I don't like splitting up counties. However, I can see the value for attempting to keep the Flathead Reservation whole.

I favor this map because it fair and competitive.

This map is highly competitive and equally distributes Montana's population. It represents Montana's tribes in both districts and doesn't split any towns or any of Montana's major communities. It's also compact.

This map is one of my favorites and deserves serious consideration as a keeper. It provides good balance by keeping counties and reservations largely intact, and includes the Flathead reservation with other communities of interest in a competitive district for most of Western Montana. It serves the interest of the citizens of the state.

This map offers a balance in population, keeps tribal boundaries intact, and makes for two competitive districts.

This map offers an even split with the regards to population and creates at least one competitive district. It does not split Gallatin County. The only drawback is the Native American tribes are predominately in a single district.

I like this map because it keeps counties together, includes a Native American reservation, and includes voices from both parties, Democratic and Republican. If the goal is to include a balanced representation of urban/rural, rich/poor, blue/red, I think this map is the best example presented. I do not support the splitting of Gallatin County or any other county for that matter. I do not support smothering a blue city into a largely red area (whereby voters don’t feel as if they have any voice in national politics). I do not support including Native American reservations in one district only.

I favor this map because it is competitive.

This is one of the better maps. It is population equal, highly competitive and one of the least split up maps. I hope you will chose this map or map 2.

This map strikes a fair balance between the interests and communities making up our state. It could form the basis of a reasonable compromise.

I could live with this map because the new district does not unduly favor a political party. It gives an urban and a rural voter a voice.

This is an okay map. Still not perfect, but at least we might be able to have fairly equal representation.

Map #6: While this has a low deviation of 1 it has the same failings as Map #2

This is a pretty good map. I don't like that Gallatin and Park counties are split. However, it does create one truly competitive district that isn't overwhelmed by the republican party. All candidates will have to work for constituents of the democratic and republican parties, as well as independent. This map is one of my second choices.

This is a fair map.

This is an okay map.

This map allows for an equal population split and allows for the possibility of equal congressional representation for all Montanans in Congress. No international border issues between Canada and Montana will be unilaterally decided by a single district representative anyway, so it is not important that each district borders Canada. Other states with international borders have single districts along the border as well. It is more important that as many Montanans have as equal a chance for representation as possible.

This map is at least competitive. Montana desperately needs a way for non republicans to have a say. It is important that the reservations have a chance to be recognized also.

I like this proposal because it provides an even population split and creates a competitive district. I like how the Flathead Reservation is in district 1. It does split 3 counties, but two of the splits are quite small and the only significant county split makes sense because it helps keep the Flathead reservation intact, and goes through a lightly populated area. This is one of my favorite proposals. I do not understand the comments about leaving only one representative with the Canadian border. What happens along the Canadian border impacts all of Montana, whether or not you live along the border. Both of our representatives will be involved in border issues, I expect.

This option creates a competitive district that doesn't give the advantage to one party over the other.

Viable option

Viable option

Well, it is not ideally compact, but the population splits are good and it does not give either party a big advantage. I don't know why Canada should be considered in our state's representation. It still splits a county, but I think that has to happen to keep the reservations all intact. I guess this is the least bad option.

Map 6 is population equal and competitive.

Wow! Can't believe this map even got into the finals. A big NO on this gerrymandered mess

Equal populations, not compact though, competitve for both parties

This map isn't too bad. It's not the most compact, but at least it doesn't severely disadvantage one political party.

Not the best division, and not supported by the tribal community, but better than some of the other maps.

This map is good because it keeps all but a tip of Lake County together. It also prevents one party advantage in both counties. It doesn't look pretty, but it fits all of the criteria but that. Again, the tribes benefit from speaking as one voice in one District.

This is a good map that divides the population equally and creates a competitive district which will be good for all Montanans. This map does not unduly favor one political party.

Obvious gerrymeandering.

I support this map as the populations are equal in population (as practicable) and it creates one district that is competitive. Montanans deserve to have a competitive choice when electing our representatives.

This map is very good because it provides one district where the candidates will need to consider the concerns of every voter, regardless of party. It follows all county boundaries except for a small piece of Lake County. It also keeps the Native American reservations intact. The downside of this map is it does not have the support of the Tribal communities. I strongly support this map but it is not my first choice.

This map creates a competitive second congressional district which is important in a state where over 40% of voters do not get fair representation at the federal level. Note it makes it "competitive," not that it awards a seat to the minority party. It splits the population fairly, and keeps most counties entirely within the district.

CP 6 honors the historical precedent of keeping Missoula and Gallatin Counties in the same Congressional district. These communities’ shared interest in advocating for and advancing higher education is essential to Montana’s economic health, research cooperation, and quality health care. CP 6 does not unfairly favor one political party thereby encouraging candidates to understand the issues important throughout the district. The populations of districts 1 and 2 are essentially equal. The Flathead Reservation is in district 1 thereby making sure the diverse needs of Montana’s native populations are addressed in both Congressional districts. The high line communities are kept whole. Eastern and western Montana continue to share a representative who will need to be responsive to the agriculture, tourism and energy industries throughout the district and the needs of rural areas which are losing population, east and west.

Again, another competitive map that isn't favoring any political party. A strong contentder

This map does a good job of properly representing both Urban and Rural interests which is what we need in a district map. This map also does a decent job of protecting the Native American voting block, which is incredibly important. This maintains two compact districts that stay within the boundaries they need to without unnecessarily reaching for one border or another as some of these maps do. Ultimately, while not the best plan proposed here, this map would do Montana good.

This map is competitive and a good representation of voter interests in the rural and urban areas of the state.