MyDistricting | MONTANA
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
CP8
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
Are you kidding me? The map literally splits the states largest city right in half. This map is clearly designed to give the left a chance to win both distracts in a state that is dominantly red.
Christy Jutila
Absolutely not! Not only does it look ridiculous, the major cities are all together? Has the feel of California in this with no hope of fair representation. Who the heck thought this one up?
Garth Neuffer
This map has a lot going for it, including keeping most of the I-90 corridor together, incorporating multiple reservations with fast growing counties in South and Western Montana, and providing for a competitive district. Unfortunately, it also splits up Yellowstone County, which I think we should on principle try to avoid for all counties in the state. So not my first choice.
Richard Barndt
As a Billings Heights resident, I object most strongly to the idea of a district boundary separating me from my neighbors. It would make much more sense to keep all of Yellowstone County in the "southern" district.
Forrest J Mandeville
This map is the definition of a gerrymander. No one should in good conscience support a map clearly drawn to benefit one party (the Democrats). It is not compact (Carter and Ravalli counties in the same district?), does not follow historic splits, and is clearly partisan.
James Deere
Most of Montana's growth is along the i-90 Corridor and i believe keeping those cities under the same district is very important which this map came close to achieving, however, I don't like that Billings is split, this makes no sense apart from a POP standpoint, to a lesser extent, thee same goes for Missoula. I'm also no fan of the "horseshoe bend" that wraps around to include Hamilton. I tinkered with variations of this map and have 3 that I feel keep the I-90 communities together whilst being more compact. https://districtr.org/plan/66331 https://districtr.org/plan/66330 https://districtr.org/plan/37397
Lin Dsay
No good reason to cut counties in half. Also, the Left manages to keep most of Montana's blue counties in its grasp in District 1. That isn't real fair -- representation-wise -- to the growing conservative population. Sure, sure, everyone expresses grave concern for the reservations, the virtue signaling reads loud and clear, but it's not all about the reservations. Besides, they'll be played, divided, included, and excluded to the needs of the elite Left. Just look at the maps.
Sabine Mellmann-Brown
While I appreciate the originality of this map including the attempt to have Tribal representation in each district, cutting through two major cities seems like a poor idea. In Billings and in Missoula your district will depend on wich suburb you happen to live in.
Robyn Morrison
I don’t approve of splitting up counties. Plus this even looks like it was gerrymandered.
Michael Blend
One districts doesn't have border and too unequal! One district way bigger and doesn't make sense.
anita brawner/ brian fraker
This map while fairly well balanced, is nowhere contiguous or compact! It gets the no nod!
Dean Center
This map reflects some original thinking. It's the only one that attempts North-South districts and therefore deserves extra consideration. On the Pro side, is that it separates the most rapidly growing communities in the state in a way that should slow the development of population inequality. On the Con side, District 2 is intolerably configured and not 'compact'. Additionally, it puts half the ranchers in each district and half the loggers in each district and half the tree huggers in each district, which would make it harder for an elected representative to actually represent the concerns of their constituency. I suggest some effort be made to reduce the irregularity and non-compactness of District 2, in hopes of producing a better map.
Rae Grulkowski
Both seats should share representation of northern border. Does not provide compact, nor contiguous representation. Not a good boundary at all.
Keith Baer
gerrymandering at its finest
Maryrose Beasley
This map is ridiculous. Its boundaries wander all over. Representatives should not have to drive through another district to reach their constituents.
Theron Nelson
Clearly this map is a joke or a red herring. To put Ravalli County and Ekalaka together is crazy.
David A. Skinner
Fatguyinalazyboymander. This is beyond nuts, no geographic logic at all, same intent of getting Kalispell out of western Montana, same tawdry thinking.
Marc L Sabin
My comment for this Map was incorrectly registered as Like.Itg should be Dislike: 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.
Nicole J Schubert
This is downright gerrymandering at it's best...as in WORST FOR THE STATE. One doesn't border Canada. It does not represent us. And, artistically, it looks like a muscle arm. I mean, I like Rosie the Riveter, we could think of it like that, but I doubt that she's into gerrymandering. Are you? Please don't be. Please be FAIR and do an east/west split that actually represents the people of MT fairly and makes it easy for each Rep to do a great job! Thank you :)
Geof Gratny
This is not a good idea, not fair
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 puts 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the same district.
Jean Keller
– I dislike this map because it is another example of gerrymandering prowess, with the only legal component being the population deviation is 1 citizen (.0%). it has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west. this map is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years, and although it is an attempt to put two tribes in the west, it is the CSKT and the Crow, which have never been in the same community of interest (coal anyone?). this map literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth. with the measure of competitiveness, this map gets the award for the most Super Democrat district in the new west, and the most super district for the Republicans in the east. These are double digit differences, so a sure lock for both parties.
Catherine McWilliam
I dislike this map because it is another example of gerrymandering!
Jan Finkle
I dislike this map especially because it places 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district.
Ann Ingram
This map is an attempt to create a Democratic super district in the West. While it attempts to place two tribes in the West, their is no commonality of interest between the SKCT and the Crow. It also fails the compact and contiguous requirement and commonality of interest.
Ann Ingram
This map is gerrymandering nirvana. It creates a Democratic super district in the West and Republican in the East. One party primaries will be the only campaigns respectively. It fails the compact and contiguous parameter royally. It splits Billings and essentially places 3 of the top 4 growth counties in one district.
James Keller
Map 8 – I dislike this map because • it is another example of gerrymandering prowess, with the only legal component being the population deviation is 1 citizen (.0%). • it has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west. • this map is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years, and although it is an attempt to put two tribes in the west, it is the CSKT and the Crow, which have never been in the same community of interest (coal anyone?). • this map literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth. • with the measure of competitiveness, this map gets the award for the most Super Democrat district in the new west, and the most super district for the Republicans in the east. These are double digit differences, so a sure lock for both parties.
Michelle Daniels
I dislike and strongly oppose this CP 8 gerrymandered map. This grossly reckless map denies two proper and historical east/west voting districts. It DOESN'T even resemble having them. It weirdly splits a lower, winged outer middle section into a "western" voting District 1 and large portion of the upper, middle and eastern/western outer areas of Montana into a "eastern" voting District 2. This strangely proposed map is grossly disproportionate in two major ways: the physical areas of the both proposed districts and it has five of the big cities including Missoula, Helena, Butte, Billings and Bozeman in voting District 1 and only Kalispell and Great Falls in voting District 2. A big NO on this one.
Terry Ewing
Map 8 – I dislike this map because it is another example of gerrymandering prowess, with the only legal component being the population deviation is 1 citizen (.0%). it has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west. this map is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years, and although it is an attempt to put two tribes in the west, it is the CSKT and the Crow, which have never been in the same community of interest (coal anyone?). this map literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth. with the measure of competitiveness, this map gets the award for the most Super Democrat district in the new west, and the most super district for the Republicans in the east. These are double digit differences, so a sure lock for both parties.
Connie Rader
Very poorly drawn. Obvious gerrymandering.
Linda Kenoyer
I don't like splitting the city of Billings for no reason. I like it that it keeps the reservations intact, but I guess the only way to do that is to split a county, which does not sit well.
Linda G Semones
I dislike this map because it splits the city of Billings as well as Sanders County along the Flathead Reservation. Even though it is highly competitive, and doesn't favor either political party. Those commenters who dislike this map because of the Billings split, but who supported map 7 which splits Bozeman and Gallatin County are being two faced, partial and hypocritical. (There are 9. I counted them) Major county seats simply should not be split.
Brandon J DeShaw
I dislike this map because it breaks state law. The districts are not compact, not contiguous, and do not allow for both districts to have a border with Canada. It just looks like something is wrong with it, don't you think? There are parts of the districts that creep around in a strange way. No good east/west divide. I think there is a term for this tap of map -- gerrymandered.
Kaye D Suzuki
This is the map that is best in creating a competitive, fair district for both parties, there are Tribal communities in both Districts giving the reservations full participation. It does not favor either political party as do maps 1,3,5 & 7.
Elizabeth A Hoffa
This map is a gerrymandering nightmare. Not compact and dividing communities with common interests. Reject!
K. Brad Lotton
What does a farmer from Plentywood have inn common with a logger from Libby all in the same district? Clearly a gerrymandered mess. Some sort of north to south division is best
C&evets
This is another terrible terrible map (number 8 terrible) it is another example of gerrymandering prowess, list with the only legal component being population deviation as one citizen (.0%)
Ashley Noonan
Horrible map that shows it was proposed with sneaky political intentions from the democratic side. Like others have said, this puts all of the fastest growing counties in one district which would ultimately give one party (democrats) likely more control. I 100% reject this map as it does not have the citizens best interests at heart for the next 10 years.
Elizabeth Ries
I dislike this map because it is another example of gerrymandering prowess, with the only legal component being the population deviation is 1 citizen (.0%). This is another fault of having the same people serving on the commission. If you wish hard enough, you may get your way. It has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west. this map is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years, and although it is an attempt to put two tribes in the west, it is the CSKT and the Crow, which have never been in the same community of interest (coal anyone?). this map literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth. with the measure of competitiveness, this map gets the award for the most Super Democrat district in the new west, and the most super district for the Republicans in the east. These are double digit differences, so a sure lock for both parties.
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
it has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west.
Karen Cramer
it has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west.
Thomas Millett
Again, one representative to cover both the eastern AND western borders of the state??? Come on! Reject this map for this reason alone!
Dennis Sandbak
CP8 • This map displays an intent to carve out a district to favor one ideology/political party representation. Similarly, as in CP2, CP4, CP8 and CP9 just different boundaries. • I do not like that is puts most of the fastest growing counties in 1 district, this obviously would not be in the best interest for all Montanans. • This alternative like others would make it harder for the representative for District 2 to travel and work with his/her constituents. Like CP2, CP4, CP6, and CP9 it falls short in meeting contiguous and compactness vs. CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP7. • Focusing on separating out same interests to have a competitive edge means more divineness and stalemate back in Washington. We need to have districts that represent all interests to the best we can and I feel this alternative would not accomplish this. • I cannot support this alternative. Splits Billings to capture a competitive edge, WOW is all I can say as a Billings resident.
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 literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth.
James Gomolka
Totally not compact! This puts all the fastest growing counties in one district. Communities with common interests are divided for clearly political reasons.
Janet L Childress
#8. This is the best map for creating at least one 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.
Emma Nicole Moerman
This map is terrible - the whole Canadian border and most of the Idaho border are represented by a single district. It also splits communities of interest in the West. Furthermore, splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This means that almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state are in one district, and there is no way for it to be fair with the potential growth.
Tom Finkle
-This map has all the failures of CP-2. This map is the worst violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west. -This map is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years. -This map places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district.
David Ingram, MD
This map fails on multiple fronts. The Canadian border and essentially the Idaho border are in one district as are 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties. It fails at compact and contigious and commonality of interest. It also splits three counties and The City of Billings. While it puts two tribes in the west, the crow and CSKT have never been in the same community of interest. Sad attempt at vailed gerrymandering.
Julie L Lauritzen
I do not favor this map because it is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years and it is an attempt to put two tribes in the west, it is the CSKT and the Crow, which have never been in the same community of interest.
Melisa Schelvan
This map places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that reconciles over the decade for being fair in regard to potential growth. This map also violates the requirement of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west.
Clinton Nagel
Another reason not to accept this map is here you have three counties being split into two districts. There has to be a better way.
Perry Helt
WOW!, who had the "stones" to propose this little "jewel"? Must have been NANCY PELOSI ! You could put a picture of this map next to the word "GERRYMANDER" in the dictionary and EVERYONE in MT. would know exactly what you're talking about! Yet another dump of Republicans into the "everywhere else" district AND you split 4 counties to do it. Have you no shame?
Clinton Nagel
Even though this map meets or comes close to the criteria, it looks strange. It looks Gerrymandered. And by the way, who said that you need both districts to come into contact with the Canadian Border?
Sharon S Patton-Griffin
This map divides counties and puts Cascade County into District 1. Cascade County has more in common with the west than the east. It is a purple county and deserves to be able to have competitive races.
Joe Phillips
I dislike this map because it has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west.
A
Please reject this farce of a map. Its rediculous gerrymandering. It goes to great lengths to make no sense except to trap all high growth areas into one mishapen mess. Its clearly designed with one purpose to disinfrancise most of montanans in favor of a tiny democratic superpower. Its not compact does reach the borders of the state evenly. Doesn't have both sides reaching canada for economic equity and doesn't follow the natural geographic boundaries. Its a mess of a gerrymandering game of twister to try and create a democratic superblock. Please reject this map as it doesn't meet the requirements set forth.
Anne Boychuck
it is another example of gerrymandering prowess, with the only legal component being the population deviation is 1 citizen (.0%). it has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west. this map is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years, and although it is an attempt to put two tribes in the west, it is the CSKT and the Crow, which have never been in the same community of interest (coal anyone?). this map literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth. with the measure of competitiveness, this map gets the award for the most Super Democrat district in the new west, and the most super district for the Republicans in the east. These are double digit differences, so a sure lock for both parties.
Dan Boychuck
I dislike this map because it is another example of gerrymandering prowess, with the only legal component being the population deviation is 1 citizen (.0%). it has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west. this map is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years, and although it is an attempt to put two tribes in the west, it is the CSKT and the Crow, which have never been in the same community of interest (coal anyone?). this map literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth. with the measure of competitiveness, this map gets the award for the most Super Democrat district in the new west, and the most super district for the Republicans in the east. These are double digit differences, so a sure lock for both parties.
Belle Demeny
Too split up
Lindsey Mishler
it has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west.
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 FAILS to meet that criteria. It splits 4 counties and fails to meet the compactness criteria very badly. It has a "U" shape district and a "M" shape district, superimposed on top of the "U" shape. This map has the distinction of being the MOST in violation of compact & contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the West.
Deborah M Wilson
I dislike this map because it is gerrymandered and it has all of the failures of CP-2. This map is the most in violation of compact and contiguous as well as splitting communities of interest in the west. This map is the most radically different from our historical divisions of 80 years. This would put two tribes in the west, but the CSKT and the Crow have never been in the same community of interest.
Stefanie Hanson
this map is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years, and although it is an attempt to put two tribes in the west, it is the CSKT and the Crow, which have never been in the same community of interest. this map literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth.
Donald Hancock
Obvious Gerrymandering.
Al Wilson
Gerrymandering again, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west.
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. Fail. 5. Division by Indian population. Pass 6. Division by Urban/Rural population. Fail 7. Division by Commerce. Fail 8. Division by Tourist Trades. Fail 9. Division by political parties. Fail This mess (map)deserves almost no comment...definitely designed for one specific purpose...party superiority. Comments that this map pits rural against urban areas and college educated against people of trades and service shows how this map makes people believe that it divides our population in extreme ways that will reduce the strength of our state. Most every county has urban (any collection of people in small areas) and rural (farms, ranches, forestry, outdoor sporting). Why would anyone in this state comment in such a way? We are Montana!
chris ryan rosenstock
Map 8 – I dislike this map because  it is another example of gerrymandering prowess, with the only legal component being the population deviation is 1 citizen (.0%).  it has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west.  this map is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years, and although it is an attempt to put two tribes in the west, it is the CSKT and the Crow, which have never been in the same community of interest (coal anyone?).  this map literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth.  with the measure of competitiveness, this map gets the award for the most Super Democrat district in the new west, and the most super district for the Republicans in the east. These are double digit differences, so a sure lock for both parties.
Jacob Balyeat
(hit the wrong button - I dislike this map)... 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.
Nancy Mehaffie
This is a terrible district with peninsulas wrap arounds and populations being categorized. It has a large population separation and splits 4 counties. It is not a good division for the state.
Terry Churchill
I dislike this map. The gerrymandering is obvious and restricts the Canadian border to only one district. It is bizarre and in no way represents the requirement of being compact and contiguous. The radical attempt of putting the 4 fastest growing counties into one district is an obvious attempt to favor future elections.
Mike Schauf
This one is another example of gerrymandering prowess, with the only legal component being the population deviation is 1 citizen (.0%). It has all the failures of CP-2, with the added insult of having just one seat border Canada and surprisingly, most of Idaho as well! This map does have the distinction of being the most in violation of compact and contiguous, as well as totally splitting communities of interest in the west. This one is the most radically different from our historical division of 80 years, and although it is an attempt to put two tribes in the west, it is the CSKT and the Crow, which have never been in the same community of interest (coal anyone?). This map literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth.
Natalie Adams
It is another example of gerrymandering prowess, with the only legal component being the population deviation is 1 citizen (.0%). • this map literally splits the city of Billings from the West End, the Heights and Lockwood. This fiasco places almost all 3 of the 4 fastest growing counties in the state in one district, and there is no way that even pencils out over the decade for being fair with the potential growth.
justin w cleveland
Does not evenly represent Montana, creates a divide that does does not need to be there.
Sue Beland
Map CP 8 splits too many counties which in turn splits people who work from where they work and live. Both places are crucial to voters and affect their lives. It would mean they have 2 different representatives and voters could not vote for where they work. This map splits the tribal vote. Map CP 8 is not a viable choice for Montana voters.
Charity Fechter Shirley
Counties should not be split, and this one splits 4 of them, including Missoula. District 2 would have a very hard time representing, and getting to, both the eastern and western parts of the district. Disagree that districts should share a northern border.
Bev Hartline
This map is balanced population-wise, at the moment of the census and seemingly competitive party-wise. However it splits too many counties, marginalizes the American Indian vote by splitting it, and assigns a significant fraction of the communities along the Idaho border to "Eastern Montana."
Lin Dsay
I admit, I had some trouble telling which party stood behind each map, but this one takes the cake (so far...I'm not done going through them all). Big Horn and Yellowstone should remain together, they are Yin to the Yang.
Timothy Cuddy
This map takes an unnecessarily complicated approach for a decidedly bad result. This splits the Native American vote, separating this crucial voting block nearly down the middle, in a way that will disenfranchise this group. They currently stand to gain influence that would allow them to improve their situation or find a representative to fight for them in congress. When we split their vote, it becomes increasingly less likely their voices are heard in conflict with the overwhelming majoritys in their districts.
Kim Kresan
This map blatantly splits Missoula county straight down the center, cutting the city of Missoula, the cultural and economic hub of the region, apart from neighboring towns (many of which house more and more commuters to the city proper). Rising housing costs shouldn't force us to both commute further AND be unable to vote for our own representation.
vicky ohara
Both representatives should have the Northern border in their districts.