MyDistricting | MONTANA
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by Citygate GIS
Provide your comments for consideration in the 2021 Redistricting process
Loading geometries...
District 1
District 2
Census Legend
Labels visible at zoom level 10.
Labels visible at zoom level 13.
Labels visible at zoom level 17.
Current Map Zoom: 8
Population and Geography based on 2020 Census Redistricting Data File
Ahren Cornelius
This map is a poor choice. It does not meet the goals and criteria. Not only does this map split a county but it also splits a city. This is also the least competitive map of the remaining 4 maps. Please do not vote for this map. Thank you.
Linda Lasko
Gallatin county is excluded from the western district in this map, leaving the majority of their voters clumped into the eastern district, which does not represent their interests.
Ethan Seiler
I oppose this map, as it violates what the tribes wish for, divides communities, and silences rural voters.
Bob Carter
I oppose this map. This is the worst map of the 4 proposed.
Lucretia Olson
I oppose Map 10. This map is not competitive and violates the stated goals of the redistricting committee. Why would this map even be considered if it doesn't fit the basic criteria? It also splits Gallatin County, which seems an obvious attempt at gerrymandering.
Nicholas P Maffei
Splitting Gallatin County seems a very blatant disregard to the redistricting criteria.
James Amonette
I do not like this map because it has a Cook PVI score that is anti-competitive. Please reject this option.
andrew burns
This map violates the commissions own criteria. It is not competitive. It divides linked communities and silences rural and union voters. Please reject this map.
Robert Michael Walters
I like this map, but I believe CP12 is better and meets the criteria set for better.
Emily Qiu
I oppose CP-10 because it divides Gallatin County. Gallatin County should not be separated; we should not be separated from our neighbors, our community, and our local businesses that face similar issues. Moreover, Livingston and Bozeman would be separated and our two communities are integrally tied to each other. Many local businesses operate in both towns. Individuals live in one town and work in the other. Separating these two communities ignores the cultural, economic, and community ties that show how these communities face similar challenges.
Dan MacLean
Of the 13 maps presented, CP-1 does the best job of complying with the MANDATORY criteria adopted for redistricting. MUST be equal in population; Race CANNOT be the predominant factor; SHALL consist of compact territory. Maps CP-2 through CP-13 all appear gerrymandered to prioritize GOALS rather than MANDATORY criteria. Shall ATTEMPT and MAY consider are not mandatory terms and while desirable, the focus on goals is detracting from concluding this process. Many of the maps appear to have been developed by skipping through the MANDATORY and GOAL criteria to the last item on the list - MAY consider competitiveness. This is evidenced by the wonky gerrymandered district lines as depicted in extreme on CP-6 where Ekalaka and Eureka are in the same district. Please reconsider and adopt CP-1
Elizabeth Moore
Dear Commissioners, thank you for doing this difficult but important work. I opposed CP-10. I urge you to adopt CP-11.
Hannah Schweitzer
This doesn't seem to keep the districts competitive enough. I also don't like that Gallatin county is split. Also it doesn't seem right to put Helena in the Eastern district.
Janna Lauver
I am opposed to CP 10 because it divides my community and neighbors into two districts (Three Forks school is fed by both Gallatin and Jefferson counties at Wheat Mt area on this map) and will further complicate our community relationships and functionality and identity. Also it divides Gallatin County, separating the communities of Gallatin Gateway and Big Sky from the rest of Gallatin County. It separates the cities of Bozeman and Livingston from one another, two communities that have long-standing economic and cultural ties. It does not create a competitive district, which means that it unduly favors one political party.
Hugo Sindelar
I oppose map 10. It creates an uncompetitive map and splits Gallatin County.
Nicki Jimenez
I strongly oppose CP 10. This map unduly favors a political party and fails to consider competitiveness by creating zero competitive districts. It also a poor choice for Native voices to be heard at the polls because two districts with multiple tribes will mean nothing if there are not competitive districts. Competitive districts mean robust democratic participation and more accurate representation for the people of Montana!
RaeLeen Roadarmel
Why don't you split the state by having a north and a south districts? That seems to be more equal of rural and urban populations. I just want to be out of the western half. Carve Three Forks & Logan out of the west.
Dante Wilson
adolf drippler
guy man
I eat cocks in the back if a tesla. If you don't like that? Fuck you
Linda Gale
This split of Gallatin County divides a large, growing community that is facing unified problems related to growth, planning, etc.
Mark McKinley
CP 10 is NOT the best choice. CP 11 is a better map.
patrick berryhill
In the interest of overall balance for the state I prefer CP11.
forrest scott
Splitting up the fastest growing county in the state is completely asinine.
Sam Kuhlin
I don’t like dividing counties, but I’ve lived in both Kalispell and Bozeman and dividing the Flathead makes more sense than dividing the Gallatin. Bozeman’s community extends far beyond Kagy and Sourdough and shouldn’t be arbitrarily cut off to balance statewide populations.
Jennifer Crenshaw Pryor
I oppose proposal 10
Emma Nguyen
I disapprove of CP10 as it unnecessarily splits Gallatin and Park County when the two communities are closely linked and thus share many common issues and interests. Additionally, CP10 creates a non-competitive district, silencing Indigenious voices.
Albert Pendergrass
I disapprove of this map Gallatin is split between districts. Most residents of Gallatin have similar issues and concerns. I also do not like that Park and all of Gallatin are not in the same district. Residents in Park and Gallatin have many common issues and concerns. There are many of us who thru residency, work, shopping and recreation have vested interests in both counties.
Mike Fouhy
Map CP-10 is a terrible map that is based on trying to carve out specific party districts and it does not comply with Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. Please throw out this map and select map CP-1 as it’s the best map that adheres to the law.
David K McEwen
It's abundantly obvious that this map is drawn without the intent of fairness.
Michael Videon
I oppose proposal 10. It creates two uncompetitive districts and boils down to GOP gerrymandering.
jeff Meide
I oppose Proposal 10
Cheryl Bourguignon
Reject Map 10 as it is clear gerrymandering. Map 10 puts liberal areas into a very conservative district and a conservative area into a liberal district – which effectively keeps competition out of our elections. It creates an assurance of two republican-winning districts, which clearly favors one political party. This does not follow the guidelines of redistricting.
Bruce Schwartz
I strongly oppose CP 10. This is classic gerrymandering and could not possibly survive a legal challenge if the court is at all fair.
Deborah Wilson
This map does not follow the law which is 5-1-115 (MCA). It is based on carving out specific party districts and does not comply with Montana statutes and constitutional requirements.
Colette Daigle-Berg
Commissioners~Thank you so much for doing this important and challenging work. I am from Gardiner and oppose CP-10. I urge you to adopt CP-11. You’ve heard the arguments supporting and opposing both proposals. I am particularly disturbed by the thought of splitting communities in Gallatin County and not including Gallatin and Park Counties in the same district. I urge you to follow your consciences and approve the map you feel will truly enable all Montanans to have equal and fair representation. Thank you again.
Wendy Lynn Riley
I oppose Map 10. It is clearly gerrymandered and does not ensure two competitive districts. It makes no sense to divide Gallatin County, as the needs of the County will not be fairly represented. In addition, Park County should be included with Gallatin, as they share common interests, such as economic, healthcare, housing, and the care of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Map 11 better represents the needs of Gallatin and Park Counties.
Ann Karp
Map 10 unduly favors one political party.
Eric Grove
As a lifelong Montanan I oppose putting Helena in the eastern district. No to CP10
D Curtis Starr Jr
This proposal appears to have gone to great lengths to reduce the influence of Gallatin county by splitting it in half. CP10 should not be the one chosen as the final redistricting plan.
Leslie Millar
This map seeks to increase republican control of the state by dividing up Bozeman and Helena. Vote against map #10. We do not need gerrymandering in Montana.
Tracy Donaldson
I do not like or support CP10. (My previous comment stands, but it was accidentally placed at the wrong location on the interactive map when I zoomed the map out to look at it)
Tracy Donaldson
Of the two commission-proposed maps, I prefer CP11. I do not like the fact that CP10 puts Lewis & Clark County in the eastern district, and splits up Gallatin County between the 2 districts. The addition of the 2 counties and Blackfoot reservation in the upper section (Glacier Park and parts east) to the western district in CP10 also does not make sense.
Shelley Thurmond
I oppose CP 10 since it is blatant gerrymandering.
Julie Sirrs
I strongly oppose CP10. It would effectively deny representation to the many Montanans who tend to support Democrats for office.
Ruth Weissman
I do not like CP 10. It is unfair and should be discarded
Robert Bukantis
I am opposed to CP10. I feel Helena fits better with Western Montana.
Robyn Morrison
I strongly oppose this map CP10. It’s obvious Republican gerrymandering.
Michele McMullen
I don’t like this map—it splits up towns that should stay together. Also, that means those split towns (Big Sky, Gallatin Gateway) effectively get twice as much representation in DC than all the other—way bigger—towns and cities. Thumbs down.
James M. Pappenfus
I dislike the map of plan 10 as it is not as fair!
Donna Williams
Neither map is ideal, but even though this map puts at least 2 reservations in each district, it fails to let Native voices be heard as well as map 11. Very disappointing. I cast my vote with Western Native Voice. No to map 10.
William J Cardin
I do not like CP10.
Daniel Volkmann
This map seems like gerrymandering to ensure two republican seats. I prefer the more historical choice CP11
Laura Cater-Woods
CP 10 does not create competitive districts. oppose
John Bundy
Our former U.S. Representative and current governor, Greg Gianforte, pleaded guilty to assault and was elected anyway. The next U.S. Representative, Ryan Zinke, became the Secretary of Interior, had to resign, and is under investigation by the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. It seems this map would favor another Republican officeholder. I prefer a district that is politically competitive and could potentially elect someone who does not have a criminal record or is not under investigation for illegal activity.
Brianne Harrington
I oppose CP 10
Laura Bundy
I oppose CP 10. Montana does not need two non-competitive districts. Until recently, Montana had a reputation of being a purple state with ticket-splitting as a standard way of voting. Competitive seats lead to more middle road candidates that are more likely to represent ALL the people, not just those of one particular party. It also brings accountability. In the last few years we have elected a congressman, now governor that does not control his temper and will body-slam reporters for simply asking questions. We have a former congressman, former head of DOI that was under investigation on 18 different charges of misconduct, and our current AG is being investigated for abuse of power. Without competitive seats, there is no accountability creating an invitation to corruption.
Eve Holthausen
I oppose is clearly gerrymandering to give the GOP more power over the left-leaning population of my state.
Nicole Schubert
This splits Galatin. That's not a good or logical idea to fairly represent the people and makes it more difficult for the House Rep to do a good job. I like that this map keeps two tribes on the West and three on the East to ensure voice for this minority, as in the House Reps will more likely need to consider their needs. This is what we want so that the reps don't get polarized and we represent the center. Can we please just have a map where the four big and growing counties are also on each side? Flathead and Missoula on West and Galatin and Yellowstone on East? That seems very rational and you can get your even populations on each side and create a way for the Reps to really be able to know their constituents. Thank you.
Karen Zackheim
Map 10 does not treat all Montana citizens fairly. It's crazy to put Lewis & Clark County in the eastern district. Montanan's deserve balanced representation and this proposal does not achieve that. Vote no on map 10.
Rebecca Johnson
I oppose Map 10 as it separates several communities of interest and gerrymanders Gallatin County to make two uncompetitive districts for Republicans to easily win both districts where state Democrats have no congressional representative who will listen to their issues/concerns.
Amy Spicka
I oppose option #10. This plan does not represent Montana population and creates a larger political divide in the state.
Bob Carter
I oppose this option. We need at least one competitive district.
Diane Rewerts
I oppose CP 10 as it is not as equitable as CP 11.
Nancy Dunne Byington
Reject CP10 as an example of gerrymandering that clearing favors one party over another. There is no perfect way to do this, and CP 10 is obviously a tortured attempt to imbalance representation in Montana.
David J Jones
I think neither Flathead nor Gallatin counties should be split. If there is not a way to balance the populations between the two districts without splitting collective communities , then CP11 appears less disruptive then CP10.
Earl R Owens
CP10 is blatant gerrymandering and will result in the disenfranchisement of nearly half of Montana citizens. It is not a good choice and should be rejected.
Marcus Golz
The only good choice left is CP11. If CP10 were a pinball game it would be a tilt
Cathy Weber
#10 is a cynical attempt to disallow a fair fight in either district. #11, at least tries for a level playing field in part of the state.
Jeff Morrow
this map certainly doesnt contain even a competitive dsitric
Sandra Carpenter
While it looks similar to past districting, it actually makes Montana split amongst economic patterns potentially leaving Montana without good representation in Washington that are looking out for the the best interests at home. This makes no sense. Quit splitting up so many groups of communities and reservations. This is probably the most polarized version of districts.
Joanne MacConnachie Morrow
I do not like CP 10 because it will not give us even ONE competitive district. We need CP 11!
CP 11 is a fairer division for our state. CP 10 is a gerrymandered map and goes against the principle of a fair democratic process.
Michael L Miller
Map 10 appears to be gerrymandered and it is clear that it is designed to avoid competition. It removes the need for candidates to listen to the people. I am against map 10, and favor map 11.
Nancy Volle
I am not comfortable with redistricting map CP10. I see to apparent efforts to gerrymander. (1) Breaking up the metropolitan area of Bozeman. There is no reasonable explanation for that split. (2) Breaking up the vote of the Native American tribes. No reason to do that but to weaken their influence & ability to meaningfully participate in electing someone who understands their unique situation to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Weat Mattis
CP 11 insures no towns are split which will help reduce voter confusion. It also offers the most equitable balance in representation. SP 10 splits Gallatin County and the small towns of Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway and moves Helena to District 2. This is intended to tip the balance in District 1 and gives the impression of gerrymandering. For this reason, I support CP 11 and oppose CP 10. We need fair and equitable districts, regardless of party affiliation.
Nancy Volle
I oppose the CP10 redistricting plan. It splits the Bozeman community in a way that appears to be gerrymandering. It also splits the vote of Montana's first people, our Indian nations so they are less able to vote successfully for people who understand and can advocate for their unique needs. I'm very uncomfortable with this map. It appears to be an effort to gerrymander the vote.
Carolyn Pitman
I am opposed to CP10.
Bridget Morse
I am against this districting. It is not a fair division of the state
Christina Thelen
Option CP10 does not best represent everyone in Montana. We all have a right to be represented and have a voice in Montana.
Jean Woessner
This map does not lead to truly competitive districts in any sense of the word. I will be disenfranchised, once again.
John Simms
CP 10 is not a fair division of the state.
Marlene Simms
I do not support CP10 as it obviously supports one party and would not result in fair elections.
Andrew W. Lenssen
CP-10 essentially disenfranchises me. That is not right.
Catherine Ockey
I oppose map 10. I believe it creates two uneven districts politically which will prevent competition to elect our representatives.
Paula Darko-Hensler
I oppose this is not fair and unfairly sets districts to not represent like interest. Like interest that best represent the electorate should remain intact.
Edward Cooney
I oppose CP-10 as it unfairly advantages one party over another. It is not reflective of the true "purple" nature of our state of the last several decades. One election doesn't change that forever.
MArshall Bloom
I oppose this CP-10. It is a blatant example of gerrymandering that has no place in Montana voting decisions. Thank you!
Wendy Pierce
This spilts Gallatin county and does not keep communities with common interest together.
Amy Darling
This map is gerrymandering at its finest. CP11 facilitates more opportunities for competitive races, which is always better for the people of Montana. Please reject CP10!
Edward Cooney
I oppose CP-10 as it unfairly advantages one party over another and is not reflective of the true purple nature of our state over the last several decades.
Donna Martin
I believe I may have made my supporting comment on the wrong map. I STRONGLY support the map that divides Flathead County instead of Gallatin County for the reasons I gave before.
Kramer Wilson
This map suppresses all tribe voices and does not split the population as evenly as Map 11. Both of these factors are much more important than something as rudimentary as east and west. The people are what's important, not the location.
Erin Vang
This map unfairly disenfranchises native Montana voters and creates NO competitive districts. Gerrymandering at its very worst.
Benjamin M. Darrow
I think the commission should chose CP11, the map that divides the Flathead, not the map that divides Gallatin. The reason I support this map is because it makes both representatives have a connection to the Western Montana, which is a very special place. The map that divides Gallatin is much more of an East/West map and we need representatives that are invested in representing all Montana. For that reason, I think the map that gives some of the eastern district land that goes beyond the continental divide. Also, the map that divides Gallatin is a much clearer example of gerrymandering because it divides up the fastest growing, and soon to be most liberal county. While the other map divides up the Flathead, I think this will produce a benefit to the people in that county because two representatives will have their district in that area. Another advantage of the map that divides the fFlathead is that the Salish are in one district, and the Blackfeet are in another. This advantage is that both representatives will have an interest in representing those Native interests. For the above reason, I dislike map 10, and hope the commission will select map 11.
Ross T Johnson
Severing both Glacier and Pondera Counties from the eastern district unnecessarily divides these agriculturally driven communities from the rest of eastern Montana. The economic interests of these counties are much more aligned with the Eastern District. This is a poor map.
Domenic A Cossi
I do not think this map should be adopted. The split of Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway makes no sense given how connected the two communities are. In addition West Yellowstone and Gardiner should be in the same district given their connection as the main gateways to Yellowstone park.
Ruth Kopec
I object to Map 10 for the following reasons: Most importantly, Map 10 splits the towns of Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway even though there is no clear reason to do so since Gallatin County could have been split in such a way to keep them together. Interestingly, these two towns are growing closer economically as the needs of the Big Sky area for affordable housing and employee resources have required investment by Big Sky businesses in the Gallatin Gateway community. The only rationale for this division is to create a partisan cut of Gallatin County designed to crack apart Democratic votes and split two small towns for no reason. This division violates your criteria on minimizing the unnecessary division of towns. Map 10 creates two Republican districts, which unduly favors one party. With two congressional districts now instead of one, a fair map includes one competitive district that either party can win. Map 10 also dilutes the power of Montana farmers and ranchers by breaking up the Golden Triangle and critical grain and cattle producing regions in Montana. This is cracking the farm and ranch vote pure and simple. Map 10 also separates Park and Gallatin County from one another, cutting apart an area with vital economic connections and shared interests. As these areas grow in population, joint representation in Congress by one representative would result in recognition of the identical problems those communities will face in the future. Map 11 better acknowledges this community of interest.
Charles W Wheeler
I believe the alternate, CP11, is far better. This map has greater deviation, splits the Golden Triangle, and represents far more political "fiddling". It splits Helena and Butte for no apparent reason. I am not a proponent of this version of the redistricting.
Brian Cayko
Map CP-10 is a poor map that is based on trying to carve out specific party districts and it does not comply with Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. Select a map that actually adheres to law.
Zehra Osman
This plan dilutes the power of Montana farmers and ranchers by breaking up the Golden Triangle and critical grain and cattle producing regions in Montana. This is cracking the farm and ranch vote pure and simple. This plan breaks with the Historical precedent in Montana by separating the towns of Helena and Butte, diluting union strength and breaking apart a community of interest that’s existed for over a century. This plan splits the towns of Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway even though there is no clear reason to do so since Gallatin county could have been split in such a way to keep them together. This is a partisan cut of Gallatin County designed to crack apart Democratic votes and splitting two small towns for no reason violates your criteria on minimizing the unnecessary division of towns. This plan separates Park and Gallatin County from one another, cutting apart an area with vital economic connections and shared interests. Plan 11 better acknowledges this community of interest.
Patti Steinmuller
This map does not appear to comply with the mandatory criteria for compactness since Gallatin County is split between the two districts in several locations, including Bozeman, Gallatin Gateway, and Big Sky. These separations are counter to the mandatory consideration of functional compactness in terms of travel and transportation, communication, and geography. Having lived in Gallatin Gateway and now in Bozeman, I know that multiple daily interactions occur throughout these areas. The population increases occurring in the county will only broaden these interactions and an irregular line dividing the two districts would be extremely confusing to voters. Although Gallatin County and Park County share travel, transportation, and communication interests, map 10 separates the core business areas of Bozeman and Livingston into two different districts. Also, this map separates Pondera County from the other agricultural interest of the Golden Triangle which limits the voice common to these constituents.
Dianne P Ostermiller
This map is better. Flathead needs to be in the Eastern District. It also provides an even population split.
Christy Jutila
CP1 is still the best map.
Sarah G Hughes
CP10 would divide many key areas of common interest into separate districts to the detriment of those areas. It would be terrible for the Greater Yellowstone area.
Plan 11 better acknowledges communities of common interest. CP 10 should be rejected.
Damion Shaye Lynn
The fact that this map has made it this far is bizarre, it clearly divides areas up to give a particular party an advantage. This map splits up ranching and farming districts to allow democratic areas to be divided and moved into the eastern district to deny those communities the voice they deserve. This map is blatantly unconstitutional.
Mark Anderlik
I think both maps CP 10 and C 11 do okay as far as the requirement for contiguous borders are concerned. But this map does not maintain the political balance that has long been the history of the state. Having competitive seats for Congress also requires candidates and those elected to appeal to large parts of the population, instead of appealing to a narrow base. That invites corruption.
Bob Hughes
I oppose CP 10 because it is not competitive, as it favors Republicans and would likely mean two Republican districts. It separates Helena and Butte, communities of common interest for more than 100 years. CP 10 splits the towns of Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway in two, for no apparent reason other than partisan gerrymandering. CP 10 separates Park and Gallatin County, a combined area of important economic connections and shared interests. Plan 11 better acknowledges communities of common interest. CP 10 should be rejected.
John Kleinert
Map CP-10 is terrible and it is based on trying to carve out specific party districts and does not comply with Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. Throw this map out and select CP-1 as it actually adheres to the law.
Donna Eakman
CP-10 has an odd split in Gallatin County; however, it is more contiguous than CP-11 and I prefer it over CP-11. Still, I think the best map presented in all 11 of the maps is CP-1 and would like to see the Commission go back to that map. Even though CP-1 splits Gallatin County, it seems like a better and more logical split as following the guidelines of MT law and the Commission.
I feel Map CP-10 is illegal because it’s trying to carve out specific districts and does not comply with Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. Please throw out this map and select map CP-1 as it’s the best map that adheres to the law.
Nancy Norberg
I preferred Map 1 with previous comments. After viewing these two maps, I still prefer Map 1. I would suggest the commission look again at Map 1.
Roy R Melton
Map CP-10 is poorly designed. Obviously trying to lay out specific party districts. This does NOT comply with Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. Please throw it out.
Kathy Workman
It would appear that a pretty straight forward process has been very convoluted. Map 1 made the most sense from the get go.
Katherine and Ronald Bachrach
We oppose this map.
Noelle Johnson
Of the 11 maps proposed by the commission, Map 1 still seems to best map for districting for the 2 house seats. If the issue is 2 counties are split, put Cascade & Gallatin fully in the eastern district. Time & population growth will even out the population between the 2 districts quickly. Both maps 10 & 11 have very strange oddities that make NO sense--other than using political information (which is NOT to be used for districting). In MAP 10, the manner Gallatin county is split makes no sense. Of the 2 new maps, this (#10 is the better of the 2).
Nathan L Varley
This map is not fair--its clear that certain locations are being split to maximize GOP advantage. Please reject CP10 as being a total gerrymander job.
Representative LOLA Sheldon-Galloway
I support map CP1 with the variance including the whole county of Cascade and Gallatin only including HD64 in the west. Republican commissioners are continually being asked to compromise under the this commission and I find this not representing the majority voice in Montana. Very disheartening. Of the two maps proposed this is the better of the two.
Tamara Tanberg
Map 10 is a better solution than Map 11. Including the counties adjacent to Glacier Park with the west makes good sense. Also, keeping Gallatin County with Park County together with Yellowstone Park makes sense, but don't split Gallatin County, because that makes no sense, for all the obvious reasons that have been stated.
I dislike this map, it is based on trying to carve out specific party districts and it does not comply with HB 506, which is Montana Law. Please throw out this map and select CP1 its the best map and adheres to the Law. redistricting should be about what is equitable, right and fair for all Montana!
Alyson Roberts
This map unduly favors one political party, which is counter to one of the goals the MDAC established. Neither of the proposed final maps would give a guaranteed win to a Democratic candidate, but this map unduly favors the Republican Party because the lack of competition it creates. It also divides Gallatin County, which as a whole is a community of interest dealing with rapid growth, wage issues, and an affordable housing crisis. What happens in Gallatin County impacts the entire county, including Gallatin Gateway and Big Sky. By dividing the county between two districts, the collective needs of Gallatin County could be easily ignored by representatives in both districts. This limits representation for one of the fastest growing communities in Montana. I oppose this map.
Carol Buchheit
Votes should not be null before votes are even cast because Montana has reorganized our state into two completely one-party dominant districts. Proposal 10 is blatantly partisan and is a disservice to voters in Montana.
Jean Weiskotten
Gallatin County should not be carved up. As a resident of Whitefish, our community has little in common politically with most of the Flathead county. I support CP11.
David Price
Map CP-10 is a terrible map that is based on trying to care out specific party districts and it does not comply with the Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. Please throw out this map and select may CP-1, as it's the best map that is adhering to the law.
Bonnie Wolgamot
Why in the name of everloving democracy would you split Gallatin Co? The only reason to do so is extreme partisan gerrymandering. If we want our representatives to be just that, REPRESENTATIVE, we need districting that will force the Republican candidates to actually campaign and listen to all their constituents, which this map DOES NOT DO since it will chop up blue areas in an effort to make an easier win for themselves. This map is unacceptable, and violently partisan - Montana is better than this.
Elizabeth Madden
I dislike CP 10 District 1 based on the fact that it is not competitive. With CP 10, one party is favored heavily in *both* districts, weakening the voices of individual voters, and likely even affecting voter turnout. In addition, CP10 unfortunately splits the towns of Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway in half, violating the criteria to minimize unnecessary divisions of towns. Also, CP 10 would break with precedent by separating Helena and Butte, diluting union strength and separating an important community of interest.
Hillary Carls
Proposal 10 is bad for Montana businesses. It unnecessarily separates and dilutes the similar economic interests.
Tracey Vivar
I'm in favor of #11 which gives a chance for Dems to get a fair chance in elections. #10 is pure gerrymandering!
paul burns
I don’t like CP10 because it makes no sense to divide Gallatin County.
Danny Choriki
I am not a fan of splitting any large county for the temporary and artificial target of starting with a balanced population between the two districts. I think that a one or two percent variance in the population targets is preferable than having a large county split. That said, my read of Gallatin County is that it is more homogenous than Flathead County. So if I had to split one of the two, it makes more sense to me to split Flathead. I have never been a fan of geographical districts in a winner-takes-all-election model. Too often this leaves a sizable minority without representation. Map 11 seems to have a better chance of ensuring proportional representation of Montana's population.
Jessie Kane
I do not support Map 10. This plan creates two Republican districts, which unduly favors one party. With two congressional districts now instead of one, a fair map includes one competitive district that either party can win.
Daniel Voulkos
This map #10 will not do. It is gerrymandering. You cannot split our county nor towns. No! 5 generation here.
Shane E Noble
Map #10 is bad and a blatant attempt to gerrymander Dems out of office.
Melinda Ferrell
One of the goals of redistricting was competitive districts. Of the two remaining maps, #10 still does not come close to providing this for voters. Having competitive districts provides the opportunity for representatives to truly try and represent us all.
Robert Schultz
I would vote to reject this map as it splits my immediate community off from the towns and neighboring communities where all our representation should be derived from (i.e., Bozeman/Belgrade). The boundary lines should not split counties through populated zones or use already set boundaries for house congressional districts. That is, the state house congressional district I am in is already so gerrymandered that I have zero representation or even a hope gaining representation and as such I don't want to find myself in that same situation on the national house level.
Rachael Caldwell
I am opposed to CP 10 - it is an obvious attempt at gerrymandering for political purposes, and it splits counties in strange and unfortunate ways. CP 10 is the better, though not perfect, choice.
Grace Hodges
CP 10 gerrymanders our state by "cracking" voters of one party and burying their votes in a district where they won't matter. I oppose CP 10.
Patricia Oksness
I think we should use the original 2 district map of 1990. Counties should not be divided. It's against the law to split cities or counties. Doing so is very political. Equal populations don't necessarily reflect equal number of voters.
frank vetere
i still believe that cp#1 is still the most logical of all the maps shown including #10 and # 11
Jesse A. Logan
I dislike this obvious attempt to gerrymander districts for political ends.
Jeff Benson
I don't like this option. We should not have districts which split counties. This splits my county right at the street in front of our home. Doubles the campaign signs on the street for no good reason.
Blake Koemans
Keeping the like communities of the greater Flathead Lake area and the greater Bozeman/Gallatin area intact is more important than rigid population equality between the two districts. Each of the two proposed maps splits one or the other communities. If these are the only 2 options CP11 is the better of the two.
Cathy and Rodger Osborn
We vote to leave District 2 alone, and leave District 1 alone. Stop trying to divide people in all aspects of Government. There is no way Flathead and the other targeted counties belong in Eastern Montana districting. Purely Political Motivation. Leave us alone.
Bill Ellis
I dislike both maps CP 10 and CP 11 because they do not follow the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 5-1-115 Redistricting Criteria. We should take another look at map CP 1 and adopt it because it follows MCA 5-1-115 redistricting criteria as close as possible.
Whitni H Ciofalo
Splitting Gallatin Gateway from Bozeman alienates many of us who have strong connections to both of these communities. The same could be said splitting off Springhill, Big Sky, and all of Park County. The Gallatin Valley (and in many ways, Paradise Valley) is tied together culturally, socially, and economically. Dividing this part of the state into two Congressional Districts is not a fair proposal and goes against the original goals and intentions of the Commission. Please support Map 11.
Craig Cowie
I prefer map 11 over map 10. In order to maintain equal populations, both maps have to divide a county, and both maps have to have a part where one of the districts reaches into the other (map 11 has the eastern district reaching into the western, and map 10 does the reverse). But map 10 also breaks up Gallatin county. Thus map 10 breaks up two communities (one by having the western district reach east, although that does not divide a county, and one by breaking up Gallatin) while map 11 only breaks up one community (by breaking up Lake where the eastern district reaches west). Map 11 also keeps the areas surrounding UM and MSU, which are culturally similar, together.
Theresa Holmes
In my opinion, the Redistricting Commission should throw out all previous maps and go with this map proposed by Tonya Dyas that has NO SPLIT Counties or Reservations. In addition, it ensures "communities of interest" have approximately equal representation in BOTH districts, as well as that BOTH districts have borders with Canada. As Tonya wrote: "I don't think more perfect maps could be drawn. These proposed maps are based strictly upon population & contiguous counties. Absolutely no gerrymandering was involved. No counties are divided and none of the Tribal groups are divided. Best yet, the population difference between District 1 & 2 is only +/- 50 people for a population deviation of 0% . "It complies with all the Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. "The population of the green district is 542,062 (-50) and the orange district is 542,163 (+51) for a net difference of 101. The big thing is that NOT ONE COUNTY IS SPLIT !" The important point is that this map is LEGAL. As I said in my comments last time, we should be focusing on COOPERATION as EQUALS, not on competition between those who accept Reality and their places in it and those who do not. Thank you.
Beth Simpson
This map separates Bozeman in a such a way that it is obviously trying to make certain votes moot. It also does not provide for even one competitive district.
Amitava Roy
I dislike this map as it has the potential to harm the future growth of Montana. Missoula and Gallatin counties, the homes of the universities and the future of Montana's economy, should be kept together to continue the technological growth of Montana. The biotech hub in Ravalli county can benefit from cohesive policies among the three counties to employ Montana university graduates in world-class biotech research and industry facilities. By breaking the Gallatin county, this map will hinder uniform policymaking between the three counties and, consequently, Montana's future growth. Let's say no to twisted political ploys of Map #10 and yes to the future progress of Montana in Map #11.
Connor McHugh
Given that both remaining options require splitting a county, the split should occur between communities with different views instead of separating like minded communities as this map does. For this reason I oppose this map.
This map does not respect the political subdivisions such as county lines that are supported by the Montana Constitution.
Mark Beland
Map 10 demonstrates what I understand is an excellent example of cracking as part of a giant gerrymandering effort to separate voters from one party and bury them in another party’s voting district. Please do not allow this tactic to be part of the political future for Montana.
Laura Langdon
I do not support map 10 because it does not provide a reasonable level of competitiveness. It is divisive and partisan.
Mary Ann Dunwell
Map 10 will turn Congressional races into anointings--not fair and democratic (small ‘d’) elections. Republican party candidates will simply be anointed. They will not have to engage with voters and constituents to earn their elected seats. Races will not be competitive or give both political parties a fair and equal chance. Also, Helena is a union town like Butte, Anaconda, and Deer Lodge. Putting Helena in an Eastern District is union vote-busting and intentionally divides our community of interest from other Western Montana cities. It also divides a community of interest of state workers by separating government employees who live in Lewis and Clark County from Jefferson County.
Kimberly Dudik
I oppose map 10. It is a clearly partisan map that seems to divide Montana in a way that guarantees one party winning both congressional seats, regardless of how Montanans vote. It splits Gallatin County in a clearly partisan way even though this is an area where the county has shared interests with Park County. This map weakens the voice of both urban and rural people as it does not keep communities of interest together.
Bill Freese
Considering what a mess this makes of Gallatin County, you ought to be able to find a house with a family of four living in it and run the Eastern District out around them to balance the populations. It wouldn't look any sillier than it does now.
Annie Thomas
No to Map 10. Map 10 unfairly represents one party over another and is not competitive. It creates two Republican districts which favor that party. A fair map would include one competitive district that either party can win. Map 10 weakens the power of Montana farmers and ranchers by splitting grain and meat producing areas. It breaks apart regions of similar interests and economic connections. For example, Park and Gallatin counties which depend on one another
Kristi Chester Vance
I oppose Map 12 for the following reasons: ● This plan breaks with the Historical precedent in Montana by separating the towns of Helena and Butte, diluting union strength and breaking apart a community of interest that’s existed for over a century. ● This plan creates two Republican districts, which unduly favors one party. With two congressional districts now instead of one, a fair map includes one competitive district that either party can win. ● This plan dilutes the power of Montana farmers and ranchers by breaking up the Golden Triangle and critical grain and cattle producing regions in Montana. This is cracking the farm and ranch vote pure and simple. ● This plan separates commuters that live in Jefferson county from the place where so many of them work in Helena. This is clearly breaking apart a community of interest. ● This plan splits the towns of Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway even though there is no clear reason to do so since Gallatin county could have been split in such a way to keep them together. This is a partisan cut of Gallatin County designed to crack apart Democratic votes and splitting two small towns for no reason violates your criteria on minimizing the unnecessary division of towns. ● This plan separates Park and Gallatin County from one another, cutting apart an area with vital economic connections and shared interests. Plan 11 better acknowledges this community of interest.
Michael Scott
I don't like that this alternative splits Bozeman. I would be placed in district 2 with which i share little economic, cultural, or social connection., My community of interest is the Bozeman/Livingston area. Many local companies employ people who live in Livingston and around the Gallatin Valley (mine does). This alternative would split us up into differing groups for no reason, as opposed to Map 11. It also divides other communities/economic interests like ski areas, Helena/Jefferson, and people who live on the Rocky Mountain Front. As an alternative it exacerbates divisions within communities rather than respecting them. Please do not choose this configuration.
Pete Talbot
Please reject Map #10. After researching the demographics of the two maps, #11 is definitely the most equitable to the voters of Montana.
Emily Rolston
I oppose CP10. This plan creates two Republican districts, which unduly favors one party. With two congressional districts now instead of one, a fair map includes one competitive district that either party can win.
Jason Rappe
I oppose CP10. The map does a poor job retaining local community boundaries.
Dean Center
This map is already out of compliance with the requirement for equal population distribution. Placing the rapidly growing Flathead Valley and Gallatin Valley in the same district is doomed to fail, and grow increasing out of compliance over the next 10 years. Of the 2 remaining maps, #11 is the better option. Perhaps some adjustments in the division of Flathead County are possible to reduce the appearance of favoring one or the other of the self-serving political parties. As an Independent, I would prefer that party considerations not be included in this process.
Gina Himes Boor
I oppose this map, and support CP11.
Kristi DuBois
I oppose this map because it does not create a competitive district. We need at least one competitive district, to more fairly represent the interests of all Montanans. If both districts are always won by the same party, there would be no incentive for people to vote and no incentive for our representatives to listen to the half of the population that didn't vote for them. We need accountability with our representatives, and this map does not provide it. Shoe-in politicians all in the same party do not do a good job of representing the interests of all people in the state.
Betty Stroock
Splitting Gallatin County makes no sense. The entirely of Gallatin belongs with western Montana (for the many reasons enumerated in previous public hearings). Attempts to do otherwise smack of partisan gerrymandering. Please reject this map.
Jinnifer Mariman
Please reject this map, No. 10, as it divides similar communities, whether they be farming communities in the Golden Triangle and Highline, commuter communities to Helena, ski communities in western Montana, union communities of Butte and Helena, and even goes so far as to divide one of our largest cities into two: it cuts Bozeman into two districts separate by just a few blocks and excludes Gallatin Gateway (a commuter community to Bozeman) as well as the neighboring Big Sky which is a key recreational draw for Bozeman. This map appears to create a district that divides similar communities, not offer them similar representation. Please reject this proposal.
Carol Van Tuinen
I do not like this map because it practically guarantees Montana will only have Republican reps. This is not fair or democratic. Drawing the lines so Democrats have a competitive chance to elect a representative at the national level is fair and democratic. It would disenfranchise the minority of Montana citizens who align with the Democratic Party, possibly for decades. Also, having at least one district be competitive increases the chances that the elected rep will win based on the political and personal merits that person represents rather than solely because of the party they are aligned with.
Sue Beland
Map 10--Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Voting is a form of speech and should not be repressed. Suppressing votes from Gallatin and Park counties is cracking the Gerrymandering tactic of placing a large number of voters in one party in a district that is predominated by the other party. Candidates would only have to file for office to be selected which means the democratic process is not democratic. Freedom to have voices heard is an essential part of America. Please don’t choose this map.
Evan Jones
This makes no sense to put Helena in the Eastern District. Life long residents here would argue the same. Our values/businesses have far more in common with the Western side of the state and does not belong in an Eastern district.
Ashea Mills
Please reject map #10 (CP10). It carves up Gallatin County, and splits it from Park County. We have a common economy and values. Many of us in Park County recreate, share families across county lines, do our shopping and healthcare in Gallatin Co. This map is not as compact or competitive as Map #11. Thank you for your service.
Thomas Meinzen
I do not support CP10, for it splits up my home in Gallatin County and would create a gerrymandered district in which candidates would not be motivated to represent the whole of western Montana due to lack of political competition. Furthermore, CP10 splits cities like Bozeman that require cohesive representation in order for effective decision-making about urgent issues. Instead, I support CP11, which does not break up Gallatin County and divides Montana more fairly.
Garth Neuffer
I don't support Map #10 because it splits my home and community of Bozeman and Bridger Canyon. It also doesn't keep intact the broader communities of interest in Gallatin and Park counties, and fails to create a competitive new district that lets all Montanans express their political and policy views. Map #11 is a much better choice.
Debra McNeill
This map does a really good job at splitting up communities. It separates Livingston from Bozeman. It separates Bozeman from the east Bridger community. It splits up Big Sky. It splits up Gallatin Gateway. It separates the union towns of Helena and Butte. It's a gerrymandered hack! Furthermore, it ensures that non-republican voices can be ignored by creating two non-competitive districts. Native American voices, Democrats, and Independents will be ignored by whoever wins the primary. With two districts, one needs to be competitive.
Russell O'Leary
Splitting Gallatin County down the middle like this would be a huge mistake. Bozeman and the surrounding bedroom communities are going to have difficult years ahead as they deal with the complexities of break neck growth. They need to have a single representative that can speak for the whole area. This map will create unnecessary division.
John Kirtley
I think both CP10 and CP11 fail to fairly represent Montanans. Fair representation of the people, and not parties, is the point. Gerrymandered maps only dishonestly favor those who want power. However, this map makes more sense in putting Flathead county in the western district, compared to CP11. However, CP1 is my favorite.
Anne Christensen
This map is ill conceived as it splits Gallatin County into different districts. I live in Gallatin County, but would vote in the Eastern District if this map is accepted. All the children in our neighborhood go to Bozeman schools, all our shopping and economic activities occur in Bozeman city. Thus this map does not keep our community of interest intact. It also does not create competitive districts where each party has a chance to possibly win a seat. Thus candidates would not be motivated to try to truly represent all their constituents.
Janet Childress
This plan puts Helena (where I have lived for the last 36 years with the exception of 5 years in Billings) in the eastern district. Helena has much more in common with the western district than with the eastern district. During my time in Billings, I felt like I was a stranger in a strange land and moved back to Helena when I found employment here. Also, historically, when MT previously had two districts, Helena and Butte with their similar interests and culture were in the same district. What happened to the stated goal of keeping communities of interest intact??? Map 10 has no balance. It unduly favors a specific political party. It is a blatant power grab by one party apparently aiming for one party rule. This is classic gerrymandering-the manipulation of an electoral constituency's boundaries so as to favor one party or class, typically the one in power. Either party has a fair shot in District 1 in Map 11. Only one party counts in district 1 in Map 10. If you are not Republican, you are essentially disenfranchised with Map 10. What happened to the idea of a representative democracy? All votes should count. MT is not a monolith; we are a multi-faceted population. Per Cooke PVI, 10 is not competitive with a +7 GOP score. 11 is competitive with +5.
Karen Cramer
Subject: Congressional Redistricting Map Chair Smith and Commissioners, The two newly proposed maps (CP-10 and CP-11) are terrible maps as they are based on trying to carve out specific party districts and do not comply with Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. Please throw out these two new maps and select map CP-1 as it’s the best map that adheres to the law. Thank you for your consideration. Karen Cramer
Jeri Wright
I can’t say I’m surprised map 1,3,7 was not chosen. I went to the meeting and honestly I’m disgusted we are have to ask this commission to be fair and do the job they are tasked to do. This commission needs to make sure all the citizens of Montana are able to participate in elections fairly without any gerrymandering. Leave politics to the people, it is not the commissions job to enable cheating which we are clearly trying to prevent happening. I do not have faith in our commissions our Supreme Court or school boards. Please prove me wrong and do what is right for our state.
Helena Lovick
I am against splitting counties. Also, this map appears to attempt to dilute the union vote in Montana and divide similar voter interests, for example by splitting Gallatin County. Please vote no on Map 10.
Carol Gruetter
Redistricting in Montana has always been based on precedent, with an East/West division, splitting the least amount of counties, with a population deviation that is +/- 50 and CANNOT BE DIVIDED BY PARTY! Both Maps 10 and 11 should be rejected in their entirety. They both carve up Flathead and Gallatin County! These counties are carved up so bad that voting precincts are divided! This is EXACTLY what Democrats in California did in order to gain control. It's called Gerrymandering, which is not allowed. The original Map 1 SUBMITTED IN SEPT, meets all of the criteria for dividing congressional districts, contiguous, compact, does not split any counties, does not split any Native American territories and the population deviation is +/- 50. You have the perfect Map 1 that was submitted in September. Montanans are better than this! Stop the Gerrymandering!
Leslie A Taylor
Map 10 should be rejected. Gallatin County, likely the fastest growing county in Montana, should not be split between two Congressional districts. The two major towns - Bozeman and Livingston - share common challenges - housing affordability, the need for more schools and health facilities. Choosing map 11, which does not divide Gallatin County, would afford its residents at least a fighting chance of electing representatives who will consider the specific needs of the county as well as those of the state.
Jaret Kadlec
This map is obviously gerrymandering. Map 11 is better than Map 10, hands down.
Joseph Nangle
Separating out Helena and dividing Gallatin and Park Counties adversely affects the critical shared community solidarity needed for fair economic, regulatory and business related issues to SW Montanans. Map 11 is a more fair alternative and avoids this division. Please vote against Map 10 in favor of Map 11.
Amy S Katz
This map splits communities like Butte/Helena, Livingston/Bozeman. It does not reflect a competitive chance for a Democrat to win in either district. Please vote NO on CP10.
Leslie A. Taylor
Map 10 should be rejected because it divides the fastest growing county in the state - Gallatin - into two Congressional districts. The communities within Gallatin County - Bozeman and Livingston - share many common interests and challenges. They are both experiencing rapid growth, pressure on housing affordability, the need to accommodate increased demand for public education, as well as health facilities. This county generates significant revenues for the state, particularly from lodging tax. Dividing this county unfairly dilutes the representation of its residents. Please reject Map 10.
Sue Kirchmyer
Please reject this map.
Callie Pecunies
I encourage rejection of this map. Splitting Gallatin County, particularly separating the portions south of Bozeman from the rest of the county, clearly puts this tourism-based area at a disadvantage. Lumping them into a district where the interests are not at all aligned with what is important to the towns, businesses and families along the Gallatin river at a disadvantage. The way the line itself is drawn is a clear example of gerrymandering and will silence the collective voice within the county. Please keep Gallatin County together within the same district.
Jeff D Griffin
splits up counties and towns
Sharon S Patton-Griffin
Divides counties and towns
Franki Parson
This proposal splits Gallatin County, which is facing increasing pressures from growth. Splitting the county would create greater division and would be counterproductive to addressing these problems.
Josie Johnson
Please reject this map. To split most of Gallatin county apart from Bozeman is clearly unfair and will result in many people being represented by someone who is not focused on the issues that impact us. The challenges that we face in Gallatin county don't align with the issues that are critical to interests in the eastern district. This is an obvious attempt to dilute the voices of people in the fastest growing county in the state and to lessen the influence of this important area - which is exactly opposite of the goal that the commission claims to be trying to accomplish.
Linda Kenoyer
I dislike this map because it intentionally splits up Gallatin county and pushes Livingston, which has much more in common with the western district in terms of economy, lifestyle, and culture, into the eastern district.
Linda Kenoyer
I dislike this map because it intentionally splits up Gallatin county and pushes Livingston, which has much more in common with the western district in terms of economy, lifestyle, and culture, into the eastern district.
Stefanie Hanson
Please reject both CP 10 and 11 and go with Map 1 as it represents the constitution the best. Thank you
Mary Mulcaire-Jones
Please reject this map. It does not fairly represent Montana's alignments.
Don George Lorenzen
Please reject this map. The second largest county in the state (Gallatin) should not be split.
Zach Nell
Bozeman and Livingston need to be in the same district. Both communities have a lot in common with shared cultural, social, political, economic, environmental, and geographical factors. As the housing market continues to skyrocket in Bozeman, it affects Livingston, too. Many people in the workforce who have lived in Bozeman relocate to communities such as Livingston to find more affordable housing. Would it make sense to split those people into two districts? No, it wouldn't. Bozeman serves as a hub to many people who live within the area. Therefore, splitting up Gallatin and Park counties would divide our communities, increase political polarization, and harm the democratic process. Doing that would violate the compactness criteria for redistricting.
Natalie Adams
Not a fan of either maps. This one is better than 11, but not ideal to split Gallatin County.
Zach Nell
This map is not compact, which does not meet the criteria for districting. Splitting Gallatin County should not be considered at all. It goes against the compactness rule. Dividing local communities that have shared cultural, social, political, and economic interests harms the democratic process of choosing a representative in Montana.
Johanna DeVries
This map looks odd, with the Helena area pushed to the east and Gallatin/Park split up.
Lora Wier
Not a fair map. Favors one party over the other.
Robin Pleninger
I oppose this attempt to gerrymander Montana's congressional districts. Pushing Helena to the East ensures two Republican districts. On the other hand, proposal 11 ensures competition.
Stan Downs
This map causes several redistricting problems. There is no meaningful reason to split Helena and Butte unless the goal is to dilute union strength in this state (unions have helped create a strong Montana), splits Gallatin County along bizarre lines so that my neighbors within 2-3 miles of the Bozeman city limits will be in separate congressional districts and is so blatantly a political attempt to prevent a competitive district by diluting potentially democratic votes and dividing the ranch and agricultural voters. This map defies the intent of the goals and constitutional requirements set forth for the commission.
Christian Black
Please reject this map. Do not split up Gallatin and Park.
Christopher J. Morigeau
This plan creates two Republican districts, which unduly favors one party. With two congressional districts now instead of one, a fair map includes one competitive district that either party can win. One of the two main parties is dying in this country, and they know it. The only way to stay in power is for them to pass maps like this, that ensure their wins. A competitive map is a path to their destruction, and they know it. Both parties attempt to gerrymander, but at least Democrats advocate for a competitive district, not ones they KNOW they can win. You tell me which is worse.
Judy Lewis
This map splits communities like Butte/Helena, Livingston/Bozeman. It does not reflect a competitive chance for a Democrat to win in either district. It does not take into account where most of the new population growth has occurred and reflect the changing views of this new population. Please vote NO on CP10.
Please reject this map. The second largest county in the state (Gallatin) should not be split.
David Rockwell
Please reject this map. It is clearly designed to favor a single party.
Thomas Millett
Reject this map for gerrymandering a large county and attempting to split a large community (Bozeman). Resurrect CP-1.
Roger Matthew
I'm a native Montanan and came of age when we had tow Districts, one Western, Urban and Democratic; and one Eastern, rural and Republican. I'm in favor of returning to that form of representation. This map clearly tries to create 2 Republican Districts, and splits Gallatin County in the process. I'm against this map.
Atticus C Cummings
Reject this map! It seems like a pretty petty gerrymandering attempt to split the state along political motivations rather than logical geographic boundaries. Please choose a different option!
Glenn Wehe
REJECT THIS MAP . This is a terrible way to represent all Montanans.. REJECT THIS MAP
Jacqueline Brazil
Please reject this map; its greatest flaw is its failure to represent a reasonable range of ideologies in both districts. Montana used to be a place of civil political discourse marked by bipartisanship, mutual understanding, and fair representation, and the rest of the country held us in high regard. Please support us returning to this. Thank you.
Kenda Kitchen
This map gives us two area's that favor the Republican party, and not even a moderate Republican. Many Montana will be silenced by this division. We need a map that gives equal chances to moderates Democrat or Republican this Map does not do that. Map 11 does a much better job. I was surprised to find that after I had commented on 9 different maps, they all went away and now we have 10 and 11?
Allyson Gomolka
Why are all the democrat areas combined while geography and communities of interest are ignored? Clearly a gerrymandering effort. Very strange division of a county to move Bozeman into the west district. Could you make gerrymandering more obvious? I think not. Stop using this as a political weapon and consider the rules for division without your hidden agenda.
Jim Gomolka
Another gerrymandered map for the sole purpose of including all the Democrat strongholds in one district. This ridiculous map divides communities of interest in an absurd way. Go back to the East/West division along the continental divide.
Dianne Hansen
Separating Kalispell from it's county makes the residents feel disjointed. Disconnection is a bad situation. This map is NOT suitable because of dividing like-minded flathead residents who belong together - who thrive together.
Cynthia Di Francesco
Dividing Gallatin and Park Counties would separate critical joint community interests related to healthcare, affordable housing/bedroom communities, and the management of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Further it divides the solidarity within communities of higher eduction across the state. Dividing our Native communities does not seem just. However, for above reasons Map 11 is more fair than Map 10.
John Wright
It is down to whether having Helena in the Western District is worth getting the Blackfeet and Salish Reservations in separate districts. Also, should Kalispell be put into the Eastern district even though it is the regional economic hub in western Montana? This should not be a matter of which map was created by the Democrats or Republicans, it should be a matter of which map best serves the citizens of Montana.
Mark P Dobday
Keep some kind of balance. This one is not it.
Linda G Semones
This is the same old disregard for the unity of Gallatin County and Big Sky shown in the first set of maps, 1,3,5,7. I was at the public comment hearing, and I literally heard rather important Republicans say that they really didn't care where the dividing line went as long as the population was split equally, and they really didn't care about competitive districts. Well, obviously they do care where the line is drawn, right through an area that they consider blue. This is a non-competitive map according to Fair Maps. It separates a county (Gallatin) and a city(Big Sky) for no reason other than a political one. It puts Helena and Butte in different districts for no good reason, and splits and Gallatin Gateway, . This plan creates two Republican districts, which unduly favors one party. With two congressional districts now instead of one, a fair map includes one competitive district that either party can win. This plan dilutes the power of Montana farmers and ranchers by breaking up the Golden Triangle and critical grain and cattle producing regions in Montana. This is cracking the farm and ranch vote pure and simple. This plan separates commuters that live in Jefferson county from the place where so many of them work in Helena. This is clearly breaking apart a community of interest. Splitting two small towns and a county for no reason violates your criteria on minimizing the unnecessary division of towns and counties. This plan separates Park and Gallatin County from one another, cutting apart an area with vital economic connections and shared interests. Plan 11 better acknowledges this community of interest. In fact, plan 11 does everything better. It meets the criterion and the goals.
Kari Gunderson
I am opposed to this map as it favors the Republican party and it is not representative of the diversity of the population in this area. No more gerrymandering by the Republican party.
Hill Mescall
THIS MAP IS BETTER THAN MAP 11 BUT…Tonia Dais drew a map that was totally inclusive of Native America territories . It was well thought out and inclusive and didn’t have all large cities grouped together. Tonia’s map I believe was Map 1. I wish you would review it again since a lot of thought and consideration went into it…and it’s NOT political.
Toni Semple
I do not prefer this map. Splitting Gallatin County and cordoning off Park County ignores our historical connections.
James Reavis
As a new Billings resident who just moved here from Helena, I can assure you that Helena and Billings are nothing alike and are not communities of interest with each other. They have different populations, different climate and geography, different approaches to government policy, and are not connected by a common road or waterway. They do not belong in the same district.
Julia Shaida
This map separates the city of Bozeman from neighbors with common interests in Gallatin County. It further divides Bozeman from parts of 4 corners, Big Sky, all of West Yellowstone, and nearby fellow town of Livingston. All these places share historical and economic interest and need a consolidated vote to gain representation.
Michele S Carey
I am very opposed to this map. It is patently absurd to split Gallatin county. Please ditch this map!
Nancy Bussiere
I am not in favor of CP Map 10. It splits apart the cities of Bozeman and Missoula into separate districts and transfers liberal areas into a very conservative district and a conservative area into a liberal district – which effectively keeps competition out of our elections. It creates an assurance of two republican-winning districts instead of a fair competition/election between the two parties resulting in elected officials that will more fully represent the desires of their constituents.
Sally Behr Schendel
This map splits the city of Big Sky; it splits two neighboring cities that share concerns: Bozeman and Livingston; it splits 2 neighboring counties that share concerns and goals: Gallatin and Park counties; lastly, it splits a county, Gallatin county.
Jeff McNeish
Once again, this proposal does not contain a district that does not unduly favor one political party.
Cindy Havens
Thank you very much for all your hard work in this very tough job. I'm not a political pro, but it seems pretty clear that CP11 is far more fair, balanced and competitive (doesn't split cities or Gallatin County), and would allow representation for similar interests.
Patricia A Hogan
Map CP11 is preferable to Map CP10, because it gives a competitive result, while maintaining roughly equal population splits. Only CP11 has a district that does not unduly favor one party over the other.
Tonia Dyas
Both map 10 & map 11 are bad maps. They both carve up their respective "sacrificed county" in an attempt to get the population deviation where they want it. Map 10 carves up Gallatin county, and Map 11 carves up Flathead county. These counties are carved up so bad that voting precincts are divided ! Something that the district drawing tools provided to "we the people" don't allow us to do - therefore neither of these maps can be recreated in the provided tools. How about y'all stop gerrymandering and go look at the map I drew and submitted back in Sept. It meets ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS : contiguous, compact, DOES NOT SPLIT ANY COUNTIES, does not split any Native American territories, and the population deviation is +/- 50 The Democrats should like it because it has Missoula, Great Falls & Helena all in the same district. The Republicans should like it because it separates Gallatin (the fastest growing county) from Missoula. This will hopefully keep the population growth in both districts fairly even over the next 10 years. Here's the URL - Go Look - it's a good map for everyone !
Billy McWilliams
This map divides my community, it also makes for a two non competitive races in Montana, continuing a pattern of divisive politics. Gallatin/Bozeman is the fastest growing community in Montana, this could take away our voice in our future. It's still a lean R seat, it's just competitive.
Maureen O'Mara
This plan gives an unfair advantage to one party by creating two districts that favor the Republican party. This plan divides communities, areas, and groups with common interests in such a way as to give an unfair advantage to one party. A true democratic process is one in which all parties are given a fair chance to win starting with districting.
Gail Waldby
I oppose this map, because it splits Gallatin County, splits the city of Big Sky between two Congressional districts, and is not competitive (Cook PVI Score of R+7).
George Havens
No. Just no. This map does not create a competitive district and for that reason alone should be rejected.
Tom Woods
My first thought when seeing this map was "No way, this is a prank." The way in which Bozeman is carved out of its own county is just face palm inducing. Ditch this map. Now. Please.
Perry Helt
I don't care for either of these maps, this one being less insulting than the textbook example of gerrymandering that the other one is. What is wrong with CP1 or CP3? Oh yeah, they actually split the republican advantage fairly evenly across BOTH of the new House districts. A clearly superior Democrat candidate could win in either district. By that, i mean a candidate that was more like J.F.K. than NANCY PELOSI ! We all know what will happen if you let the "New American Left" carve out a "stacked" district and shoehorn all the Republicans into the east like CP2-4-and 6 do! The Dems are always whining about their perpetual state of disenfranchisement in MT.? Why don't they sell the house, pack your stuff, and move to one of the many "socialist paradises" your party rules with their deep blue fists! Real Montanans don't want another A.O.C. going to the U.S. House on our behalf, but it WILL HAPPEN if you foolishly give them a "stacked" district !!!
Charles Kankelborg
I don’t like how this map splits Gallatin County. It arbitrarily pulls some of my local friends and and co-workers into the Eastern district. The other proposal seems more natural and less contrived.
PJ McNeal
I oppose this map and its creators' blatant attempts to mute dissenting voices. It does not represent Treasure State values or American ideals.
Nancy Metcalf Loeza
Many Montanans will be silenced with this map. We currently have an extreme voice in the house, who does not represent many of us. Please give us a district with the ability to elect a moderate voice regardless of party.
Nancy Cornwell
This map continues a thinly veiled attempt to split and disempower one of, if not THE fastest growing county in the state. (CP 11 at least makes an attempt to create a competitive district). This map separates from my neighbors, and separates me from my work colleagues. Bozeman, and the larger Gallatin County community - and even Park County are so intertwined that separating the two is so blatantly politically motivated ( and is further evidenced by the fact that no consensus could be reached on the previous NINE maps). The conservative power grab this map - effectively disenfranchising so many Montanans - is heartbreaking. CP11 gives a significant community of Montanans a shot (albeit a long shot) at a congressional representative that hears progressive interests and continues to insure ( as every single map has done) one congressional seat will continue to be republican. This map is the visual representation of the all-encompassing effort to silence a significant portion of Montanans and evidence that only subverting nonrepublican voices is at the heart of what republican members of this commission care about. Shameful.
Lucy Morell-Gengler
This map appears to split the population in such a way that areas with similar concerns are placed in separate districts. A better attempt should be made to keep interrelated communities together.
Quenemoen Joni
Too many unnecessary divisions.
Charity Fechter-Shirley
The Gallatin County split is stupid. It splits Big Sky and the Bozeman area so neither is likely to get appropriate representation. Gallatin and Park Counties are more allied with the western district (tourism, education, mountains, recreation) than they are with the eastern district (agriculture). I lived in a district that split a developing urban area in a similar fashion so that my voice was not only drowned out but ignored entirely because of my address.
Katie Renwick
Splitting Gallatin County like this doesn't make sense to me. It divides communities with common interests into different districts. It also seems odd to put Bozeman and Livingston in different districts. Increasingly, people who work in Bozeman are getting priced out of the housing market and living in Livingston or other neighboring towns. This map puts the towns where people work and live in different districts.
Marcus H Smith
Competition and choice are essential to a healthy and democratic political system. This map would create two GOP monopoly districts, giving voters in both districts illusory choices at best. Montana must do better.
Carrie Jones
This map will keep competition out of our elections and disenfranchise the urban voters.
Liane Johnson
I think all of these maps but one (7) have been so poorly designed that I am tempted to say give the new representative to the next state in line in hopes that someone there makes decisions based on common sense instead of gerrymandering guiding a commission which is supposed to protect the people not a political party. Use the mountains for the divider and get on with it.
David Buckingham
This map does not represent the ideological divide, between liberals and conservatives, that exists within Montana; it puts liberal Gallatin and Lewis and Clark Counties in a very conservative district, and conservative Flathead County in a very liberal district. With this map, the elected congresspersons of each district would less-wholly represent their constituents than that of map CP11.
James Ray
I fully support the redistricting map that keeps Gallatin County whole. Splitting Gallatin County and putting Bozeman in an Eastern District Screams of gerrymandering and is designed to nullify the voice of Gallatin County. Please go with the map that keeps Gallatin County whole.
Roger Breeding
This proposal splits me from my neighbors just a short distance away. It is totally unacceptable.
Noreen Breeding
This map is totally inadequate. It puts me and my neighbors in different districts. Cutting through the heart of one of Montana's larger cities is unacceptable and unnecessary. Since Bozeman and Gallatin County are responsible for Montana earning a second district the county should be kept whole.
Jennifer Ray
This map is a terrible representation of the population and interests of all Montanans and should've never been created. Dividing Bozeman from the rest of Gallatin County and lumping them in with eastern Montana makes absolutely no sense they share no common views or interests.
Larry Smith
I meant Pondera County, not Teton County, in my previous comment!
Larry Smith
This map suffers from inclusion of Lewis & Clark County being put in the eastern region, while Teton County is in the west?!? The splitting of Gallatin County is a problem as others have noted. In comparison to the other considered map where Flathead is being broken apart, in a sense, these 2 maps are equivalent on that point in trying to equate the populations. There is no perfect solution, but I think this map makes somewhat less sense than the other.
Richard Haas
This map places Bozeman in district 1, however it separates the surrounding community into district 2. Bozeman is the servicing community for a much larger area, the laws and policies that affect Bozeman affect communities that have been placed in district 2. All of Gallatin should be in 1 district, the same district as Missoula and Helena. Park County should also be in the same district as Bozeman.
Jason Printz
I don't feel like this map represents Montana as a diverse state with diverse interests. The communities of Missoula, Helena and Bozeman are similar politically and, for this reason, they should remain in the same district.
Barbara L Aas
Splitting the two college towns who have similar growth issues is ridiculous and a blatant move to disregard their voices.
Eric Grove
As a lifelong Montanan and someone who grew up in Helena, I don’t believe Helena belongs in the eastern district. I’m a huge fan of eastern Montana but there are predominate values and cultural identity that we don’t share. In contrast, nobody would argue that Great Falls doesn’t belong in the eastern district.
Chris Catlett
This map splits up Gallatin County. Further, it splits a south Bozeman community sharing neighborhoods, common needs, and a school district.
Clint Whittle-Frazier
It makes sense to group the college towns of Missoula and Bozeman together, however Gallatin and Park counties have very similar interests and Gallatin should not be broken up between the districts.
This map splitting Bozeman and Missoula into separate districts ignores the fact that those two cities have extremely similar issues (housing/COL), interests, economies, and institutions. Instead it Gerrymanders by splitting them apart to ensure two Republican districts. I am wholeheartedly against this map. It will not serve the interests of those in Western Montana.
Robert McAbee
I appreciate that this map keeps Flathead county together, but speaking as a Bozeman resident, this map could be better. Belgrade and the surrounding area is exploding in size as it becomes a bedroom community for Bozeman and Big Sky. Livingston also is increasingly becoming a bedroom community for Bozeman. I can’t speak for other areas, but Gallatin and Park counties should stay in the same district to reflect the local community here.
Thomas Wells
Splitting Bozeman away from the county is still severing a rapidly growing contiguous area. The tongue of District 2 protruding east appears artificial and should be avoided.
Clinton Nagel
This map is completely unacceptable. Why would you split Gallatin County this way unless there is an ulterior motive. This map is in violation of one of the goals that was established. This map is absolutely unacceptable.
Roger Fischer
It doesn't make sense to split Gallatin County this way. I see it as Republicans trying to give themselves an advantage.
Karl Neumann
Splitting the fastest growing and changing county, Gallatin, is not good. Separating Bozeman from the rest of the county along with Park county and all their common interests is not good. Way too much in common to be split.
Thomas Cuezze
This map fails in several ways: -It awkwardly carves up Gallatin County, separating Bozeman from Gallatin Gateway and Big Sky, as well as putting Bozeman in a different district than Livingston. This just doesn't make sense to anyone who knows Bozeman. -It puts Lewis and Clark County in the East. Helena / L&C is a far more natural fit for the western district, with its mining history, strong ties to Butte, and comparatively smaller agriculture sector. Putting Kalispell with Eastern Montana makes more sense. -It divides the Rocky Mountain Front area, separating Glacier County and Great Falls. -Most importantly, it fails to give Montanans the competitive district they deserve. A competitive western district has been a top concern for people who live here, especially to tribes who want to make sure they have a voice. Montana is a 55-45 red state, so having one red district and one "fair fight" district makes sense and would ensure that whoever represents the western district is a moderate that listens to all voices. In conclusion, while this map is a step up from those previously proposed by Republican commissioners, it is still not the right map for Montana.