MyDistricting | MONTANA
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by
Provide your comments for consideration in the 2021 Redistricting process
Show me how
Your comment has been added to the map.
Labels visible at zoom level 10.
Labels visible at zoom level 13.
Labels visible at zoom level 17.
Current Map Zoom:
Population and Geography based on 2020 Census Redistricting Data File
I think out of the final two maps this is the best option. I know splitting Galatin county is not ideal, but it protects Flathead county from being split up and taken advantage of by the democratic party. Realistically Galatin should have been moved over completely to the East. With that said, there is no reason why Flathead county should ever be considered part of eastern Montana. It is clearly on the WEST side of the state. For that reason I am 100% for this proposition. To split up that county is for political gain ONLY and I am not willing to play the dirty games these politicians are asking us to participate in. CP 10 allows a fair division among the state. NO TO CP 11 YES TO CP 10.
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.
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.
I oppose this map, as it violates what the tribes wish for, divides communities, and silences rural voters.
I oppose this map. This is the worst map of the 4 proposed.
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.
I do not like this map because it has a Cook PVI score that is anti-competitive. Please reject this option.
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.
Of the two maps up for final consideration by the redistricting committee, I like CP10 better than CP11 because it keeps Flathead County in the western district and it keeps two reservations in the western district.
I agree with this map. It keeps Flathead county in the Western district. I don't like in general the options of splitting counties as it will cost the counties more for elections. However, if a county is going to be split Gallatin county I believe would be able to handle this more readily than smaller counites such as Pondera.
Robert Michael Walters
I like this map, but I believe CP12 is better and meets the criteria set for better.
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.
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
Of the maps that include Flathead County in the western district, CP10 appears to be most acceptable across the remaining population as well. I appreciate the work and the effort put forth by all involved.
Dear Commissioners, thank you for doing this difficult but important work. I opposed CP-10. I urge you to adopt CP-11.
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.
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.
I oppose map 10. It creates an uncompetitive map and splits Gallatin County.
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!
Though I like this map--I like any of the propose choices other than Map 11--I prefer one that would keep Gallatin county intact. This would be a choice for me after Map 12
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.
I eat cocks in the back if a tesla. If you don't like that? Fuck you
I believe that I should be made out with. pls contact me if you are interested at my email firstname.lastname@example.org or my phone number 406- 360- 7996
This split of Gallatin County divides a large, growing community that is facing unified problems related to growth, planning, etc.
CP 10 is NOT the best choice. CP 11 is a better map.
YES to CP10. I get that the democrats (marxists) around here don't want to see Gallatin split. I don't either. I'd rather see that entire county sent to the eastern district. But if we have to choose between splitting Gallatin and splitting Flathead, I choose the former. There's no RATIONAL reason why a county in the far WEST end of Montana should be seated in the EAST. The only reason to do it is POLITICAL, which is to give the democrats (marxists) an attempt to have a political foothold in a state THEY DO NOT BELONG IN. If you want your democrat utopia, move to CA. It's perfect for all of you. For those that have never been there, it is best described as a hell hole. There's a reason people are fleeing that state and its not the weather. CP11 is just another example of the democrats (marxists) trying to corrupt something good and leverage a congressional seat out of a state that rejects their politics. NO to CP11. YES to CP10. If you can't handle that, move to your utopia in CA and stop trying to make one here. It's clearly made in your image.
In the interest of overall balance for the state I prefer CP11.
Splitting up the fastest growing county in the state is completely asinine.
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
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.
Kristine E Thomas
Map 10 is blatantly unfair. Dividing Gallatin County makes no sense if the goal to truly represent a cross section of Montana. This is gerrymandering.
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.
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.
I like this map because it is way better than map 10. But there is a much better map that does not split any counties and leaves the population division between the two districts at 50 people. Here is the map...please go look at it. https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/e0a5c47f-4434-47ff-b0a9-01233ba3a87b
I oppose Map 10. It is not equitable to both parties.
I like this map because it puts two Native American lands into District 1...which is the best that can occur because of the huge distance separation between all the Native American Lands. I don’t like this map because it is carving up Gallatin County. There is a much better map that does not split any counties and leaves the population division between the two districts at 50 people. Here is the map...please go look at it. https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/e0a5c47f-4434-47ff-b0a9-01233ba3a87b
I oppose proposal 10. It creates two uncompetitive districts and boils down to GOP gerrymandering.
I support CP 10; this is a more accurate geographical split than CP 11. This will divide the population of Montana better; so we all have a "voice".
I support Map 10 because I believe that it fairly bisects the state into equal represented areas from a geographic perspective and state demographics. I think this map of the two will ensure that all voters' voices are heard. It is important to keep the integrity of Montana's geography, communities, and demographics into consideration and I believe Map 10 does this by fairly balancing the politics of the two regions. Map 11 seems to segregate communities in an attempt to ensure strong tribal and native voice which I respect the vision and process, but I don't think Map 11 with its state bisection addresses the need for equality in both regions. The lines of Map 11 were drawn in a way that does not balance the two regions as a whole for the state of Montana. In this redistricting process, we must have fair and equal representation of all voices and Montana's demography; therefore, I think Map 10 is the most fair and equitable representation of the state.
I was raised in Western Montana and have since moved to central Montana. I support CP 10 as central and eastern Montana have different issues than western Montana...this map also follows a more geographical split than CP 11. For these reason I support this map.
I oppose Proposal 10
Ashley Shoemaker, MSW, LAC
I like Map 10 because it complies with Montana law and the Constitution, as both districts are compact, contiguous, and nearly equal population.
Ashley Shoemaker, MSW, LAC
I like Map 10 because it keeps the shared medical communities of Logan Health Medical Center (Kalispell and Whitefish) together, which provides medical services for the entire NW Region, including the Blackfeet Reservation.
Ashley Shoemaker, MSW, LAC
I like Map 10 because it includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district, and it keeps one tribal community from being isolated from all other tribal communities.
As one of the state legislators whose district would be split in this map, I don't disagree with the splitting of my district (HD 64) and Gallatin as a whole. As a matter of necessity, there isn't away to draw a state map without dividing at least one county and adhering to the other guiding standards. Even in our current structure, some towns are legislatively split. For example, Big Sky is split about 50/50. 1/2 is HD 71 and SD 36 and the other 1/2 of Big Sky is HD 64 and SD 32. The splitting of Big Sky is a split that honestly hurts constituents as it's not physically possible for the legislators of HD 71 and SD 36 to get to Big Sky without a significant detour drive through Bozeman. So they end up not visiting their constituents in Big Sky. At least with Map 10, the part of Gallatin that is captured in the western side of the map is easily visited by any congressional-person or candidate.
CORRECTED COMMENT: MAP 10 is the FAIREST map. It is NOT gerrymandering. Leave the political parties/liberals/conservatives out of it. Unlike map 11, MAP 10 gives the Native Americans a better/fairer representation in the West. Unlike Map 11, MAP 10 has a much more equal split of the White population amongst the two districts, unlike map 11 which has more than double the numbers in difference. Go with the population numbers and not whether they are liberals or conservatives as instructed by law.
MAP 10 is the fairest map. It IS NOT gerrymandering. Leave the poilitical parties/liberals/conservatives out of it. Unlike map 10, MAP 11 gives the Native Americans a better/fairer representation in the West. Unlike map 10, MAP 11 has a much more equal split of the White population amongst the two districts, unlike map 10 which has more than double the numbers in difference. Go with the population numbers and not liberals or conservatives.
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.
It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district It keeps the communities of interest in the West that are predominantly forest production and tourism together It keeps communities of interests centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls It keeps the growing ski tourism economy united within the Flathead Valley (Whitefish and Lakeside) It keeps the shared medical communities of Logan Health Medical Center (Kalispell and Whitefish) together, which provides medical services for the entire NW Region, including the Blackfeet Reservation
I strongly oppose CP 10. This is classic gerrymandering and could not possibly survive a legal challenge if the court is at all fair.
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.
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.
This map seems to be the most fair in terms of splitting ethnic groups overall the most evenly. CP11 splits the native american population far to unevenly. As a non political decision, this should keep ethnicity and population splits as close as possible.
Ronald A. Gilreath
This is the fairest redistricting map
Ronald A. Gilreath
This map is the fairest redistricting map
Teresa M Gilreath
This appears to be the fairest redistricting map.
This map more true to the districting goals put forward by the Montana Constitution; this map meets the needs of being compact and contiguous while also not unduly favoring one party solely for the sake of competitiveness. Western Montanans should be together, and Eastern Montanans should be together. CP10 does a better job of this than CP11, as CP11 is put forward for the sole purpose of unduly benefiting the Democrat party, regardless of the districting requirements.
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.
The two large universities cities should not be in the same district. It brings too many persons of the same demographic - students, into the same district. Whatever map is chosen should have the big university towns separate.
Jackson Smith Ranch
Neither 10 or 11 are perfect, but at least 10 has the Flathead and Blackfeet Nations together as they share a MT House District together. Keeping that shared interest will help both Tribes with stronger representation. A Gallatin split makes more sense than a Flathead County split do to the geographical nature of those Counties. It has the valley split from the hills/mountains. Having aligned agricultural interests makes more sense in CP10. Irrigation, crops, out of state landownership and hobby/retirement ranching issues would be better understood for potential candidates in CP10. A Flathead County split makes no sense... Kalispell, Whitefish and C-Falls are essentially one large city with an airport in between them. All services are shared. Bozeman and Livingston have pass between them. Services are not shared.
Map 10 unduly favors one political party.
As a lifelong Montanan I oppose putting Helena in the eastern district. No to CP10
Greg Walker/Lynn Walker
I/we like Map 10. Both districts are compact, contiguous and nearly equal in population. It keeps Flathead County intact, and includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District.
These last two choices, not the best, seem to be favoring both political parties according to comments. My preferenc would be a map similar to #1, with a more straight line through the state. Also, why did none of the committee members consider splitting the state from north to south instead of east to west? If #1 is no longer a choice, my vote is for #10.
CP10 is the most logical. It keeps Flathead County as one unit. Putting part of it with eastern Montana makes no sense.
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.
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.
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)
Park County has always been in the Eastern District. Ron Marlenea was our representative and Pat Williams was the Western Montana Representative. Park County is the Montana Headwaters of the Yellowstone River which flows east. We share our Montana Senator John Esp with Sweetgrass County. Park and Sweet Grass Counties need to remain together in the Eastern District. If you need to add more people to The Western District get more people from Gallatin County or some where else along the western boundary of the Eastern District. Park and Sweet Grass Counties share similar agricultural land ownership pattern. We share the same USFS districts in the Absarokee Wilderness Area. This is important regarding Fish Wildlife and Parks on hunting regulations and Montana Department of Livestock relationships. Please do not put Park County area 1 western district.
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.
I oppose CP 10 since it is blatant gerrymandering.
I strongly oppose CP10. It would effectively deny representation to the many Montanans who tend to support Democrats for office.
anita brawner/brian fraker
We like this map better than cp 11. It is more balanced than cp 11. Native representation is still not as balanced as should be but better than cp 11.
Neither Map 10 or Map 11 is perfect and I still support Map 1 from the original deliberations. It met the redistricting criteria of compact, contiguous and less than 1% population deviation. Some respondents in favor of Map 11 over Map 10 comment that Map 11 is more fair, equitable and competitive. Those are not qualities outlined in the redistricting criteria in Montana Code Annotated 2021; 5-1-115. Of the 2 choices Map 10 meets the redistricting requirements better than Map 11.
I do not like CP 10. It is unfair and should be discarded
I am opposed to CP10. I feel Helena fits better with Western Montana.
I strongly oppose this map CP10. It’s obvious Republican gerrymandering.
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!
Map 10 is preferable. Placing Flathead County in the Eastern district, as Map 11 does, is ridiculous from a geographical standpoint, and a blatantly partisan attempt to influence the election by an obviously biased committee. They should be ashamed, and should resign.
This map is preferable, as it meets the mandatory criteria better than CP11: it is more compact. Further it meets the goals better than CP11: it results in a closer representation of Montana's voters than CP11, it does not attempt to carve out a massive chunk of Flathead county, and it respects the interests of the western communities of interest much better than CP11.
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.
This map seems like gerrymandering to ensure two republican seats. I prefer the more historical choice CP11
CP 10 does not create competitive districts. oppose
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.
I oppose CP 10
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.
How can you have numerous maps submitted, select 9, then throw them ALL OUT and pick two new maps?? Don't manipulate the process to achieve your desired results. Go back to Map CP1 which met all the criteria. Follow the Montana LAW, MCA 5-1-115.
I oppose CP10...it is clearly gerrymandering to give the GOP more power over the left-leaning population of my state.
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.
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.
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.
Douglas F. Bohn
I support CP 10 as the clearest representation of Montana common sense using the continental divide as the obvious geographical boundary. CP 10 is absent of the OBVIOUS Gerry Meandering that is present in many of the other submissions.
I oppose option #10. This plan does not represent Montana population and creates a larger political divide in the state.
I oppose this option. We need at least one competitive district.
I oppose CP 10 as it is not as equitable as CP 11.
Please follow MCA 5-1-115
CP10 is the more balanced of the 2 finalists. It more closely matches the natural geographical boundaries of the Continental Divide, following the suggestion John Wesley Powell that our political boundaries should be more aligned with watershed boundaries. CP11 is obviously gerry-mandered to create a "competitive" district to allow Democrats the opportunity to gain a seat. Flathead County/Kalispell is not part of eastern Montana. There is no constitutionally or practically valid rationale that any congressional district be "competitive". They should be representative of the people and the landform.
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.
Map CP10 will allow for the best representation of the people in each district. If the population is equally split, I have confidence that the voters will support good candidates, from either party.
Like this map - represents Montana better, no splitting of major counties
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.
The only good choice left is CP11. If CP10 were a pinball game it would be a tilt
#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.
I prefer map CP10. There is no way the Flathead fits with eastern Montana. Who can represent Kalispell and Alzada and their respective issues fairly. It's time to use commonsense and not play politics.
this map certainly doesnt contain even a competitive dsitric
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.
Joseph L O'Rourke
Of the two maps under discussion this one best represents the reality of Montana's conservative majority. A better choice would be map #1.
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.
Splitting Gallatin county is absurd on its face. It adds divisiveness in what are already trying times.
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.
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.
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.
If the purpose of redistricting is to redistrict, and not rely on politics, why do most commenters rely on politics? If we WERE to rely on politics, we'd be forced to draw lines according to party affiliation. Montana is an overwhelming majority-Republican, majority-conservative state. Neither district -- East-West, nor a hypothetical North-South -- votes for the democratic party as a majority, only pockets of people here and there. There is no substantial Democratic majority in any county here. So what do our districts look like if the goal is to draw lines according to party affiliation? Do we want that? Do we REALLY want to bring the politic into this? This map is less political than our friend, Map 11. Although, if this is supposed to be political, BOTH maps offer far too much space for the few areas that DO vote for the Democratic party. That isn't fair to the Republicans, again, I only say this if we're going to be political, as most people are...
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.
This Map 10 provides a better distribution of the Canadian border, it provides a better distribution of Native American voices, and it provides a better distribution of university student voices, allowing them access to the Eastern half of the state. MSU was established as an a campus for eastern Montana, offering studies in agriculture, etc. Additionally, it's largest satellite campus, MSU-Billings, is a short drive away. In Map 10, the actual MSU campus would reside in the Western District, but this map would allow a good chunk of students in northern Gallatin county to have a voice in the East. Thank you.
I am opposed to CP10.
I am against this districting. It is not a fair division of the state
Option CP10 does not best represent everyone in Montana. We all have a right to be represented and have a voice in Montana.
This map does not lead to truly competitive districts in any sense of the word. I will be disenfranchised, once again.
CP 10 is not a fair division of the state.
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.
I oppose map 10. I believe it creates two uneven districts politically which will prevent competition to elect our representatives.
I oppose this map...it is not fair and unfairly sets districts to not represent like interest. Like interest that best represent the electorate should remain intact.
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.
It doesn't make much sense to split a county the size of Flathead. CP10 is the best route to go.
I oppose this CP-10. It is a blatant example of gerrymandering that has no place in Montana voting decisions. Thank you!
This spilts Gallatin county and does not keep communities with common interest together.
Flathead County is Western Montana. It is ridiculous to group it into Eastern Montana. I don't love this map, but of the two options is it much preferable.
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!
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.
Douglas L Newton
I prefer Map CP-10. It doesn't split the Flathead like CP-11 does. So please chose Map CP-10 so that the population in the Eastern District are not split in the Flathead Region. It's not a choice with this process, but I would prefer no districts such as "our two Representatives represent the whole state of Montana." Maybe in the future if we get more than two representatives we could split the state, but it is not a good idea now. So Please chose Map CP-10 that doesn't split the Flathead. Thanks, Douglas Newton
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.
I agree that no map is going to be perfect or make everyone happy. Both maps divide counties and areas of interest. However, splitting Whitefish off from Flathead County make more sense than splitting at least 2 small communities in Gallatin County and separating Park County from Gallatin Co. The same is true for separating Jefferson County from Helena. I have lived in Bozeman, Helena, Kalispell, and currently live in Libby. We do some business in Kalispell, but I only know of a few people who actually commute daily to Kalispell for work. What's more Whitefish and Kalispell are completely separate communities even though they are close. And, north Lincoln County is closer to Whitefish than Kalispell. No evenly populated map is not going to split between some neighboring communities. But, a fair map does not need to split small communities, some with less than 500 residents. I have also lived on both the Blackfeet and Flathead Reservations pastoring churches in Babb, Browning, Heart Butte, and St. Ignatius. Although it is not ideal to have the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes isolated from the rest of the Tribal Nations, it is better for all Tribes to have at least one competitive district. And, having the other six Tribes in the other district, gives Native people a stronger voice than if there were only 5 in a non-competitive district. What's more, when it comes to gerrymandering in terms of favoring one party over the other, map 10 is more "guilty" than map 11 because it creates two non-competitive districts that both favor the Republican Party. Map 10 is barely competitive and certainly does not guarantee a Democratic sweep in elections. It just means non-Republicans would have some hope of being listened to. I STRONGLY support Map 10.
MT Law HB 506 which became law 5/14/2021 says: (3) A district may not be drawn for the purposes of favoring a political party or an incumbent legislator or member of congress. The following data or information may not be considered in the development of a plan: (a) addresses of incumbent legislators or members of congress; (b) political affiliations of registered voters; (c) partisan political voter lists; or (d) previous election results, unless required as a remedy by a court. There are 8 Native American communities in Montana. Map# 11 has only 1 in the west and 7 in the east. Map #10 has 2 in the west and 6 in the east. One analysis argues that since most of them are in the east, Map 10 allows the greatest opportunity to increase the Native American voice in that western district. For this reason alone, if we have to choose between these 2 maps and stay within the law, map 10 is better than map 11.
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.
This map unfairly disenfranchises native Montana voters and creates NO competitive districts. Gerrymandering at its very worst.
Mrs. Lynn Sundelius
This map makes the most sense as splitting Flathead county or putting it in the Eastern part of the state is ludicrous. The population of the two districts created is roughly equivalent and it creates a definite eastern and western split.
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.
Rick C Burrell
Map 10 is my choice of the two. Personally I think that the we should have both representatives should cover the entire state until we warrant more representatives.
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.
No map will be perfect, but Western Montana must include Flathead County. Tourism, medical facilities, industry and other major components of our community are kept together by map 10. This is the best option.
Map 10 is significantly better than Map 11 as it represents more of an East/West divide of the state creating districts of similar interests. Map 11 is a non starter for me as it splits Flathead County and it places most of the County in the East where Flathead County has limited ties.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CP1 is still the best map.
This map makes more sense than the other one. If your doing an east / west split, Flathead needs to be west. Western Montana is not western Montana without Flathead and Glacier.
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.
TERRI L NELSON
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.
This map is better than #11, though, #1 was the most fair to both parties.
I prefer this map. Having some populations split within our MT metro areas is not an issue for me. We are not tightly bound communities and we do have dissimilar POV on many topics.
I like map 10 for many reasons. Both maps divide one county, but this one has less gerrymandering. I still prefer map 1 but this one will work.
CP10 seems better than CP 11. Really liked CP 1 best, if it can be resurrected.
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.
This map is the preferable of the two.
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.
Dana K. Fraley
I am a fourth generation Montanan and I like this map because I feel it is the best representation for Flathead County. Keeping this county as one unit will give Montanans a fair voice in elections. If Flathead county was split it would only be a partisan attempt of Democrats to gerrymander the votes. We want choice on candidates!!
This is the map, I am recommending.
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.
Helen M Sabin
This Map, though not perfect, represents the most reasonable compromise derive from the original 9 maps.
I am in support of map CP-10 over CP-11. I am a business owner in the Flathead and I serve people in every corner of our county. As a resident of the Flathead County, I strongly feel our interests are more aligned with the Western District in the state. Map CP-10 makes more sense for future candidates traveling and reaching out to potential voters. Remember there are no guarantees for candidates that run that they will win, so let's make it easier for them as they give of their time and finances to run and serve Montana.
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.
Map 10 makes the most sense as it keeps Flathead County with like communities in the west. Putting it with the east makes no sense.
This map is far more fair than CP11. This keeps western Montana communities of similar economic condition in the same district.
Marc L Sabin
a. With CP-10, District 1 contains two complete reservations, CSKT and Blackfeet, and their respective counties in District 1. Alternatively, Map CP-11 divides the CSKT reservation and Flathead County between the two districts in order to not divide the CSKT reservation. CP-10 is thus a better way to accomplish the goal of not dividing reservations. It also provides more voting power for the statewide Indian community in District 1 and better protects Indian voting rights across the state with two reservations in District 1. b. With CP-10, District 1 unifies the tourism and service industry communities of interest in Northwest MT that are shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish and Columbia Falls and Flathead Lake c. With CP-10, growth of ski tourism is facilitated within the Flathead Valley; e.g., Whitefish and Lakeside. d. With CP-10, the main watershed regions of the Western Divide counties in MT are tied together for tourism, power generation, and muscle invasive species defense. This will benefit long-term scientific research encompassing culturally connected major bodies of water. e. With CP-10, the inclusion of Flathead, Glacier and Pondera counties in District 1 or, alternatively per CP-11, the inclusion Gallatin and Park Counties probably results in similar apportionments of both population and geographic area. However, CP-11 splits Flathead into three separate pieces, two in District 1 and one in District 2. CP-10 shifts the division of a single country from Flathead to Gallatin (divided into two parts). Both maps have deviations between the two districts within the 1% Mandatory Criteria limit with a population difference of ~ 0%. However, CP-10 also unites the community of interest that is comprised of counties located on the western side of the Continental divide and provides a more equitable split of the economic interface along the border with Canada between the two districts. f. With CP-10, 5 of the 8 largest cities in MT are in District 1 and 3 of them are in District 2. Given the growth rates of Gallatin County and Bozeman, this places a large proportion of the future growth of the state into District 1, with the accompanying stresses and strains being largely in that district. Additionally this will rapidly distort the indicated low deviation of population between the two districts and with that the competitiveness of the each.
I am writing today in support of CP10. As a third generation Flathead Valley resident and businessman, The Flathead is unique in that although we have many small cities, we still view entire Flathead County as a community. Also, the Flathead Valley economy lends itself much better to the Western District in the State as for Natural Resource issues and Tourism related issues. I hope that you will support keeping Flathead County whole in your decision making process and in the geographical district that it resembles most. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Map 10 This makes the most sense because it keeps Flathead County in the Western District. This is important because it includes CSKT and the Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District giving the tribes a stronger voice. The communities of the west are predominantly forest production and tourism and this keeps them together. This map is better because both districts are compact, contiguous and nearly equal in popluation.
I prefer this map as it seems to make more sense. We want both districts to be neutral, not heavily favoring one political ideology over the other.
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.
Neither map seems ideal, but this one seems like the cleaner version despite the weirdness in Gallatin County
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.
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.
Jane O'Toole Vorsheck
This map makes the most sense as it keeps like communities together and is a good split of population.
This map is the most fair, more honestly competitive (what to whom?), and the most logical. Both divide a county, but C11 is gerrymandering. I am a 3rd generation Montanan who grew up in Toole Co. near the Blackfoot Tribe. I know how closely aligned the Blackfoot Nation is to the mountains/Glacier. They belong to the western district. Map C11 would put it in the eastern district, leaving only one tribe in the western, minimizing the Native American voters in the western by 1:3, and denying the western district a diversity of Native American cultural influence and representation. Secondly, the C11 split also creates a western liberal voting block by removing the more conservative areas of the Flathead an leaving the liberal voters around Whitefish. C10 isn't perfect but it is definitely more balanced representation.
It would appear that a pretty straight forward process has been very convoluted. Map 1 made the most sense from the get go.
I prefer this map, because it splits the state evenly, and allows for a more even split for the tribes in a Western District. This map also keeps Flathead County in the West. It makes no sense to put Flathead County in the east.
Katherine and Ronald Bachrach
We oppose this map.
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).
I believe this map is the better of the two because it keeps communities of interests centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls. Please DO NOT divide Flathead County.
CP 10 map best represents the established standards for redistricting of the two choices. CP 1 would’ve been better. However, I support #10 as the most equitable choice, at this point, in regards to population and geography. We should all come together with equal chance of representation for all groups. That is best done with map #10.
I support map 10 but would prefer #1. Map 11 makes perfect sense for a gerrymandered district. I understand why people want to be grouped with their neighbors and interests. The districts should be mostly geographic with all opinions represented. Tourism affects our whole state. Any eastern district will have it's fair share of tourism and should't be strictly ruled by the mountain elites. Both districts should represent the whole state! Any fair line will split someone's community. If it happens in a area of higher population it will create a fair variety of opinions. Politicians will have to relate to everyone for the good of the all Montanans.
France K Hagen
This map put Kalispell in the western district were it should be and has been on prior elections.
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.
Dr. William Nickolas Hagen
This clearly is the fair split of the state and is constitutional. It makes sense on a geographic and economic basis.
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.
Josh C Turner
this map obviously creates more fairness. why would it be seperated differently?
This proposal seems to make the most logical sense in terms of the geographical, political and economical make up of the state.
After a review of the proposed re-districting, the approach being taken is absolutely tone-deaf. Map 11 creates a political and economic divide while exacerbating the tribal communities' challenges. Is it your INTENT to isolate one tribal community from the others, reducing the power of the tribes in their representation? The segregated tribe will end up with NO representation of their interests or by their constituents. For the first time ever in Montana history, this map splits a county West of the Continental Divide (Flathead) and puts it in an Eastern District. Flathead County has zero political, economic or cultural ties with the vast number of counties in the Eastern District, and while both districts include the Canada Interface, Map CP-11 separates the Canada Interface which brings Canadian tourists to Flathead and Blackfeet tourism spots. This Map 11 is designed to harm communities of interest, such as forestry and tourism for Flathead Valley. It creates a District with communities that share no interests between Western Montana and Eastern Montana. Map 11 is a blatant partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines evidenced by the vast expanse covered by the Eastern District. How could a representative be in touch or part of a community so far away from their base?
Douglas Edward Schmitt
This is the logical reasonable map & one I endorsed during the first round of comments and here are my reasons and they still stand, particularly now that I've seen and commented on the sloppy blatant gerrymandering of special interests on CP - 11. I have reviewed map CP - 10 and, while not perfect, it best supports the concept of an east/west split that I believe is the most sensible for all Montanans. The issues of the largely agricultural east are different from those of the mountainous west, so this keeps issues of like concern bound together vs the way CP - 11 breaks them apart with favoritism in the wrong places for the wrong reasons. This map also keeps the two larger Tribal Reservations - Blackfoot Tribe and Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribes, in one district. This map achieves a very small population deviation, which is well within the required restrictions and in compliance with Montana constitutional requirements, and it also agrees with the precedent established when we previously had two House of Representatives Districts. I would anticipate and expect the commission to comply with HR506, the Montana Constitution, and other applicable and binding laws. There are some who want to create the new Congressional Districts in such a manner as to have a " guaranteed " District for the Republican Party interests and a " guaranteed " District for the interests of the Democratic Party. As if somehow this concept would be judged as " fair " to all concerned. It's not. Democracy isn't perfect but we don't need or want pre-ordained outcomes on elections. And CP - 11 is just following the line that other states like Illinois for the Democrats and Texas for the Republicans are using to guarantee bigger majorities for their parties in future elections. Montana needs to be better than that, please ! CP - 11 is not a " fair " solution, but a " political " solution. CP - 10 is the fairest solution we have and not political. We have enough Political solutions in our lives without adding another one that would be considered by a majority of Montanans as less " fair " than the map I am recommending. Montana has seen a growth spurt in population from people moving here from other US States, and all trends show in the next 5 to 10 years this will increase vs level off or decrease. It will be difficult to draw a map that factors in potential growth areas, but that said - this Map does an excellent job of doing so. Potential population growth will be the highest in Bozeman, Missoula, Kalispell, Billings and Helena in all likelihood - with Bozeman and Missoula areas growing the fastest. Therefore these two areas should not be placed in the same District or the representation will become lopsided quickly within a few Congressional election cycles. I fully expect the Commission to go with CP - 11 over CP - 10. Not because of fairness or logic or data or reason. But because there are 3 democrats and 2 republicans on the Commission and the Chairperson is a democrat. So no real mystery as to how this is going to turn out. Shameful for all concerned if my prediction comes true.
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.
Josiah M Baer
I support map #10. Neither feels perfect to me, but this one keeps Western and Eastern Montana separated in a way that makes more sense. It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. Both districts are compact, contiguous and nearly equal population. It ties together the main watershed regions of the Western Divide counties in Montana for tourism, power generation and mussel invasive species defense, which includes long scientific research and culturally connected major bodies of water. It keeps communities of interests centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls. I would also urge you to make sure you are following the Montana State Code and the rules laid out for redistricting including: (3) A district may not be drawn for the purposes of favoring a political party or an incumbent legislator or member of congress. . It is obvious to me that map #11 (which I oppose) is attempting to split Whitefish out of Flathead County is for political reasons and gain. and map #11. While neither map is perfect, I would have huge concerns about the legality of this map: (3) A district may not be drawn for the purposes of favoring a political party or an incumbent legislator or member of congress. The following data or information may not be considered in the development of a plan: (a) addresses of incumbent legislators or members of congress; (b) political affiliations of registered voters; It is obvious to me that Whitefish was split out of Flathead County for political reasons. Please vote no in this map.
I support keeping Flathead County intact, it makes absolutely no sense to separate the communities affected. I didn't realize that Whitefish has more in common politically with Lincoln County than Kalispell. I like the idea of having the Blackfeet and Flathead Reservations in the same district. I support CP10.
Please follow MCA 5-1-115. Boundaries must be compact and continuous without regard to voting records or if one area votes predominately republican or democrat; that is not in criteria. Again, please follow the law.
GORDON E JACOBS
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!
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.
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.
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 A. Skinner
If possible to get within 1 percent balance, Gallatin could be kept whole in the Eastern district because it's adjacent, not 100 miles away needing a gerrymander. Further, Gallatin in the east is a better growth balancer over the long term, meaning the 2030 redistricting will be comparatively minor. This CP10 is the most rational option remaining.
I prefer map 10 of the two choices because Flathead County should not be split and it is absurd to include Flathead in the Eastern district.
Keep the Flathead together and in the West! What does Kalispell have in common with Ekalaka compared with substantially any town/city in the Western district? Up with 10! Down with 11!
Ronald James Nason
This map I believe to be a fair compromise without pulling a largely populated area from an area that is in a different part of the state geographically as in Map 11.
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.
barbara a. austin
Keeping 'ultra conservative' Flathead County to head up the Western portion of Montana is desirable. I also support Commissioner Abell's comment regarding this map. Without Derek Skees' hard work on this venture, we may not have had a workable outcome at large.
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.
Raymond Scott Vincent
I prefer map 10 of the two choices. Flathead County is not in the Eastern Portion of the State.
I support this map as it much more fairly represents true Eastern and Western Districts. As a general rule I do not like splitting counties for political benifit to either party.
I believe the historical maps are a valuable resource when considering the current redistricting. That said, I prefer this map because it most closely aligns with the historical maps and it keeps Flathead County in district 1 where I believe it has more economic features in common than if it were in district 2.
I like this map. It appears to be a natural east vs. west split for population. Yes, both sides probably favor republicans, but unless you do major questionable Gerrymandering, it always will. What's wrong with this since most of the state is republican? It is unfair to split it purposely so that democrats get a rep. Look at our last election- Montanan's want republicans.
10 makes the most sense. Please choose this map.
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.
This map does a far better job of fairly dividing the Eastern and Western Districts keeping all areas west of the divide in the Western Distrct. I cannot see how you can consider Bozeman and Livingston as "Western Montana".
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.
Proposal 10 is bad for Montana businesses. It unnecessarily separates and dilutes the similar economic interests.
Bradley W Abell
I am the Flathead Co. Commissioner for district 1 and while I don't believe this map is perfect it at least keeps all of my district in the western congressional district. Please support this map
Keep Flathead County together
Flathead County should be kept as one area in redistricting. It does not make sense to add us to an eastern district which is on the other side of the divide. This has always been the dividing line.
I'm in favor of #11 which gives a chance for Dems to get a fair chance in elections. #10 is pure gerrymandering!
Flathead County should stay as part of a district on the west side with other west side counties. It makes no sense to split it and add it into the eastern map, when the Divide has always been used as a geographical barrier.
I don’t like CP10 because it makes no sense to divide Gallatin County.
Gary H Eliasson
I support map CP10. This map shows more balance and equity in the districts.
I support map CP10. It's division more fairly represents the state.
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.
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.
This map #10 will not do. It is gerrymandering. You cannot split our county nor towns. No! 5 generation here.
of choice between 10 and 11, 10 seems to best meet the common sense (versus political) test. Actually Map 1, in my opinion was the best choice and, if possible, revival of it for top consideration would be desirable.
Between maps 10 & 11, 10 clearly makes the most sense. The Flathead Valley is in WESTERN Montana and should be represented as such.
Shane E Noble
Map #10 is bad and a blatant attempt to gerrymander Dems out of office.
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.
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.
Steve and Beth Hinebauch
This map makes more sense because it is more of a natural geographical divide of the east and west districts. It also keeps a couple reservations in the western district.
I support map #10, IF they are our only options. This map keeps Western and Eastern Montana separated in a way that makes most sense. It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a strong voice for the tribes in the new western as well as the Eastern district. Both districts are compact, contiguous and of nearly equal population. It keeps communities of interest centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls. I would also urge you to make sure you are following the Montana State Code and the rules laid out for redistricting including: (3) A district may not be drawn for the purposes of favoring a political party or an incumbent legislator or member of congress. . It appears to me that map #11 (which I oppose) is attempting to split Whitefish out of Flathead County is for political reasons and gain.
Like many others it seems that CP1 (or similar) would be the best as it splits the state more in a straight line. But this would keep most of the western counties on the western "half" of the state.
I feel that CP10 better represents the people of Montana. Even though we are all Montanans, we have different challenges that are greatly created by the divide. Even though this may not be perfect, with the 2 maps on the table, I feel this one will give the people in both districts the best opportunity to address the issues that are most important to their communities.
GEORGE F BEIMEL
After evaluating the many aspects and criteria of redistricting, my choice is Map 10.
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.
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.
This mp keeps Kalispell in the west. Kalispell has different issues than the east side.
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.
Although I preferred an earlier version (CP 1), Montanan’s now only have two choices so I have to support this one over CP11. It is obvious that this map had some give and take to meet direction from the deciding official to make a competitive district when the previous 9 maps were rejected. Although I have some reservations of how this map was drawn it has an advantage over CP11 to serve the interests of ALL Montanan’s regardless of political ideology. I hope that the final decision does not come down to making a district more competitive for one party, this is not what the redistricting process is about nor is allowed by law.
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.
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.
I think CP10 is more reasonable
Please choose CP10. Thank you.
I like map 10. Better balance and is compact. Doe not sneak over the divide into Flathead. Very close in population. Everybody is not going to be happy. This map does best job. There will be neighbors that live across road from each other that will be in different districts.
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.
Cathy and Rodger Osborn
We vote on Map 10. It makes the most sense for all. The numbers are within reason so why change it? Looks like obvious Political motivation. Stop trying to divide people in all aspects. Enough. There is no way Flathead County is in the Eastern part of Montana.
I like Map CP 10 because It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district, and is compact, contiguous and nearly equal population. I dislike Map CP 10 because it divides Gallatin County which is the fastest growing county in Montana. You need to look at a new map that does not divide any of large population counties. You need to follow MCA 5-1-115 the Redistricting Criterial.
This map, CP 10 makes more sense than the other.
Map 10 - I like this map because it presents the most fair split. It keeps Flathead County in the Western District where it belongs. It helps keep the communities supported by forest production and tourism together and gives them voice. It also complies with the Montana Constitution and keeps the communities of interest together better than Map CP-11
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.
I prefer map 10 over map 11. We live in Park County. Map 10 would place Park County and most of Gallatin County in the Eastern district. As a Park County business owner and rancher, we conduct most business with locations that would be in the Eastern District (Billings, Bozeman, Big Timber, etc.). Perhaps more importantly, our values are aligned more closely with the rural/agricultural values of the Eastern District.
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.
Flathead county belongs with the western part of the state. I think this map maps the districts more even and fair. The point of it is not to lump similar beliefs together, but rather to have a fair representation of the areas.
This map makes the most sense to me in fairness.
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.
Douglas John Nicholson
This makes sense from a geographic and political point of view. It allows western counties separated from eastern counties by geography to have a shared voice. Due to the impact of geography on the population of Montana, it is important the 2 distinct regions of Montana have their own voices. This map is the more logical and fair of the two maps being proposed.
I support map #10. Neither feel perfect to me, but this one keeps Western and Eastern Montana separated in a way that makes more sense. It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district. Both districts are compact, contiguous and nearly equal population. It ties together the main watershed regions of the Western Divide counties in Montana for tourism, power generation and mussel invasive species defense, which includes long scientific research and culturally connected major bodies of water. It keeps communities of interests centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls. I would also urge you to make sure you are following the Montana State Code and the rules laid out for redistricting including: (3) A district may not be drawn for the purposes of favoring a political party or an incumbent legislator or member of congress. . It is obvious to me that map #11 (which I oppose) is attempting to split Whitefish out of Flathead County is for political reasons and gain.
I like this map because both districts are compact, contiguous and nearly equal population
Please choose this Map CP-10. Thank you for serving.
This drafting is considerably better than its counterpart, #11, as it unites the constituency of Flathead County in a logical, common-sense manner. Despite outcries from opposition for "ideological divides", the primary reason voting districts are to register voting groups based upon geographic regions, not ideologies. Because we all know, ideologies can shift rapidly, county lines, not so much so...
I am in favor of Map 10. Very clear and well thought out comments in favor of this Map.
I like this split better than the others
Russell and Rebecca Kingman
yes to map 10. There is not going to be a perfect map that makes everyone happy, (although someone indicated that a Tonya Dyas proposed map comes close.) Nonetheless both of these maps submitted by the commission, do split a county. However we (my husband and I) submit to you our observations that we believe favor map 10 as the better map. Assuming one goal is to have equal population between the two districts and to have the most equal racial/ethnic diversity then, although both maps deal with total population, there is a greater difference between the 2 maps in a disproportionate number of native and white populations. I believe someone already brought this up but to reiterate: Map10 shows 17,908 more White individuals in District 1 and 17,490 more Native individuals in District 2. Map 11 shows 35,338 more White individuals in District 1 and 36,280 more Native individuals in District 2. So seems to us that Map 10 does the best job of equally dividing the 2 districts based on total population, and in racial and ethnic diversity. Next Map 10 keeps everything more compact and contiguous, which is MT law. It won't be compact if a representative from the eastern district has to travel a long distance to campaign in the eastern side. Nor is it compact when the flathead is separated by the Divide but still in the eastern district. Makes no sense. Map 10 allows the skiing and the tourism within the flathead county to remain connected (whitefish and Lakeside), Map 10 also, keeps the communities of interest in the west together ( tourism and forest production). Lastly, this would be the first time EVER in MT history that a congressional map would split a county west of the divide (flathead ) and put it in an eastern district , when flathead county has NO political, economic or cultural ties with the majority of counties in the eastern district. Also Map 11 isolates 1 tribe group from all the other tribes. All in all, Map 11 looks to us like it could be a partisan attempt to split flathead county along political lines? I submit therefore to you that Map 10 for these reasons and more, is the better choice. thank you for your consideration.
I think this is the most fair - and constitutionally - correct map.
This map has several important features to consider, including adherence to Montana law and the Constitution; all other considerations should fall second to this one. Further, this map provides for compact, contiguous, and nearly equal population representation while doing a better job of keeping communities of interest together than Map CP-11 does. Of further importance, this map keeps Flathead County in the Western District, providing for a stronger voice for both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations. Importantly, it keeps communities of interest united, including the tourism and service industries as well as medical communities. Overall, this is the better choice.
justin w cleveland
Wow the commission had 9 maps, no wait after meeting there are now 11, lets move the goal posts. I am not for this map as much as I was for CP-1, I suggest bring CP-1 back and toss CP-10 and 11.
I believe that this map represents a fair representation of the needs of Western Montana and Eastern Montana and best represents what former Western Representative Pat Williams announced that he favored on YouTube.com
I am of the mindset that Flathead County should not be divided. Map #10 is the best option for the state of Montana's constituency!
Map #10 is clearly split up way better than map 11. Having half of Flathead county in the same district as Miles city makes no sense.
Caitlin E. Teini
I prefer map number 10
Joseph M. Teini
Yes to map #10
Kathleen A. Burt
I have a unique perspective, in part due to my age and in part due to my past work-life experience. In 1971 I worked for the Congressman from the Western District as a staff member, serving both as his personal aide and briefly as his press secretary (Richard Shoup). We worked occasionally with the congressman from the Eastern District since, as Montanans, we had some major issues in common. I will say most pointedly that we also addressed vastly different issues and interests due to economics and geography. At that time, neither of our districts would have been well suited to address the issues of the other district. Timber sales and tourism were hardly the purview of the east side, nor were oil production and farming that of the west side. The districting of that time worked fluidly and all Montanans were well represented; I remember not a single complaint about the way the eastern and western districts were divided. Moving to today, I cannot see that much has changed--at least nothing that should logically move Flathead County into a district with the counties on the east side of the state. As a citizen of the Flathead, I also would feel terribly UNDERrepresented by a congressman whose major constituency was that of the east side of the state. Finally, let Montanans be Montanans. We're an independent lot as our history proves, having had numerous outstanding Republicans AND Democrats as officeholders. Let Montanans be Montanans and decide based on their economics, mutual interests and the individual running for office. The only fair way to do that is with Map 10, and NOT with an artificially contrived districting line that attempts to stack the political deck. Respectfully, Kathleen (Riedel) Burt
Cheryl D Goffena
I prefer map 10
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.
This district is the best way, most fair split
CP10 is the better choice. It follows the parameters of the redistricting law. CP10 does a significantly better job of equally dividing districts based not only on total population, but also in racial and ethnic diversity. The Native American populations in the Western district will have a stronger voice in CP10 than they would if the other map is chosen. Please consider this fact when choosing
I prefer map #10.
Mark R Smith
When evaluating this map(10) compared to the alternative map (11). There are obvious community "splits" in both, but one must ask: 1) Is the split of Gallatin county reasonable given the balance of the county placed in the east is rural, and arguably more of a part of the Park county/Billings community, than part of the Bozeman/Belgrade valley? The answer: YES, given the fact that the other larger communities of Flathead County, and the two northwestern Indian reservations remain together as per their expressed wishes. Because Montana is faced with two maps that split one county in each, we must choose the map that is least disruptive to the communities (as the constitution requires). This map 10 clearly is the least disruptive to communities and should be chosen. I support this map 10 (over the alternative (11)).
I prefer this map over CP 11. Flathead County is in the West with similar communities of interest. Keeps 2 reservations in each of the district representation, and is a deviation of 0%.
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.
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.
This is much better! It keeps the west together.
The one thing I appreciate about this map compared with the alternative choice of map 11, is that this gives more voice to the Native American presence in the western district as has historically not been true.
I like this map because it complies with Montana law and the Constitution Both districts are compact, contiguous and nearly equal population It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district It keeps the communities of interest in the West that are predominantly forest production and tourism together Both districts include a Canada Interface, but this map keeps communities of interest together better than Map CP-11
I really don't like either map and would rather you go with Map 1 that was originally, however if these are the only 2 maps we have to pick from then I like Map 10 the best because it keeps the communities of interest in the west that are predominantly forest production and tourism together. It keeps our communities of interests centered around tourism and service industries together which are all shared between glacier national park, kalispell, whitefish and columbia falls. Map 10 complies best with the Montana law and the constitution where both districts are compact, contiguous and nearly equal in population. also, both districts include a canada interface but this map keeps communities of interest together better than Map Cp 11
Joseph D. Coco
Redistricting must ensure population equality, compactness, contiguity and compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act. There is no Constitutional authority to inject a "competitiveness" component into the process. Competitiveness is subjective, and exists only in the minds of the beholder. I reject Map 11 and I support Map 10.
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.
Map 10 seems to be a more logical approach than map 11 for how Flathead County, Blackfeet Reservation and Gallatin County is viewed. MSU/UM were put on different sides of Divide for a purpose with different missions at each university. Ag in eastern MT and Ag relation with MSU and Gallatin County should be in the east to coordinate Ag goals with the voting population of eastern Montana.
MICHAEL K REDBURN
This map does not respect the political subdivisions such as county lines that are supported by the Montana Constitution.
Cathy B Mitchell
Map 10 – I like this map because it keeps Flathead County in the Western District. This is important because: It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district It keeps the communities of interest in the West that are predominantly forest production and tourism together It keeps communities of interests centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls It keeps the growing ski tourism economy united within the Flathead Valley (Whitefish and Lakeside) It keeps the shared medical communities of Logan Health Medical Center (Kalispell and Whitefish) together, which provides medical services for the entire NW Region, including the Blackfeet Reservation It ties together the main watershed regions of the Western Divide counties in Montana for tourism, power generation and mussel invasive species defense, which includes long scientific research and culturally connected major bodies of water Map 10 also complies with Montana law and the Constitution. Both districts are compact, contiguous and nearly equal population. Both districts include a Canada Interface, but this map keeps communities of interest together better than Map CP-11
It's tiering to see Gallatin County keep getting split. Leave it whole. Do not split counties. I like this may better than the others but you should keep counties whole. TEM
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.
I support Map 10 because it: (1) keeps Flathead County in the Western District--including both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations--for a stronger tribal voice; (2) keeps forest production and tourism communities in the West together; (3) keeps communities centered on tourism and service industries together shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls; (4) keeps the growing ski tourism economy united within the Flathead Valley (Whitefish and Lakeside); (5) keeps the shared medical communities of Logan Health Medical Center (Kalispell and Whitefish) together, providing medical services for the entire NW Region, including the Blackfeet Reservation; and (6) ties the main watershed regions of the Western Divide counties in Montana for tourism, power generation, and mussel invasive-species defense together. Additionally, Map 10 complies with MT Constitution re: compact, contiguous, near-equal population districts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please reject Map #10. After researching the demographics of the two maps, #11 is definitely the most equitable to the voters of Montana.
I support this map as the best possible choice for redistricting our congressional districts. It does the best job at splitting up the fastest growing counties in the state so it should hold its even population longer than the other choices.
I support this map as the best possible choice for redistricting our congressional districts. It does the best job at splitting up the fastest growing counties in the state so it should hold its even population longer than the other choices.
I support CP10. It appears there are two goals: first is to have equal population between the two districts, and second, based on the parameters provided, appears to be equal racial/ethnic diversity. Both proposals accommodate total population. Where we see a greater difference between the two proposals is a disproportionate number of White and Native populations. CP10 shows 17,908 more White individuals in District 1 and 17,490 more Native individuals in District 2. CP11 shows 35,338 more White individuals in District 1 and 36,280 more Native individuals in District 2. Thus, CP10 does a significantly better job of equally dividing districts based not only on total population, but also in racial and ethnic diversity. CP10 is the better choice.
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.
Map 10 – I like this map because it complies with Montana law and the Constitution. Both districts are compact, contiguous and nearly equal population. Both districts include a Canada Interface, but this map keeps communities of interest together better than Map CP-11.
Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2021 5-1-115 which states the redistricting criteria for state and federal districts...competitive is NOT a legal criterion... Competition comes from QUALITY candidates. This map is better than map 11 (11 violates 2-c,d, and 3 a-d which puts it in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act). Map 10 complies with all sections of Code 5-1-115 making it legal by state and federal standards.
I oppose CP10. The map does a poor job retaining local community boundaries.
Neither map is ideal, but this seems to be the better of the two in that it will accommodate the strong growth in Gallatin county by keeping populations relatively equal over time by having some of the county represented in both districts. I find it interesting that in non-partian areas where maps are drawn, such as school sports, Bozeman is always linked in the East with schools in Great Falls and Billilngs, but here, where politics is involved Bozeman is put in the Western district. At least this avoids some of the more ridiculous groupings of far Eastern and Western Montana proposed in the other map.
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.
This is the logical choice which I support. Many counties in eastern Mont. have more in common with No. Dakota than Flathead county.
K. Bradley Lotton
Of the 2 choices now facing us I like this map the best however Map 1 is still the best in my opinion. These two maps appear to only consider republican vs democrat which is contrary to what is intended when splitting the districts
Cp10 is better than CP 11 as it distributes the state more evenly
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.
This is the better map for keeping communities together and preserving east and west. The logistics of a congressman representing both Kalispell and Broadus would be absurd. Please support this map.
Map CP-10 complies with the law by equalizing population, drawing contiguous boundaries and keeping the district compact.
Susan and Stephen smith
Map 11 complies with the Montana Constitution although Map1 should be resurrected. 10 keeps the communities of interest together better centered on tourism and service industry between Glacier, Kalispell, Whitefish and Columbia Falls. These areas must be grouped together. The CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations are together in the Western district for a stronger voice. Medical communities of Logan Health are kept together for Kalispell and Whitefish. The main watersheds in the West are united for environmental control of invasive species and for power generation. Helena is an eastern divide city and must remain in the eastern side of the map. It has NO commonalities with Missoula and would be totally and unfairly overwhelmed by the university votes of Missoula and Bozeman. Map 11 puts Helena on the Western side which is totally unfair, as Helena identifies with the East and not with the University towns of Missoula and Bozeman. Splitting Flathead is not rational or wise and the Canadian interface of map11 separates the tourism of Blackfeet and Flathead. One Tribe is isolated by map11 to reduce its voice. That said, it is ILLEGAL to consider competitiveness. This map is obviously gerrymandered to give voting blocks and lobbyists in each district a voice stronger than the rural communities, which is trying to mandate winners and losers. THAT is NOT your job!! Map one was a truer representation of the Constitution and HB506! Your partisanship and disregard for the Rule of Law is duly noted! If you will deny law then agree on a defensible standard used to define competitiveness, use the US House races to measure it, and use races OUTSIDE of 2020 that have been shown to be tainted.
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.
I really liked map 5 the best but this will have to do because it keeps the Flathead in the west. It's sad that Gallatin is divided:-( We need a map that considers dividing the reservations close to equal and the fast growing populations close to equally divided. This is not about being partisan but about being fair for everyone.
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.
These 2 additional maps (10 and 11) seem to be based entirely on trying to gain votes for one or the other parties. Map 1, was a far better map based on what law requires. So, my preference if map 1. But between these 2 maps, 10 is a better map. Map 10 includes 2 Native American communities. This would at least give them more of a voice in the West. With only 1 community represented in the west with map 11, the Native American voice will be completely lost. For this reason alone, if the choice has to be made between these 2 maps, map 10 should be chosen over map 11. Other things of great concern - map 11 provides extremely low exposure for the western district with our Canadian border, and Flathead is clearly not part of eastern Montana. However, once again, map 1 was superior to both of these maps.
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.
I support this map because it is a balance division of the state, meets the requirements for districting and gives Montanans an equal voice.
MARK ALAN FRANKLIN
If the goal is for the two districts to be equal in population, then this map looks like it accomplishes that goal well. It also makes sense to me that the west and the east tend to have opposing interests, so this map offers balance as well. Something had to give in order to hit the 50/50 split, so the carving up of Gallatin county probably served best to accomplish this goal while maintaining balance.
Of the last two options presented, I like this one best although I am not in favor of splitting Bozeman. One of the criteria is like interests. I don't see that half of Bozeman would have different interests than the other. I like map one best.
This redistricting map makes a whole lot of sense to me. I hope it ends up being selected!
not the best option but better than CP11. Flathead county is obviously not the East.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
This map is obviously gerrymandering. Map 11 is better than Map 10, hands down.
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.
No map will be perfect but CP10 more evenly splits the state allowing for a better balance of interests and services. Flathead should be in the Western Disctrict. All cities and towns are growing with populations with out of state ideas and this map will give rural Montana a voice.
Please reject this map.
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
– I like this map because it keeps Flathead County in the Western District. This is important because: • It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district • It keeps the communities of interest in the West that are predominantly forest production and tourism together • It keeps communities of interests centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls • It keeps the growing ski tourism economy united within the Flathead Valley (Whitefish and Lakeside) • It keeps the shared medical communities of Logan Health Medical Center (Kalispell and Whitefish) together, which provides medical services for the entire NW Region, including the Blackfeet Reservation • It ties together the main watershed regions of the Western Divide counties in Montana for tourism, power generation and mussel invasive species defense, which includes long scientific research and culturally connected major bodies of water
Sharon S Patton-Griffin
Divides counties and towns
David A. Johnson
I strongly urge you to approve Map CP-10 because it keeps Flathead County in the Western District. This is important because: • It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations, allowing a stronger voice for the tribes, • It keeps communities of interests centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls, • It keeps the shared medical communities of Logan Health Medical Center (Kalispell and Whitefish) together, which provides medical services for the entire NW Region, including the Blackfeet Reservation, and • It ties together culturally connected major bodies of water in the Western Divide counties of Montana for hydro generation and invasive species defense. This map also complies with Montana law and the Constitution. • Both districts are compact, contiguous, and nearly equal population. • While both districts include a Canada Interface, this map keeps communities of interest together better than Map CP-11. I urge you to reject Map CP-11 because: • It a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines, • For the first time ever in Montana history, this map splits Flathead County and puts it in an Eastern District, • Flathead County has zero political, economic, or cultural ties with the vast number of counties in the Eastern District, • It isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities, and • This map clearly was drawn considering “competitiveness” which is illegal and not included in Montana law or the Constitution.
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.
CP10 is my choice for the next decade. It more evenly splits the state east and west allowing the representative compactness. Keeping the Flathead communities whole is beneficial for the Glacier park tourism, Big Mountain Skiing, lumber industries, and the connection with the border that the Flathead enjoys. CP10 combines at least two reservations together in one district which will give them a stronger voice. I urge the committee to choose CP10 for it complies with Montana state law and the constitution.
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.
I like this map because it keeps Flathead County in the Western District. This is important because it includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district, it keeps the communities of interest in the West that are predominantly forest production and tourism together, it keeps communities of interests centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls, it keeps the growing ski tourism economy united within the Flathead Valley (Whitefish and Lakeside), it keeps the shared medical communities of Logan Health Medical Center (Kalispell and Whitefish) together, which provides medical services for the entire NW Region, including the Blackfeet Reservation.
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.
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.
Please reject both CP 10 and 11 and go with Map 1 as it represents the constitution the best. Thank you
Please reject this map. It does not fairly represent Montana's alignments.
I like this map because it keeps Flathead County in the Western District. This is important because: • It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district • It keeps the communities of interest in the West that are predominantly forest production and tourism together • It keeps communities of interests centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls • It keeps the growing ski tourism economy united within the Flathead Valley (Whitefish and Lakeside) • It keeps the shared medical communities of Logan Health Medical Center (Kalispell and Whitefish) together, which provides medical services for the entire NW Region, including the Blackfeet Reservation • It ties together the main watershed regions of the Western Divide counties in Montana for tourism, power generation and mussel invasive species defense, which includes long scientific research and culturally connected major bodies of water Map 10 – I like this map because it complies with Montana law and the Constitution
I like this map because it keeps Flathead County in the Western District. This is important because: • It includes both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in the Western District, allowing for a stronger voice for the tribes in the new western district • It keeps the communities of interest in the West that are predominantly forest production and tourism together • It keeps communities of interests centered on tourism and service industries together which are all shared between Glacier National Park, Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls • It keeps the growing ski tourism economy united within the Flathead Valley (Whitefish and Lakeside) • It keeps the shared medical communities of Logan Health Medical Center (Kalispell and Whitefish) together, which provides medical services for the entire NW Region, including the Blackfeet Reservation • It ties together the main watershed regions of the Western Divide counties in Montana for tourism, power generation and mussel invasive species defense, which includes long scientific research and culturally connected major bodies of water
Map 10 – I like this map because it complies with Montana law and the Constitution • Both districts are compact, contiguous and nearly equal population • Both districts include a Canada Interface, but this map keeps communities of interest together better than Map CP-11
Don George Lorenzen
Fair split of districts as they are still growing.
Don George Lorenzen
Please reject this map. The second largest county in the state (Gallatin) should not be split.
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.
Not a fan of either maps. This one is better than 11, but not ideal to split Gallatin County.
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.
This map looks odd, with the Helena area pushed to the east and Gallatin/Park split up.
Not a fair map. Favors one party over the other.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DAVID G BALL
Please reject this map. The second largest county in the state (Gallatin) should not be split.
Please reject this map. It is clearly designed to favor a single party.
Reject this map for gerrymandering a large county and attempting to split a large community (Bozeman). Resurrect CP-1.
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!
REJECT THIS MAP . This is a terrible way to represent all Montanans.. REJECT THIS MAP
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Susan Buchanan Hess
CP10 map is the better map. This is a decent compromise that gives the eastern district at least 2 larger cities (Helena and Billings). The reservation are more equally distributed giving more importance to the tribal input. This map also more fairly divides the college towns.
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.
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.
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.
I do not prefer this map. Splitting Gallatin County and cordoning off Park County ignores our historical connections.
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.
I like this map because it tries to follow the law of compact and contiguous, commonality of interest( the reason for putting Bozeman in the West with the other University town. It also splits the growth areas and has two tribal nations in the West and shared Canadian Border. As a big state with a small representative delegation(2) it would be nice to have them both, regardless of party, to have many mutual concerns so common ground might be found. This map attempts to do just that.
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!
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.
Once again, this proposal does not contain a district that does not unduly favor one political party.
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.
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 ! https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/e0a5c47f-4434-47ff-b0a9-01233ba3a87b
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.
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.
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).
David Ingram, MD
I like this map as it tries to address the complains about the prior maps. It satisfies the request to Universities in the same district and does not split Bozeman, a high growth area. It gives both districts the need to consider issues with our Canadian border and adds a second tribal nation to the Western district increasing the importance of their concerns. Once again I ask my fellow Montanans how to make a "competitive" district in a state with 67 Republican legislators and 33 Democratic representatives without using illegal criterion?
No. Just no. This map does not create a competitive district and for that reason alone should be rejected.
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.
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 !!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Too many unnecessary divisions.
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.
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.
This map will keep competition out of our elections and disenfranchise the urban voters.
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.
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.
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.
This proposal splits me from my neighbors just a short distance away. It is totally unacceptable.
Lets face it - First, there will NEVER be a map that everyone is pleased with. Second, the only map YOU are likely to prefer is the one you feel gives the most advantage to the political party of your choosing, and to so say otherwise would be incredibly disingenuous. I think this map is a decent compromise. Having lived in both Gallatin and Flathead counties (two increasingly polar opposite MT counties), I feel that this division is acceptable and a more than fair representation of our state. This map keeps the majority of western Montana intact, and unlike the other map being proposed, it doesn't carve Flathead county out of the western district in an obvious attempt at keeping the Left in play. I see the complaining about cutting Gallatin county in two - but the fact is that Bozeman is still included in the western district, so frankly I don't understand the huge fuss. In regards to placing Helena in the eastern district, what is your alternative? To place every larger city in Montana (except Billings) into the western district?? That's obvious Gerrymandering if I've ever seen it. Here's the breakdown for you folks worried about 'Equity and Inclusion' - Missoula - Heavily Blue, Bozeman - increasingly Blue, Butte - Blue, Whitefish - Blue, Kalispell - Red, and the only major 'red' city in the western district. If anyone should be complaining about this or ANY map that's been proposed, it should be conservatives (i.e. the VAST majority of Montanans). Choosing any map but this one is just an obvious attempt by those on the Left to grasp at their last hopes of having influence in this increasingly red state. As far as I'm concerned, the influence of people moving here from Seattle, and Los Angeles should be kept to a bare minimum - Montana should be spoken for by MONTANANS.
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.
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.
I meant Pondera County, not Teton County, in my previous comment!
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.
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.
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.
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.
This map splits up Gallatin County. Further, it splits a south Bozeman community sharing neighborhoods, common needs, and a school district.
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.
I can live with this map, as it fairly divides the two college towns. It just shows that republicans are more willing to compromise. Although she is supposed to remain non-partisan, commissioner Maylinn Smith (who was selected, not elected!) needs to do the right thing for all Montanans. I am doubtful though, as she has donated money exclusively in the past to democratic candidates, including to Jon Tester.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn't make sense to split Gallatin County this way. I see it as Republicans trying to give themselves an advantage.
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.
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.
Andrew R. Brekke
This map is a great compromise and has my full support.
Shared Canada border: somewhat; reservations equally distributed: somewhat; terrain and space evenly distributed, somewhat; main university towns equally represented: somewhat -- county divided to make this happen, somewhat; overall population evenly distributed between the districts, yes; gerrymandered, no. I believe Montana has its new congressional map. Good work! Thank you to everyone who submitted maps and commentary, attended hearings, and understands that this process isn't about equity. If you look at the literature, 'equity', as a term of prominent concern, doesn't even appear until 2017, and its been put in use by the Left without the consent and/or approval of everyone else. Equity in theory is reactionary; in practice, for a people brought up on individual rights in a free market economy, it's unreal. Montana isn't going to fold to that. Despite the push to place new buzzwords like 'equity' into the mainstream, the majority in Montana still embraces the premise that how things end up for YOU is up to YOU; it's not up to me. If we have to hike and I have my good boots on but you chose to wear flip-flops, isn't it in YOUR best interest to just run home or to the store and get your own boots? Would you REALLY rather prefer instead that I give you one of my boots, making us BOTH equally miserable? No. You need to take accountability for your choices and mistakes. You're NOT going to bring down people who chose differently. Not here anyway.
Clicking on the map attaches the comment to that particular place. Please provide additional comments to explain the like, dislike, or opinion. Please send files or lengthy comments to email@example.com
Do you wish to be contacted?