The point of drawing lines is trying to make sure everyone has the chance at a voice. That each district represents as much of the whole of Montana as possible, not one group over another.

I dislike this map because it's makers are saying to the reservations: "you can't sit with us." This map shows an easy row to hoe for the Left, in the left, with Bozeman, Missoula, and Dear Lodge powerful in numbers in District I. Why leave out the reservations? Oh, because they can't sit with the college towns and the elite,but maybe their numbers will help to overwhelm District 2 and tip the vote at some point in the future? This is maddening. Whoever is doing this, remember you're OUR REPRESENTATION, you work for us, you are NOT GOD!

This map splits Missoula County and the people in that county have shared interests. There are very few Tribal Nations in district 1 of this map. I oppose this proposal.

This map does NOT equitably represent tribal populations. I strongly oppose.

One districts doesn't have border and too unequal! One district way bigger and doesn't make sense.

This map is again not fair to the native Americans and would result in another lawsuit! We definitely could file. Also clear gerrymandering.

Both districts favor the republican party. The new district to a lesser degree, but still.

This map does NOT allow for split representation on the northern border, which is necessary. Also does NOT allow compact and contiguous qualities. This map is rather ridiculous.

nope!

Nope!

There is nothing neat or clean about this map. Wanders everywhere. I can't take it as a serious offer to such an important decision. The creator should look up the definition of gerrymandering.

Another clearly gerrymandered map which fails the compact and contiguous requirements. Sanders and Mineral should not be in the East. Kalispell is also a Western area and city.

I call this the Cleansingmander. Pardon me the irony of noting that the party which pretends to support tribes has come up with a district map that doesn't have a single square inch of reservation lands and probably the smallest number of Indian voters of any of the "competitive" districts. How can this be serious?

No, thank you. More Rosie the Riverter arm that is not at all representing MT at it's best. Make it easy on the Reps. No gerrymandering. You can't honestly say that this isn't. Please be FAIR and represent us as a whole. Thank you :)

I do not like this idea

Keep it simple. This map is not endorsed by Tribal communities and lacks competitiveness. It is not fair. I do not support this map.

I oppose this map. Prima facie there appears to be no fair-minded justification for this option.

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.

NO!!

This results in a biased electoral map that doesn't reflect actual voter opinions

I dislike and strongly oppose this gerrymandered CP 9 map for many reasons. Firstly, it violates Federal Election Law by not including a Tribal Nation in the new western District 1. It clearly denies a logical and historical and east/west divide of the two proposed voting districts. Both districts are grossly disproportionate. Lastly, this proposed map unfairly lumps five major cities of Bozeman, Helena, Butte, Missoula and Great Falls into western District 1 and Kalispell and Billings and all four Tribal Reservations into eastern District 2. What's is the point of considering the proposed CP 9 map if it excludes fair and balanced representation AND violates Federal law? In conclusion to reviewing all of these proposed maps, I like and approve of CP 1.

– 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.

I dislike this map because it has all the failures of CP-2 and does not meet any of the Montana requirements.

I dislike this map. It has no tribal nations in the new western seat.

This map is a violation of Federal Election law with no tribal nations in the Western district. It once again creates a Democratic super district in the new Western district. It fails on compact and contiguous and commonality of interest parameters as well.

Map 9 – I dislike this map because • it has all the failures of CP-2 map, including its only saving grace is the legality of its population deviation being 1 citizen (.0%). The biggest stand out failure of this map is in violation of Federal Election Law, where it actually has no tribal nations in the new western seat. This failure is compounded by the illegal competitive measure, when one realizes the new eastern seat is a double-digit percentage favorite for the Republican Party, when looking at the 2016 Governor and 2018 US Senate race results. It still creates a Democrat super seat with the same powerhouse groups of Cp-2 for the new western seat. • it is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

Map 9 – I dislike this map because it has all the failures of CP-2 map, including its only saving grace is the legality of its population deviation being 1 citizen (.0%). The biggest stand out failure of this map is in violation of Federal Election Law, where it actually has no tribal nations in the new western seat. This failure is compounded by the illegal competitive measure, when one realizes the new eastern seat is a double-digit percentage favorite for the Republican Party, when looking at the 2016 Governor and 2018 US Senate race results. It still creates a Democrat super seat with the same powerhouse groups of Cp-2 for the new western seat. it is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

Not great voter distribution

Two GOP super districts

Ridiculous map. Can't believe it is even one of the options!

This is a ridiculous map! It violates the law state law the districts are not compact not contiguous and do not allow for both districts to have a border with Canada it has no historic East/West divide of Montana

• obviously a violation of compact • It is in violation of Federal Election Law because it has no tribal nations in the new western seat.

This is a very Ridiculous map. It violates the state law. The districts are not compact and not contigious it does not allow for both districts to have a border with Canada. It has no historic East/West divide of Montana

I dislike this map because it violates state law. The districts are not compact, not contiguous, and do not allow for both districts to have a border with Canada. It has no historic east/west divide of Montana.

I dislike this map because it is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be "the most likely to be rejected first at the next redistricting meeting."

Again another gerrymandered mess. Keep voters with common interest together. East side district and west side districts suit the population representation best

Another horrible map. This is another attempt to keep large populations together for democratic gain in the next ten years. REJECT. This does not have the states best interest in mind.

This map should be automatically rejected as it is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

This map favors one political party over the other, is unfair to tribes, and splits one county. The only thing is has going for it is that one district is compact, but the other isn't, and it's overall not competitive.

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.

it has all the failures of CP-2 map, including its only saving grace is the legality of its population deviation being 1 citizen (.0%). The biggest stand out failure of this map is in violation of Federal Election Law, where it actually has no tribal nations in the new western seat. This failure is compounded by the illegal competitive measure, when one realizes the new eastern seat is a double-digit percentage favorite for the Republican Party, when looking at the 2016 Governor and 2018 US Senate race results. It still creates a Democrat super seat with the same powerhouse groups of Cp-2 for the new western seat.

Another map with one district covering the eastern and western borders of the state? This is INSANE! REJECT, REJECT, REJECT!

CP9 • I do not like that all reservations are in 1 district. This alternative displays the ultimate of carving out a republican and a democrat district in perpetuity or at least for the next decade. • Similar obvious splitting of districts to favor one political party/ideology as in CP2, CP4, CP6, and CP8 just different lines. • We need to have districts that do not give a competitive advantage to one party over the other. Both should be able to compete in both districts. This alternative would likely result in one republican representative and one democrat representative, which under the current political nature in Washington one would cancel the other out and the interests of all Montanans would be marginalized. Competitive districts for both parties need to occur so elected representatives from either political party would work for interests of all Montanans. CP1, CP3, CP5, and CP7 would better meet this goal. • I cannot support this alternative.

This map makes it very difficult for future candidates to run for office.

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.

I dislike this map because it is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

No tribal nations in the western district. Might not hold up against the legal requirements. One district is compact but the other is not. There are options that better fit the established criteria.

This is a blatant attempt by the democrats to gerrymander two distinct districts - one red and one blue. It provides one compact district that would lean heavily democratic and one large district spanning the entire Canadian border and reaching over 700 road miles from NW to SE Montana. CP9 is obviously a through away coarse of action and does not meet the criteria.

This map does not look as though it is fairly divided for the parties.

This map is in violation of Federal Election Law because it has no tribal nations in the new western seat. Furthermore, the eastern seat is a double digit percentage favorite for the Republican Party and a Democratic power house district in the western one. Moreover, this map only has one district representing the Canadian border.

-This map is in violation of Federal Election Law, where it actually has no tribal nations in the new western seat. -This map creates a Democrat super seat with the same powerhouse groups of Cp-2 for the new western seat. It is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest.

This map does not include tribal nations in one of the districts and does not share the Canadian border. It does not pass on compact and contiguous or commonality of interest parameters. It appears to create two super districts which, again, will be decided by the primaries.

I dislike this map because it is obviously a violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest as well as only allowing one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map.

This map actually has no tribal nations in the new western seat, which is a violation of Federal Election Law. This map should be disqualified from consideration.

As I go back and relook at this map, I overlooked the splitting up of Missoula County. My mistake. I don't see the need to do that.

I dislike this map because it is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

This is not even or compact and doesn't follow the geographic features. or the economic interests of the state or the historical boundaries. Please reject.

it has all the failures of CP-2 map, including its only saving grace is the legality of its population deviation being 1 citizen (.0%). The biggest stand out failure of this map is in violation of Federal Election Law, where it actually has no tribal nations in the new western seat. This failure is compounded by the illegal competitive measure, when one realizes the new eastern seat is a double-digit percentage favorite for the Republican Party, when looking at the 2016 Governor and 2018 US Senate race results. It still creates a Democrat super seat with the same powerhouse groups of Cp-2 for the new western seat. it is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

I dislike this map because it has all the failures of CP-2 map, including its only saving grace is the legality of its population deviation being 1 citizen (.0%). The biggest stand out failure of this map is in violation of Federal Election Law, where it actually has no tribal nations in the new western seat. This failure is compounded by the illegal competitive measure, when one realizes the new eastern seat is a double-digit percentage favorite for the Republican Party, when looking at the 2016 Governor and 2018 US Senate race results. It still creates a Democrat super seat with the same powerhouse groups of Cp-2 for the new western seat. it is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

Where are the tribal lands in this choice?

This map is ridiculous!

it has all the failures of CP-2 map, including its only saving grace is the legality of its population deviation being 1 citizen (.0%). The biggest stand out failure of this map is in violation of Federal Election Law, where it actually has no tribal nations in the new western seat. This failure is compounded by the illegal competitive measure, when one realizes the new eastern seat is a double-digit percentage favorite for the Republican Party, when looking at the 2016 Governor and 2018 US Senate race results. It still creates a Democrat super seat with the same powerhouse groups of Cp-2 for the new western seat.

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 is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The length width criteria of the two districts is very unequal. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and this map should be the first to be REJECTED at the next Redistricting meeting.

This map is political gerrymandering at its worst. Dreadful.

I dislike this map because it has all of the failures of CP-2. It is in violation of Federal Election Law because it has no tribal nations in the new western seat. It creates a Democrat super seat with the same power house groups of Cp-2 for the new western seat. It is violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest and allows only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map has nothing in common with this map.

it is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada.

Obvious Gerrymandering.

This map is obviously just wrong. One district bordering all of Canada is unfair. It doesn’t resemble the historical map in the least.

It is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

1. Division by natural boundaries. FAIL 2. Division by population. Pass 3. Division by exterior border with Canada. FAIL 4. Division by county representation. Pass 5. Division by Indian population. FAIL 6. Division by Urban/Rural population. Scale 1-5(best) 2 7. Division by Commerce. Fail 8. Division by Tourist Trades. Fail 9. Division by political parties. Fail

1. Division by natural boundaries. Fail. 2. Division by population. Pass. 3. Division by exterior border with Canada. Fail. 4. Division by county representation. Scale of (worst)1 to 5 (best) = 2 5. Division by Indian population. Fail 6. Division by Urban/Rural population. 1-5 = 2 7. Division by Commerce. Fail. 8. Division by Tourist Trades. Fail. 9. Division by political parties. 1-5 = 1

Map 9 – I dislike this map because  it has all the failures of CP-2 map, including its only saving grace is the legality of its population deviation being 1 citizen (.0%). The biggest stand out failure of this map is in violation of Federal Election Law, where it actually has no tribal nations in the new western seat. This failure is compounded by the illegal competitive measure, when one realizes the new eastern seat is a double digit percentage favorite for the Republican Party, when looking at the 2016 Governor and 2018 US Senate race results. It still creates a Democrat super seat with the same power house groups of Cp-2 for the new western seat.  it is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

This map is not consistent with the history of our districts here in Montana... does not represent our past OR fairly handle our future growth...

This district is way too long on the northern boundary and does not form a good north south split and the state has only one district bordering Canada. The East - West division allows interaction with Canada and the East side of the State has issues that differs from the West side of the state like Transportation and Water.

I dislike this map because it has no tribal nations in the new western seat. This failure is compounded by the illegal competitive measure. The new eastern seat is a double digit percentage favorite for the Republican Party, when looking at the 2016 Governor and 2018 US Senate race results and it creates a Democrat super seat for the new western seat. It also allows only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map.

This is not a viable choice for many reasons! The entire border is in one district. It creates a western seat with no Tribal representation. It is not compact nor contiguous as is required for this process.

This map has all the failures of CP-2 map, including its only saving grace is the legality of its population deviation being 1 citizen (.0%). The biggest stand out failure of this map is in violation of Federal Election Law, where it actually has no tribal nations in the new western seat. This failure is compounded by the illegal competitive measure, when one realizes the new eastern seat is a double digit percentage favorite for the Republican Party, when looking at the 2016 Governor and 2018 US Senate race results. It still creates a Democrat super seat with the same power house groups of Cp-2 for the new western seat. It is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

This is an obvious violation of compact, contiguous and communities of interest, as well as once again allowing only one seat to represent the critical interface with Canada. The historical map also has nothing in common with this map, and honestly this maps only distinction will be “the most likely to be rejected first at the next Redistricting meeting.”

This is not a compact choice, and difficult for representation by the District 2 representative.

Nope, not this one!

This map fails to adequately provide for a competitive (50/50 chance of republican or democrat winning) district. Map leans toward keeping the status quo in Montana, which does not properly reflect demographic trends in the state.

This map represents a very large division between the interests of rural areas and those interests of urban areas.