MyDistricting | MONTANA
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
CP7
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
K.Brad Lotton
I like the north-south split but dislike that is splits the community of Bozeman
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Julia Shaida
The map fails to create even one competitive district.
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.
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.
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.
Deborah Woodahl
To add to my above comments, I think Gallatin county should not be split and should be added to district 1.
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
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.
Breeann Johnson
This map is NOT competitive and will disproportionately favor republicans/ conservatives and undermine voters of color.