IMO the best of the three "competitive" options. Very balanced, both politically and demographically. Not perfect but nothing will be.

I like this map because it is makes both districts competitive without favoring either party. Finding a fair balance is difficult but critical to the spirit of democracy. This map does that the best. To not do so would leave a large number of Montanans unrepresented indefinitely and is a betrayal to that minority. Giving the minority a fair chance is not the same as favoring that party. It just evens out the playing field. To not do so would be favoring the majority party.

I support Map # 8 because it best represents the intent of the Montana Constitution. The population is evenly distributed. The tribal reservations are intact. It does not favor one political party over another.

I favor this map because it's competitive and respectful.

At first glance of the 9 proposals, it is the one I find most respectful of all voters. Since I live in a very gerrymandered district, having my vote count means a lot to me.

I support this map. This is competitive and is supported by tribal communities.

This map equalizes the population and contains at least two Tribal Nations in each district. This map is competitive and keeps Gallatin County in a single district.

This map is population equal and it is competitive. This means that there is a fair chance of either party winning a Congressional district. Since this map contains a competitive district, it encourages candidates to show up in the communities they're running to represent and that competitive district contains at least 2 Tribal Nations. This map is a fair and equitable district map. I strongly support.

This is an acceptable map to allow for broad representation of Montana. I'd like to hear from the counties regarding the effects on election administration.

This map is competitive. I like that the tribes support it. I favor this one.

Although this map is not as compact, it is the best option for Tribal communities, and creates a competitive district.

As a 4th generation Montanan, I support the right of everyone to be heard at elections and that means all votes count. Map 8 best represents the goals of the Commission and the intent of the Constitution. It does not favor one party over another. Both districts will be represented by both parties. Choosing Map 8 reflects the Montana way. The population is even with 1 person difference. The tribal reservations are intact. The growth communities are evenly represented in both districts.

This map represents some outside of the box thinking that makes a lot of sense. It would be highly competitive, possibly in both districts, but certainly in the West. It also most fairly apportions the Native American vote between the two districts. I also like the idea of both representatives having being held accountable to the voters of Eastern and Western Montana. By far the best alternative.

This map is the map that meets the commissions goals. It does not unduly favor a political party. Each district has voters from tribal nations. Districts have balanced populations.

This map is probably the best of the alternatives. It is competitive, includes several but not all of the Indian Nations, and is the best map for Lake County and the Flathead Reservation. This forces both parties to engage with Native voters by including the Flathead, Crow, and Northern Cheyenne reservations in the district that affects me. It is compact, comprises a logical geographic unit, and evenly splits Montana's population in terms of numbers. Representation of varies ethic groups is relatively even. This is my preferred alternative.

I think this is the best map I've seen so far, as it allows for equal representation.

This one looks ugly but it has the best numbers... there is a sizable native population here and this map allows for them to have a better voice in both districts.

- I am against Maps 1,3,5, and 7 proposed by republican advocates. These maps will split in straight lines an east - west delineation. They are not competitive; they split towns and counties in all proposals; they do not provide fair representation for the Tribal Reservations as a block; and most are not population equitable, at least one (#3), is not even constitutional. - Maps 2,4, and 6- Democratic proposals: follow mostly a traditional east - west delineation; do not split towns and counties; are largely competitive; and all population equitable. - Map 8 (my preference) is a North - South delineation: very, very competitive; allows 3 Reservations to be a block on the north side and 2 in the south insuring better representation; it does split Billings (which local Billings residents have advocated), this makes the north-south split population equitable; it has Missoula and Bozeman campuses in a block on the south side. The #8 map line split has the best diversity and makes all candidates work for the vote. Under the Federal Legislative rules, it does not matter where a Candidate lives, they can compete across the State. And remember the Voting Rights Act establishes that Tribes and Minority groups are protected to have their established communities protected and not split up. The Tribes have come out advocating for at least 2 Reservations to be in a District. In summary I’m here today to advocate for Proposal 8: ● This is the only map that proposes a North-South plan that creates a competitive district that follows the Redistricting Commission criteria. The competitive North-South option ensures both representatives will have to represent diverse voices across Montana. ● This district would help to ease the perceived divide between Eastern and Western Montana, with both communities, especially the city of Billings, having Representation in both districts. ● This plan would also maximize the power of the Native vote, with 3 reservations being in a competitive district where both parties have to compete for every vote. This would force both parties to compete for Native votes and establish a responsive government to government relationship with our tribal nations.

I support this map as my first choice. It has the support of our tribal communities, it keeps Gallatin & Park counties together which have similar interests, and it has low population deviation. It also preserves the goal of competitiveness by creating a district that either Democrats or Republicans could win, which means that politicians will have to pay more attention to what the voters want, not sit back in a safe district where they are never challenged.

Map #8: While this has a low deviation of 1, the shape of this district division is neither compact nor contiguous. The western district (1) looks like an upside down handgun. The western district would more properly be described as the southern district here and would have no direct access to the profitable Canadian border, or to Idaho, while the Eastern District (2) would have access to the Dakotas, Wyoming and Idaho.

This map is the only map that offers one competitive voting district and earns the support of the Tribal communities. This map is the most respectful choice and I support it.

I favor this map because it maintains the shared interests of the state’s two large universities in one district, maintains Gallatin County, where I live, entirely in one district, and has received positive feedback from tribal communities. Additionally, this map meets the goal two districts of equal population and one of the two districts as politically competitive.

Aweful!! Breaks up in a weird way.

This is a good map!! It creates one truly competitive district that will require candidates to be responsive to all the constituents regardless of party affiliation. The Native American communities support this map because it gives them a voice in both districts. I also support keeping Gallatin and Park counties in the same district. This is my first choice of all the maps.

This is one of the options that is fair.

This is a good, representative map.

This map has not only provides for an equal population split in the state, but it is also approved by Montana's tribal communities and allows for at least one equally competitive district in the state. Too bad we can't have two of them, but our state reflects a lot of the same rural-urban divide seen across the country. At least with this map, everyone in the state gets a solid chance of being represented in Congress, which is what we all should want, regardless of party.

This map allows for a competitive race and that is fair. Both parties should be allowed to have a fighting chance in this state. The tribes should also have some power politically. I am tired of rarely being represented in Montana.

This map creates two equal and competitive districts, which I like. It splits a lot of counties, with some making sense and others maybe not. Better than some of the proposals, but not perfect.

This is the best map option!

A good map with a good split between parties and fair to the tribes

This map is the fairest of the proposals and creates the most competitive district. It represents all of the constituencies, urban, rural and Native American. Number 8 is by far the best option.

Best choice

Map 8 is population equal and competitive.

I like this map because it is competitive and reflects good representation

I agree with Janet Childress. The number 8 map is the best for creating a competitive congressional district. It is highly competitive and fair. It allows ALL voices to be heard which should be the primary goal in redistricting. It also (along with maps 6 and 2) does not unduly favor one political party.

This seems like a fairer split, numbers wise, of the population of Montana

This is the best option because it is the most fair to both political parties and to the tribes.

This map seems fair and competitive. It has tribal support. I am in favor of this version.

This map provides for a competitive district, and keeps communities of interest whole. It will d

This map provides fair representation for several underrepresented voter groups, which is vital in representing the diverse people and ideas of this state. 1- It keeps the universities grouped, giving young people a stronger unified voice and making their vote count. 2- It is favored by tribal governments because of the voting power tribal communities have in the southern district. 3- It keeps the I-90 corridor intact, containing most major cities in order to accurately represent urban ideas in the southern district and rural in the northern district. Further, the I-90 corridor has distinct industries and an economy different from that of the rural communities better represented in the northern district.

This map looks fairly divided to me and my understanding is that this map is supported by tribal communities.

Many comment on this map looking "gerrymandered." This map seeks to create at least one competitive congressional district in Montana. There is diversity in Montana, between urban and rural, progressive and conservative, and all people and the variety of interests in our state, deserve representation. Dividing the urban vote between East and West, as many of the maps do, leaves those voters under-represented.

This is my first choice. This is map has one competitive voting district. This would require the candidates of the 1st district to seriously listen to the concerns of all their constituents, not just the constituents that share their party affiliation. For the State of Montana as a whole, it is competitive and provides for good representation of voter interests in both the rural and urban areas of the state. It has the support of the Montana tribal community.

It is important that we do not leave out targeted communities when selecting a map. This map is fair, competitive, and is one of only two options that contain at least two tribal nations. I hope the commission selects either this map or number 4.

After careful consideration, I would like to change my comments about map 8 that I uploaded to the map site. I would like to change from dislike to like. Many voters were not represented in the 2011 redistricting. Looking again at all of the maps, I see that map 8 is competitive and is in no way gerrymandering. Maps 1, 3, 5, and 7 favor the same party in both districts which is the definition of gerrymandering and would disenfranchise voters again. Map 8 includes intact tribal reservations in both districts. Map 8 would require candidates in both districts to earn votes and be accountable to voters and not just sign up to run and be automatically elected because of the predominance of one party in the district. There is no large difference in population between the districts (1 person). The growth centers Great Falls, Flathead Valley, Bitterroot Valley, Heights in Billings in District 2 and Bozeman, Missoula and West Billings in District 1 are evenly divided between the districts and should maintain a similar population deviation for the next 10 years. The reservations are intact and are evenly divided in both districts. This is the 21st century and east/west boundaries no longer serve Montanans because of population changes. It is time to think out of the box with no gerrymandering and choose a competitive map that meets the Commission goals and that satisfies the Constitution with voters needs at the forefront. With this submission Map 8 is my number 1 choice.

I appreciate this map because it is equal population and creates a competitive district. I also like it because urban areas are kept together that share common interests as well as face common issues. It will provide all Montana voters the opportunity to be heard by candidates and representatives.

I appreciate that this map honors an even and equitable split across our diverse population. Additionally, it provides more emphasis on our Native population, who are so often left behind.

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 a population deviation of 1 citizen (.0%), you have to drive through the other district to get to Mineral and Sanders counties.

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.

The population is equal in both districts and I like the idea of splitting Billings between the two districts. Billings is Montana's largest city and I think it should influence both districts.

This map keeps communities of interest together - especially tribal communities, university towns and those along the 1-90 corridor. As a resident of Park County, I think it's important for us to be partnered with Gallatin County as (whether we like it or not) their county impacts ours a great deal. Likewise, I think it's important for us to be connected to other communities along the I-90 corridor and along the southern rail line. We are economically and logistically connected because of this transportation infrastructure.

I like this map. It encourages candidates to consider all constituents. It provides better emphasis for native populations.

This is the only map that meets my criteria for at least one competitive voting district and Montana tribal support. It has the potential to give the Crow Reservation and the CSKT a stronger voice in the House of Representatives. This map will also require the candidates of the 1st district to seriously listen to the concerns of all their constituents, not just the constituents that share their party affiliation. It’s easy to see why the Montana tribal community supports this map as they will not be ignored as they have been. I strongly support Map #8.

I like this map, it forces the politicians to have to deal with others outside their base, the political lefties don't want to talk to the prairie folks, and the righties don't want to talk to the mountain folks. I don't like the gerrymandering along the Idaho border, plus the fact that the fast growing counties are in it. I fail to see the importance of having full north/south borders districts. I think that this proposal would force political extremists to have to function together and pay attention to all their constituents. For example only a couple of Democrats have shown any support for Colstrip, our senior senator Tester and our Rosebud/Bighorn "D" reps never attended any meetings on mine/ power plants affecting their constituents. Whether you like us or not, we are entitled to representation. This split might help address that or similar issues

This is a good map which keeps communities of interest together.

The problem with all of these proposed congressional district maps is that there doesn't seem to be any realistic way to avoid pitting the rural east and north against the more urban college-educated southwest of the state. That being said, my preference for drawing the line is contained in map # 8. First, I think it is essential, to the extent possible, to make the districts competitive. The state as a whole tends to vote quite conservatively in its national elections but more moderately in local elections. Split party ballots are not uncommon. It is certainly conceivable that the #8 redistricting could result in a Democrat being elected from the SW District and a Republican being elected, consistently, from the other District. These Representatives' votes in Congress could well cancel a unified vote from Montana, but at least us Democrat-leaning voters would feel represented (as opposed to the current representative). The map, I think, also divides Tribal voters into the two districts with some semblance of fairness. The commission's self-established criteria seem to be fair. I sincerely hope its collective goal is to re-district lines as fairly as possible for all Montanans and without regard for potential party-line outcomes.

This map placesalmost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that evenpencils out over the decade for being fair with the future growth.

This map gives the urban voters a chance to be heard, and is one of just two proposals that the tribes support. I have no idea why so many think that our districts need to both touch the Canadian border, as that is irrelevant to elections in the U.S. Perhaps that is simply a convenient way to reject a map that finally gives urban voices a chance to be heard.

Can you say gerrymandering at its worst ! It violates the contiguous requirement worse than all the other maps. In addition it places 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in one district.

This map is competitive and a good representation of voter interests in the rural and urban areas of the state. It also divides north and south unlike how we are often divided.

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