MyDistricting | MONTANA
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
CP7
Provide your comments for consideration in the 2021 Redistricting process
District 1
District 2
Comment Added
Your comment has been added to the map.
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
Loading...
ROY BROWN
unbalanced
Ryan Schaefer
Regarding my previous comment, I would like to note that Bozeman, Belgrade, and Four Corners are already very interlinked and becoming increasingly so. That is why splitting the area is a terrible idea.
Ryan Schaefer
This map is all fine and dandy until you get to Gallatin County. This line does not look like a good idea, as it splits one of the largest communities of the state in half. There are better ways to draw a north-south line that separate counties in reasonable ways, such as CP5 and CP1.
Christy Jutila
Not a fan, it doesn't have the look of fairness that the other east/ west maps have.
Teri Lums
Splits up counties - doing so causes voter confusion. Using a creek in the Gallatin valley!? The creek will be moved with further development. Seems problematic.
Sharon Lamar
I do not favor Map # 7, although I initially liked the east/west designation. This map favors one political party. Also, it divides Bozeman.
kenny pannell
This map is not competitive.
Garth Neuffer
This map is a non-starter. Splitting up Gallatin County and Bozeman does not serve the interests of communities in that growing county, nor the sense of fair play and political representation for citizens of the state. Next...
James Deere
Not a fan, and seeing as almost no comments from Gallatin county are positive, I'd say moving forward with this map would be a slap in the face to the people of Bozeman.
Lin Dsay
It works because it provides both districts with the Canadian border -- this is important!
Eric Gustaf Edlund
Map #7 arbitrarily splits up Gallatin County and needlessly separates Bozeman from other western Montana population centers like Missoula, Butte and Helena. (Conversely, Billings and Great Falls are naturally "Eastern Montana" cities). A fairer modification of this map would move Broadwater County to the Eastern District; also move the northern portion of Lewis & Clark County, and the northern portion of Gallatin County to the East. Then most of Bozeman (south of I-90) could be moved to the West which seems like its natural affinity.
Howard Heahlke
Maps 1, 3, 5 and 7 all add a large part if not all of Gallatin County to the eastern Montana district to dilute the Democratic vote. The idea of east/west divisions seems sound, but these four maps do not provide for competitive districts which are needed to make our representatives answerable to Montana voters.
Anne Christensen
This map splits Gallatin County, which is a fast growing county with people who have shared interests. It does not create any competitive Congressional districts. I cannot support this proposal.
Ashley Moon
While this map is “population equal,” it is NOT competitive. This map does not allow for the representation of all of Montana's diverse populations. This map does not meet the 8 objectives the commission unanimously adopted. I strongly oppose.
Brian fraker/ anita brawner
This map could possibly result in a lawsuit Because of lack of balance.
Mary Alexine
I do not favor this map because it is not competitive.
Dean Center
This map is probably already out of compliance with the equal population requirement. It includes a rapidly growing part of Gallatin County in the district with Flathead County, so that District 1 will have an increasingly larger population than district 2. If this map were chosen, we would have to go through this entire contentious process again in 10 years. No map should be selected that puts Flathead and Gallatin Counties in the same district.
Mark T Beland
Map 7 puts one party in control of both districts. Map 7 is an old fashioned idea for districting and is not in tune with what is happening in Montana in the 21st Century. Denying Montanans the right to vote is unpatriotic and blatant election tampering.
Marcus H Smith
his map is an example of results-oriented winner take all gerrymandering by the Republicans. This map will not give the people of Montana the healthy, competitive system we deserve.
Nancy Metcalf Loeza
This and map 3 are the most unfair. They are designed to create two districts that both strongly favor the republican party.
DAVID G BALL
Don't split Gallatin County.
Marita McDaniel
This is probably the worst map yet. Once again, the Republican party would have 2 districts and representation would be less than fair.
Rae Grulkowski
Keeps communities of interest intact and allows for fair representation of fastest growing population areas.
Michael Alan Bennett
Probably the best map. It only divides Gallatin County, and keeps a natural geographical east/west split. As an aside, it seems that most criticisms of the compact east/west maps (1,3,7) are that they are NOT gerrymandered to give Democrats at least one possible district.
Keith Baer
This map could work just fine for a balance.
Theron Nelson
While not as compact as others, this map meets the contiguous the best and follows the historic and geographic continental divide well.
Dianne Hansen
I like the fact that both districts touch Canada.
Jennifer J. Redline
I probably like this map the most. It follows historical boundaries to a large degree, shares the Canadian border and splits the fastest growing counties. It is very compact and contiguous.
Nicole Schubert
This one is okay but not was good as some of the others like Map 1 but what I like is that it is split east/west, making it easier for the Reps to represent us. I like, like the other east/west splits, that each district borders Canada. I forgot to mention that in the other pro east/west-split districts like Map 1 and 5 and 3. I like that it keeps Flathead together (where we live) but it doesn't include Glacier, which is a similar county). It divides the state in a way that econimcally makes sense in that the businesses of the districts are similar (except that Flathead/Glacier split and maybe part of Bozeman split)...that would make it a lot easier for the Rep. Also, with Canada, as a state, we want two Reps that can benefit MT as a whole in DC...so these East/West split maps are good. It's more about the geographic and business/economics/livelihoods (like farm v tourist) and the state than making it about parties. Please represent us as a whole state and don't make it political. Be FAIR. Thank you :)
Marc L Sabin
1st choice: Map # 7: This provides compact and contiguous districts with a logical eastern boundary between Districts 1(western) and 2 (eastern), largely defined by a prominent geographical feature, the Continental Divide. Population deviation is close to the lowest (1) at 9 people, though the land area and perimeter of the new district is significantly larger. Both districts have borders with Canada and can take advantage of access to and from that country. Minority rights are protected with the inclusion of tribal lands in both districts and communities of interest are protected at the state level with farming predominant in the east and forestry in the west. Tourism and recreation are significant within both districts. Gallatin is the one county to be split between districts and Bozeman is the only city affected, with the I90 interstate being a credible dividing line between the districts.
Geof Gratny
I do not like this option
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 7 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.
Maria Loeza
Good decisions are easy to make when we know we must explain them to our children. I could never explain fairness and justice to my child while endorsing an affront like this to Montana voters. This is absolutely the worst map on the list.
Joi Gratny
Doesn't spread reservations out properly. NO
Joi Gratny
Breaks up too many counties. NO!
Edward Merle Wrzesinski
This is by far the worst map. For starters, this map cuts Bozeman at I90 for no apparent reason other than an republican efforts to hack at the powerful voice of this vibrant and growth city. Furthermore, 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 splits the state along a line that may look nice, but in fact creates two non-competitive districts, which is not the goal of redistricting. This map is also not supported by the state's tribal communities, and it is easy to see why.
Jean Keller
– I like this map because
It most closely resembles the historical east west divide Montana had for 80 years, with the north south line actually being the Continental Divide for most of its length.
it is tied with CP-1 for being the most compact and contiguous map in the mix, weighing in at just 9 citizens in population deviation (.0%).
it keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west, splitting only Gallatin county north of the expressway through Bozeman.
both districts have shared borders with Canada, as it should be.
both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018 US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
Catherine McWilliam
I like this map because it most closely resembles the historical east west divide. It is also fairly competitive between parties
Jan Finkle
I like this map because it most closely resembles our historical divide.
James Keller
Map 7 – I like this map because
• It most closely resembles the historical east west divide Montana had for 80 years, with the north south line actually being the Continental Divide for most of its length.
• it is tied with CP-1 for being the most compact and contiguous map in the mix, weighing in at just 9 citizens in population deviation (.0%).
• it keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west, splitting only Gallatin county north of the expressway through Bozeman.
• both districts have shared borders with Canada, as it should be.
• both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018 US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
Ann Ingram
I like this map. It follows historical boundaries to a large degree, shares the Canadian border and splits the fastest growing counties. It is very compact and contiguous.
Kristi DuBois
This proposal, while compact, does not create any competitive voting districts. It also splits Bozeman in two, which is highly undesirable. Why should your representative change, depending on where you live within Bozeman. Not good.
Terry Ewing
Map 7 – I like this map because
It most closely resembles the historical east west divide Montana had for 80 years, with the north south line actually being the Continental Divide for most of its length.
it is tied with CP-1 for being the most compact and contiguous map in the mix, weighing in at just 9 citizens in population deviation (.0%).
it keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west, splitting only Gallatin county north of the expressway through Bozeman.
both districts have shared borders with Canada, as it should be.
both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018 US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
Ethan Seiler
This map seems intent on recreating the old district boundaries, a fool's errand. Also, why divide Gallatin County? This map is a blatant attempt at trying to drown out anyone who would like a fair election. We deserve more competitive boundaries in Montana.
Cammie Edgar
2 R superdistricts
Mitchell Edgar
Absolutely not. Two GOP super districts
Jeff McNeish
No competitive districts.
Connie Rader
This is a decently drawn map, but prefer map #1 over this.
Linda Kenoyer
I don't like dividing Bozeman. That does not seem necessary. Otherwise, this is an ok map.
Megan Agnew
Not competitive
Linda G Semones
This map splits the community of Bozeman when it is not necessary to do so. It is not competitive, and is weighted to benefit one political party.
Gail Waldby
Map 7 is NOT competitive.
Brandon J DeShaw
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.
K.Brad Lotton
I like the north-south split but dislike that is splits the community of Bozeman
Elizabeth A Hoffa
I like this map because it is tied with CP1 for being the most compact and contiguous map in the mix, weighing in at just 9 citizens and population deviation (.0%). It keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west, splitting only Gallatin County north of the expressway through Bozeman.
Ashley Noonan
This isn't the best but it works. It keeps all communities of interest in tact and provides a decently fair split. I do like that each districts are within single digits for both parties. It also prevents total domination of one side politically.
Elizabeth Ries
This map keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west, splitting only Gallatin county north of the expressway through Bozeman. Both districts have shared borders with Canada, as it should be and both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018 US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
Michael Noonan
Not the best of the east-west splits, but works. 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.
William D. Bain Jr.
This is a truly terrible map. It splits Bozeman and is obviously designed to give one political party a huge advantage.
Emma Moerman
This is a good map; the Canadian border is represented by both districts, it is compact and contiguous with a .0% population deviation, and it does the best job of keeping the communities of interest in tact. Furthermore, both districts are within single digits for both parties.
karen Cramer
it keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west, splitting only Gallatin county north of the expressway through Bozeman.
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
This is a pretty good map using the mountains to divide the districts. Not the best (CP-1 is the best) but can work.
Roland Hatzenpichler
This map is the very definition of gerrymandering. It was create to divide counties in a way to create long term GOP domination of the federal vote. It is a direct attack on the voting rights of Montanans and should be opposed by any voter, independent of their political affiliation because it creates a clear advantage for one party which cannot be in the interest of any voter.
Dennis Sandbak
CP7
• I do not like that it splits the City of Bozeman. Would be hard to maintain voter integrity during elections. However, I like that this alternative splits only 1 county.
• This alternative is one I could support along with CP1, CP3, and CP5. My preference would be CP1 followed by CP7.
• Like CP1 over this map as the western district in CP1 includes another reservation to maintain more diversity. I think it better meets contiguous and compactness over CP2, CP4, CP6, CP8, and CP9. Like CP1, CP3, and CP5, maintains some East West interests, uses of the land and natural resources, while still maintaining some diversity of interests. This group does not focus on separating out unique areas of urban vs. rural as does CP2, CP4, CP6, CP8, and CP9.
• By carving out areas to favor 1 political party and set of ideology over the other it is not in the best interests of all of Montanans which I feel CP2, CP4, CP6, CP8, and CP9 do.
Heidi Roedel
This would be my third choice as it passes most requirements. It places the voice of our Native American solely on the east side of Montana. Let's be inclusive to all our people by choosing maps #1 or #3.
Marcia Riesselman
This map is an outrageous example of splitting counties and communities, and should be rejected.
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 like this map because it is tied with CP-1 for being the most compact and contiguous map in the mix, weighing in at just 9 citizens in population deviation (.0%).
Janet L Childress
Another least uncompetitive map. (In the same category as 1,3,and 5). Favors Republicans. How about trying to be fair???
Maureen O'Mara
This map does not fairly represent both parties - it far favors the R party. This map is also not supported by the tribal communities.
Cavin Steiger
This map seems to be the most obvious choice to me for splitting the state into 2 districts. East and West have the most obvious differences in economies as well as geography. I support this map over all other proposals.
Julia Shaida
The map fails to create even one competitive district.
Tom Finkle
-This map most closely resembles the historical east west divide Montana had for 80 years, with the north south line actually being the Continental Divide for most of its length.
It is tied with CP-1 for being the most compact and contiguous map in the mix.
Perry Helt
Not my favorite geographical split, but population disparity is minimal. A clearly superior candidate could win in either district because there is no "democrat dump" of republicans in either district,and only one county split to do it.
Sharon S Patton-Griffin
Divides a city ... really? NO!
Clinton Nagel
This map divides Bozeman and Gallatin County. That alone should disqualify this map.
Joe Phillips
I like this map because both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018 US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
Alyson Roberts
This map is divides the City of Bozeman, which cuts off neighbors from one another and removes the possibility of a competitive district. It disenfranchises Montana voters and is blatantly partisan, favoring the Republican party to create a chokehold on Montana for the next ten years.
Anne Boychuck
It most closely resembles the historical east west divide Montana had for 80 years, with the north south line actually being the Continental Divide for most of its length.
it is tied with CP-1 for being the most compact and contiguous map in the mix, weighing in at just 9 citizens in population deviation (.0%).
it keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west, splitting only Gallatin county north of the expressway through Bozeman.
both districts have shared borders with Canada, as it should be.
both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018 US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
A
This is the best map. It meets the requirements the populations are about equal. It runs the full height of the state and follows natural geographic boundaries. It is compact and close to the historical one used for 80 years. Please use this map it meets the requirements and makes the most sense :)
Dan Boychuck
I like this map because
It most closely resembles the historical east west divide Montana had for 80 years, with the north south line actually being the Continental Divide for most of its length.
it is tied with CP-1 for being the most compact and contiguous map in the mix, weighing in at just 9 citizens in population deviation (.0%).
it keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west, splitting only Gallatin county north of the expressway through Bozeman.
both districts have shared borders with Canada, as it should be.
both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018 US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
Belle Demeny
This choice is also too split up
Jake Dolan
I oppose this map as it divides Gallatin County and splits the communities of Bozeman and Big Sky. It also 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
This is the 2ND BEST MAP at meeting the 2021 Montana Legislative HB506, which was signed into law. It has a difference of 5 people between the two districts, is compact and splits only 1 county.
Stefanie Hanson
it keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west, splitting only Gallatin county north of the expressway through Bozeman.
both districts have shared borders with Canada, as it should be.
both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018 US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
Deborah Woodahl
To add to my above comments, I think Gallatin county should not be split and should be added to district 1.
Deborah Woodahl
This is the fairest map divided by historically east and west Montana!
Debra McNeill
By far, this is the worst map. 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. Not only will it disenfranchise our urban areas, it cuts Bozeman in HALF! Furthermore, Montana’s Native American tribes do not support this map. I adamantly oppose this map.
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.
Liane Johnson
1. Division by natural boundaries. Pass
2. Division by population. Pass
3. Division by exterior border with Canada. Pass
4. Division by county representation. Pass
5. Division by Indian population. Fail
6. Division by Urban/Rural population. Pass
7. Division by Commerce. Pass
8. Division by Tourist Trades. Pass
9. Division by political parties. Scale 1-5 (best) = 4
chris ryan rosenstock
Map 7 – I like this map because
It most closely resembles the historical east west divide Montana had for 80 years, with the north south
line actually being the Continental Divide for most of its length.
it is tied with CP-1 for being the most compact and contiguous map in the mix, weighing in at just 9
citizens in population deviation (.0%).
it keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west,
splitting only Gallatin county north of the expressway through Bozeman.
both districts have shared borders with Canada, as it should be.
both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018
US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
Jacob Balyeat
this map is similar to CP-1 - being a compact and contiguous map, weighing in at just 9
citizens in population deviation (.0%)
Tonia Dyas
I like this map because it most closely resembles the historical east west divide Montana had for 80 years, with the north south line actually being the Continental Divide for most of its length. It is tied with CP-1 for being the most compact and contiguous map in the mix, weighing in at just 9 citizens in population deviation (.0%). It keeps all communities of interest intact the very best, with farming in the east and forestry in the west, splitting only Gallatin county north of the expressway through Bozeman. Both districts have shared borders with Canada, as it should be. Both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018 US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
Terry Churchill
I am fond of this map and like CP-1, it is a compact and contiguous map. This map has farming in the east and forestry in the west and shares the boundary with Canada. The North South boundary following the continental divide is similar to the familiar boundary we had years ago.
Natalie A
both districts have shared borders with Canada, as it should be.
both of these districts are within single digits for either party based upon the 2016 Governor and the 2018 US Senate races data, creating the second best “competitive map” for both districts.
Terry Apa
I like this map with the exception of Gallatin CO - The county SHOULD NOT be split - just make it part of the district 1
Sue Beland
Map CP 7 splits the tribal vote and it promotes voter suppression for other counties. Map CP 7 divides representation so that too many voters have no say in who will be elected because whoever runs for a specific party automatically wins. Map CP 7 is not a viable choice for Montana voters and does not follow voter rights guaranteed by the Constitution or Commission goals.
Charity Fechter Shirley
Very much dislike splitting Gallatin County. Would prefer to have Park County, which is more oriented to Gallatin County, included in District 1.
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.
Timothy Cuddy
This map creates two districts that fail to properly cater to rural or urban interests as should be the objective of our redistricting efforts. The consequences of the lack of separation would be substantial and would mean the representatives elected would be representing districts that they can't fully represent. A better map would separate the urban and rural interests and therefore guarantee that elected representatives can fully represent more of their district. Arbitrary lines such as this are a bad match for Montanans
Timothy Cuddy
This map creates two districts that fail to properly cater to rural or urban interests as should be the objective of our redistricting efforts. The consequences of the lack of separation would be substantial, and would mean the representatives elected would be representing districts that they can't fully represent. A better map would separate the urban and rural interests and therefore guarantee that elected representatives can fully represent more of their district. I would not recommend these districts for the next 10 years.
Judy Lewis
This map splits Gallatin county and communities of interest. It does not address the demographic changes in population in Montana over the last 10 years. It is not competitive.
Andy Fisher
This map makes sense. The district boundary is logical and treats people equally. It is not based on the racist presumption that all voters of color are democrats.
Breeann Johnson
This map is NOT competitive and will disproportionately favor republicans/ conservatives and undermine voters of color.