's a fair map, split between democrats and republican numbers.

#1 I think this is the best choice and balanced fairly.

Yes, I say! Look at that nice, fair east/west split. Two big counties on each side so it really represents the state and the Rep can really represent us without wasting time or doing strange contortions like a circus clown in some of those other manufactured options. PLUS, three reservations on the left gives them power and voice that the Rep can then bring forward in Congress. This is good. This is FAIR. This is a real district map. Thank you :)

This is my favorite. There are 4 tribes in the east and 3 in the west. Kalispell, Missoula and Helena are in District 1 and Bozeman and Billings are in District 2 which seems to be a good idea. Three tribes in District 1 and Four in District 2. People groups are divided fairly evenly. The boundaries of both district to Canada are somewhat close to the same distance. Very little dividing of counties.

I like this map best because it is a fair and equal division of land and areas of representation. The Indian reservations are as equally represented as is possible. Both the West and the East side are located on the Canadian border so each would be well represented. Each side has large counties which will be fairly represented and each has a large college so the the dividing line is fairly drawn.

In our opinion, this is the best map of the nine. This map makes it manageable for a Representative to represent their district. That is what the Founding Fathers wanted. It basically only splits one county--Hill County.

I like 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. it also closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion. It allows for an even divide of the 4 fastest growing counties in Montana, 2 on each side, thus ensuring 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. This map could easily be “the great compromise map of the lot.”

I like 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. it also closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion. It allows for an even divide of the 4 fastest growing counties in Montana, 2 on each side, thus ensuring 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. This map could easily be “the great compromise map of the lot.”

I like 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. it also closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion. It allows for an even divide of the 4 fastest growing counties in Montana, 2 on each side, thus ensuring 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. This map could easily be “the great compromise map of the lot.”

I like this map because resemble historical divides, splits the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, and allows for fair competitiveness between parties

I like this map best for several reasons. It divides the state along relatively established districting boundaries. The fastest growing counties in the state are equally divided. The reservations are also equally divided. With the benefit of keeping Rocky Boy intact. Two counties seem to be split for that purpose and nothing else. There is some small population discrepancy but unavoidable to make the gains possible. Population growth could easily make up the difference and hopefully level growth differentials for the next ten years. By far the best.

This is a good map and provides good balance for the two main political parties.

I like this map best. It is the least invasive to county integrity while attempting to place 3 tribal governments in the west. It shares the Canadian border between districts and splits the fastest growing counties between the districts. It will allow for a superior candidate of either party to prevail.

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. it also closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion. It allows for an even divide of the 4 fastest growing counties in Montana, 2 on each side, thus ensuring 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. This map could easily be “the great compromise map of the lot.”

I prefer CP5 but also like CP3. 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.

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.

Not competitive

I don't like that this map splits Hill County, Considering that what map lines we pick for our congressional districts will most likely be used for our legislative districts this is not the best choice

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.

This map is not as good as CP1, but it does allow for an even divide of the four 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.

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. This will also allow proper growth within the towns in that state that are having a surge.

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.

CP5 receives my support.. Allows for even divide of fastest growing counties in Montana. Reservations are represented in both districts. Places the University towns in both districts. Competitiveness of one party or the other is not inherent in this map. Delineation of districts represents 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. This alternative would promote representatives working together in Washington for interests of all Montanan’s, regardless of party affiliation. I rank the CP5 Districts Map as number One, CP3 Districts Map as number Two, and CP1 Districts Map number Three.

CP5 • receives my support. • 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. Delineation of districts represents 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. This alternative would promote representatives working together in Washington for interests of all Montanan’s, regardless of party affiliation.

It allows for an even divide of the 4 fastest growing counties in Montana, 2 on each side, thus ensuring the population growth in both seats would keep things even as we grow in the next decade.

CP5 • I would support this map over CP2, CP4, CP6, CP8, and CP9, but my preference is CP1. • Allows for even divide of fastest growing counties. Splits 2 counties but has a larger population deviation than CP1. Like CP1 it has reservations represented in both districts. Does not appear politically motivated i.e., puts University towns in both districts so that ideology is represented in both districts. Generally, meets intent of constitutional requirements, does not put competitiveness as a priority which is not part of the requirement. Competitiveness of one party or the other is not inherent in this map. Delineation of districts represents 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 a better fit than CP2, CP4, CP6, CP8, and CP9 for all the people of MT. • Like CP1, CP5, and CP7 this alternative would more likely result in representatives working together in Washington for interests in all Montanan’s, regardless of party affiliation.

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 favor CP5

This is the overall best solution and most closely represents Montana's historical two districts. It splits our seven tribes (3 district, 4 district 2). It splits our four largest and fastest growing counties equally with Missoula and Gallatin leaning one party while Flathead and Yellowstone leaning to another. It affords both districts bordering Canadian Provinces and does not place undo distances to either elected Representative. Several of the maps would require the District 2 Representative to travel over 700 miles from MW Montana to SE Montana. It meets all criteria.

-This map closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion. -It allows for an even divide of the 4 fastest growing counties in Montana, 2 on each side, thus ensuring the population growth in both seats would keep things even as we grow in the next decade.

This map 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. Further, 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.

This map is an attempt to use our historical divisions of east and west, shared Canadian border, compact and contigious parameters and 3 tribes in the west. The map seems to favor neither party in determining election outcomes.

I favor this map because it most closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts, before adjusting for population and tribal inclusion.

I like this map because 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.

I like this map because it does the best at a clean divide in the state while keep counties the most intact. I would prefer all of Hill Co to go to the east, but of the options this gives county residents a clear idea of what district they are in. It has a bigger population deviation than others, but it is still very small.

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. it also closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion. It allows for an even divide of the 4 fastest growing counties in Montana, 2 on each side, thus ensuring 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. This map could easily be “the great compromise map of the lot.”

This seems the closer to what we had historically with a more evan split and meets compactness. Seems a much more even split of the state.

I like 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. it also closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion. It allows for an even divide of the 4 fastest growing counties in Montana, 2 on each side, thus ensuring 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. This map could easily be “the great compromise map of the lot.”

Not my first choice but if chosen I could live with it

This is the best option in my opinion. I have lived in both proposed districts approximately 20 years each. This map keeps Bozeman and Missoula split into different districts. In NO WAY should a district include both universities! This map would force each congressman to work TOGETHER to work on issues related to those university matters. Geographically, and historically, it makes sense. The districts on this map each would have reservations included. In NO WAY, should one district have all reservations in it! Each have unique circumstances culturally and geographically that would best be served by each having representation by both districts. That would force each congressmen to work TOGETHER other on matters on reservation/tribe matters and law! This map also splits the fastest growing counties into both districts. 10 years is a long time, and migration to Montana is increasing. In NO WAY should growth favor one district! This map requires each congressional district to work together on common interests, regardless of political affiliation.

It allows for an even divide of the 4 fastest growing counties in Montana, 2 on each side, thus ensuring 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.

This map meets the population requirements as well as meets all the Montana Constitution requirements.

Map 5 – I like 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.  it also closely resembles the historical divide Montana had for 80 years when we had two districts before, adjusting for population and tribe inclusion.  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. This map could easily be “the great compromise map of the lot.”

The map 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

This map is okay in regards to continuity and contiguous geography, but it's not as good as map #1 in that regards. It is very good as far as maintaining the population split. It definitely keeps communities of interest intact and doesn't split any reservations. Both of these districts are very competitive based upon the 2016 Governor & 2018 US Senate race results allowing for either major party in MT a chance for victory.

I like this map the most. It closely resembles the divide from the past. It equally splits the 4 fastest growing counties between the two parties. This map is the most equitable compromise of all the maps. It also keeps the reservations intact.

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. This map could easily be “the great compromise map of the lot.” 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.

This map has the largest population imbalance and is not politically competitive. Although it only splits Hill and Choteau Counties, it significantly splits the American Indian votes, which could result in the further marginalization of those important communities.