MyDistricting | MONTANA
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
CP6
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...
Asher Croy
Looks blatantly gerrymandered to me. By creating distract 1 in such a bizarre shape they were able to put every major liberal population center into, while cutting out any large opposition.
Christy Jutila
No way. This one doesn't try to keep things balanced at all. Funny lines and weird shapes look like a gerrymander
Jennifer Keith
Almost a donut there, trying to balance too much to give a majority to a party perhaps? Doesn't seem like a good way to split up the area competitively.
James Deere
I can't in good faith approve of maps with these massive horseshoe shapes, not to mention, this looks like a very clear case of gerrymandering. Also I believe keeping Park and Gallatin Counties together is very important.
Ashley Moon
This map does NOT equitably represent tribal populations. I strongly oppose.
Michael Blend
One districts doesn't have border and too unequal! One district way bigger and doesn't make sense.
brian fraker/ anita brawner
This map contains no balance with native Americans and would result again in a lawsuit! This map is clearly gerrymandering! Without question!
donna maughlin
Sanders & MIneral are already large counties with small populations but CP6 isolates them by tossing them in with the Eastern district. We would never see a candidate or representative over here again.
Mark T Beland
Separates too many counties and separates counties that have mutual interest between the counties. Disenfranchises thousands of voters just like the 2011 census which infringes on freedom.
Keith Baer
Nope!
Maryrose Beasley
This map wanders all over the place.
Theron Nelson
Clearly another gerrymandered map. What do Sanders and Mineral County have to do with the East. This does not meet compact nor contiguous requirements.
Dianne Hansen
I believe this type of division is not fair for the representative. They'll have to drive through another district to meet their people and talk with them.
David A. Skinner
Friendlymonstermander. Not so horny or mean looking but still wanting to gobble gobble. A joke.
Jennifer J. Redline
It splits Sanders County and you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties. It also only has on rep for the Canadian border.
Geof Gratny
Not fair
Nicole Schubert
Do you see it? It's a CHICKEN sitting on top of OHIO! Why do we want (a clearly GERRYMANDERED) Ohio and a chicken for Montana? Who came up with this? I mean, really, could you honestly look us Montanans in the eye and tell us this is a district that isn't gerrymandered? How is the Rep supposed to represent this? I mean, I guess if they're from Ohio or really good at raising chickens? C'MON! Please be FAIR and CONSCIENTIOUS and don't pick this map that no one can say is a real district. It's a chicken district...bawk bawk... afraid of just representing us as we are! We are not chickens nor Ohioans. Thank you :)
Maria Loeza
This map, at least, creates one competitive district. However, Tribal communities do not support it. I do not support this map for this reason.
Steve Hinebauch
This map is ridiculous! The reason we are getting two Legislative Districts is because the size of population and area. It is hard for a Representative to represent that many people in that many miles. It is 800 miles from Ekalaka to Troy. We are cutting the number of people, why not the miles? We have heard some noise about competitive districts which was never the Founding Fathers intent. They wanted the districts to be representative.
Joseph D. Coco
I oppose this map. It is not as simple or unbiased as other options.
Jean Keller
– I dislike this map because it has almost all the failures of the CP-2 map and is once again another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties. it splits Sanders County, only so you can maintain the boundary of the only Tribe in district (CSKT). Even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface. This map creates a Super Democrat District out of the west, and a super republican one, which by the way has all the other tribes in it, for the east. This one could be very competitive however for being voted “most likely to be sued by both the GOP and all Tribal governments” Map of 2021!
Catherine McWilliam
I dislike this map because it violates Montana legal requirements for compactness and contiguity
Jan Finkle
I do not like this map because it creates a super democrat district and a super republican district.
Ann Ingram
This is an illegal map with all the Indian tribes in the east. A violation of federal law. It is a throw away map for the Democrats. It creates a super Democratic district in the West with exposure to the Canadian border. It also fails the compact and contiguous parameters.
Terry Ewing
I dislike this map because it has almost all the failures of the CP-2 map and is once again another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties. it splits Sanders County, only so you can maintain the boundary of the only Tribe in district (CSKT). Even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface. This map creates a Super Democrat District out of the west, and a super republican one, which by the way has all the other tribes in it, for the east. This one could be very competitive however for being voted “most likely to be sued by both the GOP and all Tribal governments” Map of 2021!
Michelle Daniels
I dislike and strongly oppose the CP 6 map for many reasons. It's a power grab map for the Democratic party, because it separates (5) of our major cities: Great Falls, Helena, Missoula, Butte and Bozeman into a proposed western voting District 1 that ALSO EXCLUDES ALL Tribal governments from this voting district. This map places only (2) of our major cities, Kalispell and Billings, into voting District 2. This proposed map violates the legal redistricting requirements of MT Code 5-1-115 #2 (c) and (d) that requires districts to be contiguous and compact; and #3 requires a district may not be drawn for the purposes of favoring a political party. It doesn't represent IN THE LEAST having two fair, balanced or even LAWFUL voting districts.
Connie Rader
Completely dislike this map on all accounts.
Barbara Jones
• violation of compact • It is in violation of Federal Election Law because it has no tribal or very few nations in the new western seat.
Brandon J Deshaw
I dislike this map because it violates state law. The districts are not compact, not contiguous, and do not allow for both districts to have a border with Canada. It also just looks strange, don't you think? Doesn't have that clear east/west kind of divide.
Elizabeth A Hoffa
I dislike this map because there is no compactness or contiguousness. This map is terrible and gerrymandered to favor one party over another. Look how far apart the cities in one district are...the representative will have to travel from the border with ND to the border of Idaho. Crazy!
Ashley Noonan
This map is ridiculous and is perfect example of gerrymandering and does not meet the area requirements. This is a hard pass.
Elizabeth Ries
This map is a result of socialists on the commission who just want to gerrymander the congressional districts to increase the likelihood one district will go socialist. It has almost all the failures of the CP-2 map, and is once again another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties. Even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface. This map creates a Super Democrat District out of the west, and a super republican one, which by the way has all the other tribes in it, for the east. This one could be very competitive however for being voted “another most likely to be sued by both the GOP and all Tribal governments” Map of 2021!
Michael 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.
karen Cramer
This map creates a Super Democrat District out of the west, and a super republican one, which by the way has all the other tribes in it, for the east. This one could be very competitive however for being voted “most likely to be sued by both the GOP and all Tribal governments” Map of 2021!
jasmine krotkov
Dividing counties is not ideal. Still, this map keeps communities of interest whole, and provides an opportunity for all of Montana's diverse views to be represented.
Thomas Millett
This map is terrible and gerrymandered to favor one party over another. Look how far apart the cities in one district are...the representative will have to travel from the border with ND to the border of Idaho...crazy!
Dennis Sandbak
CP6 • Like CP2, CP4, CP8 and CP9, does not have contiguous or compact boundaries and appears politically motivated to favor 1 political party over the other as drawn. Like these other maps mentioned due to East West distance the representative in District 2 would be disadvantaged on travel for meeting with constituents. • Appears the same political ideology driven delineation as CP2, CP4, CP8 and CP9, just different lines. • Like CP2, CP4, CP8, and CP9, this alternative would favor 1 party in District 1 and could create divisiveness in WA for representatives to work together for all of Montanan’s interests. • I cannot support this map as we should not be creating a district that makes it more competitive for 1 party over the other.
Mark Allred
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.
David Rowell
I dislike this map because it has almost all the failures of the CP-2 map, and is once again another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties.
James Gomolka
This map is another failure in compactness. It is clearly reaching into democrat areas to create a strong democrat district without regard for actual valid redistricting criteria. It is not compact and divides by party.
Janet L Childress
#6 is one of the three most competitive maps (8,6 and 2). It is fair, all voices can be heard. It does not unuly favor one political party over the other. Fairness and all voices heard should be the goal of redistricting.
Emma Moerman
This map only has one district representing the Canadian border, and you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties. Additionally, the districts are divided to create a strongly republican district in the East and a strongly democratic one in the West.
Tom Finkle
This map creates a Super Democrat District out of the west.
David Ingram, MD
This is another attempt to create a super district for democrats while leaving the rest of the state to the republicans. It falls short on sharing the Canadian border, tribal representation, commonality of intrest and compact and contigious. It again succeeds in creating a democratic super district. The only races will be primaries.
Melisa Schelvan
This map violates the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties. Further, even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface.
Clinton Nagel
Not a big fan. This map divides a county, even though it is not my county, I think there has to be a better way. Trying to be consistent.
Perry Helt
This is yet another obvious attempt to GERRYMANDER in most all democrat strongholds into less than 1/4 of MT.'s geographic area, AND dump a lopsided number of republicans into another "everywhere else" district as well. Adding insult to injury is splitting 3 counties to do it, how is this fair to MT. voters? For people who are always whining about disenfranchisement, it sure seems to be a one way street you are fond of driving on!
Leslie Ellington-Staal
This map seems to fall short in the majority of areas for consideration, i.e., division by natural boundaries, division by tourist trades, division by Indian population. It seems questionable in regards to division by political parties.
Joe Phillips
I dislike this map because even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface.
A
This is blatent Gerrymandering in the extreme. Its a rediculous looking map that meets none of the compactness. And is so far apart from the historical divide we used for 80 years. Its drawn for one reason only to create and entirely democratic run district. Please reject this map it doesn't meet the requirements.
Anne Boychuck
it has almost all the failures of the CP-2 map and is once again another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties. it splits Sanders County, only so you can maintain the boundary of the only Tribe in district (CSKT). Even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface. This map creates a Super Democrat District out of the west, and a super republican one, which by the way has all the other tribes in it, for the east. This one could be very competitive however for being voted “most likely to be sued by both the GOP and all Tribal governments” Map of 2021!
Dan Boychuck
I dislike this map because it has almost all the failures of the CP-2 map and is once again another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties. it splits Sanders County, only so you can maintain the boundary of the only Tribe in district (CSKT). Even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface. This map creates a Super Democrat District out of the west, and a super republican one, which by the way has all the other tribes in it, for the east. This one could be very competitive however for being voted “most likely to be sued by both the GOP and all Tribal governments” Map of 2021!
Belle Demeny
No!
Lindsey Mishler
it has almost all the failures of the CP-2 map and is once again another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties.
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 SPLITS 3 counties and FAILS to meet the compact criteria more than all the others.
Stefanie Hanson
it splits Sanders County, only so you can maintain the boundary of the only Tribe in district (CSKT). It fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface.
Deborah M Wilson
I dislike this map because it has almost all of the failures of the CP-2 map and is another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. This map fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface.
Oxana Gamba
Doesn't make any sense
Donald Hancock
Obvious Gerrymandering.
Al Wilson
Another terrible map. Meets the population requirement but not the area requirement.
Liane Johnson
1. Division by natural boundaries. Fail 2. Division by population. Pass 3. Division by exterior border with Canada. Fail 4. Division by county representation. Scale 1-5(best) = 3 5. Division by Indian population. Fail 6. Division by Urban/Rural population. Fail 7. Division by Commerce. Fail--the forest side of the state and not all those counties are included in favor counties that do not include much in this area of commerce. 8. Division by Tourist Trades. Fail--leaves out the great Glacier Park area and all of its attractions. 9. Division by political parties. Scale 1-5(best) 2
chris ryan rosenstock
Map 6 – I dislike this map because  it has almost all the failures of the CP-2 map, and is once again another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties.  it splits Sanders County, only so you can maintain the boundary of the only Tribe in district (CSKT).  Even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface.  This map creates a Super Democrat District out of the west, and a super republican one, which by the way has all the other tribes in it, for the east. This one could be very competitive however for being voted “most likely to be sued by both the GOP and all Tribal governments” Map of 2021!
Jacob Balyeat
Even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface
Nancy Mehaffie
This District has peninsulas all around it's perimeter and does not border with Canada. This lack of border with Canada leaves the Western part of the state with unique issues like Water and Forestry without Federal representation.
Tonia Dyas
I dislike this map because it has almost all the failures of the CP-2 map, and is once again another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties. Tt splits Sanders County, only so you can maintain the boundary of the only Tribe in district (CSKT). Even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface. This map creates a Super Democrat District out of the west, and a Super Republican district out of the east, which by the way has all the other tribes in it. This map is the one most likely to be sued by both the GOP and all Tribal governments!
Terry Churchill
This is bad idea. This map will invite a lawsuit due to the way it consolidates most of the reservations in the eastern district. This map also manages to create another Democratic super district. The map is also in violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. The map radically splits Sanders county.
Mike Schauf
This one has almost all the failures of the CP-2 map, and is once again another violation of the legal requirements of compact and contiguous. Even though it complies with population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties. it splits Sanders County, only so you can maintain the boundary of the only Tribe in district (CSKT). Even though it splits up the 4 fastest growing counties evenly, it fails the communities of interest test and leaves one Congressman representing the Canadian interface. This map creates a Super Democrat District out of the west, and a super republican one, which by the way has all the other tribes in it, for the east. This one could be very competitive however for being voted “most likely to be sued by both the GOP and all Tribal governments” Map of 2021!
justin w cleveland
Not good, split by population, but not area.
Sue Beland
Map CP 6 splits the tribal vote and it promotes voter suppression for other counties. An example is splitting Gallatin County into District 1 and putting Park County in District 2. Map CP 6 is an example of gerrymandering so that a candidate who runs for office automatically is elected before any votes are cast. This map has the largest deviation in population. Park and Gallatin counties are closely tied together for work and living. Gallatin and Park counties have large numbers of people commuting to both counties for work, medical care, shopping for staples and schooling. These counties should not be split as they are too closely tied together. Voters should be allowed to vote, live, and work in the same voting district. All of Montana is affected by the northern border so any elected representative would be cognizant of border issues.
Charity Fechter Shirley
Really dislike splitting 3 counties. Jefferson would seem to have more in common with Butte-Silver Bow (on the west), Lewis and Clark (on the north) and Madison and Gallatin (to the south).
Bev Hartline
This map is balanced population-wise as of the 2020 census date and it splits 3 counties (not so good), while keeping the Flathead Reservation together in the same district (very good). Some of "eastern" Montana would be along the Idaho border. I don't have a strong opinion about the need for both districts to border Canada.
Rae Grulkowski
This map unduly favors a political party. Agreed that both representatives should have northern border representation.
Judy Lewis
Park and Gallatin counties should be together in the same district. They are communities of interest.
vicky ohara
Not a good choice! Both representives should have the northern border in their district.
vicky ohara
Nope, not this map!
John D Agnew
This map places emphasis on urban areas verses rural areas