Population and Geography based on 2020 Census Redistricting Data File
Loading...
ROY BROWN
This Map clearly exposes imbalance of the heavy population sights. having all of Gallatin Yellow Stone and Park county offset Maddison, Louis & Clark and Granite county is the only equitable way to ensure balance. We are a representative first rule not majority at any cost rule.
Jenna Martin
This is the map that divides the state most fairly. I support this map more than any of the others.
Elizabeth Kestler
I know this map has be voted down but I want to throw in my retroactive support because after examining all 13 maps, this is clearly the most competitive one that keeps areas of similar interest together (Like Pondera Country with District 2) but still allows the state to grow and change. I think regardless of what the commission eventually decides, that this should be their choice and to choose anything else is devolving into partisan games.
Ashton Blake
Leaving Kalispell out of this map is a bad idea and clear evidence that this map is intentionally consolidating liberal parts of the start and excluding conservatives ones. Kalispell is clearly part of the cultural and geographic area of the western district and should not be excluded on the basis of making a "competitive" or "fair" (what is that even supposed to mean?) district. That is not the purpose of congressional districts.
Shelley Freese
Map 11 divides the population most fairly. It groups Livingston with Bozeman, which seems appropriate, since they lie so close together and face similar challenges with rapid growth and development. Map 11 also receives a great rating on the stated goal of competitiveness.
GAIL MEAKINS
I support maps that are compact and competitive and that keep Park Co and Gallatin Co together in a western district. Park Co is increasingly a bedroom community for Bozeman, and both rely on each other economically. Park Co has more in common with Gallatin Co than it does with Glendive. It is also important to have Yellowstone NP represented by the same district, to ensure consistency essential to the well-being of that ecosystem and for the livelihood of gateway communities. For this, I am in support of maps 11 and 13. Thank you.
Risa Pierce
Map 11 is the fairest map.It keeps Bozeman together with western Montana that shares it's interest.
Robyn Morrison
I still prefer this map. That said, keeping Flathead County intact would be better. As an independent voter, I think the absence of the appearance of gerrymandering is more important than precise population counts. People move, population changes but many things are stricter around our Counties.
Leah Berry
I support Map 11. It is a fair map that fits the criteria agreed upon by the committee of being population equal and competitive.
Joseph Baan
Fair is what is fair to me. This is the most fair map
Mark Meakins
I support maps that are compact and competitive and that keep Park Co and Gallatin Co together in a western district. Park Co is increasingly a bedroom community for Bozeman, and both rely on each other economically. Park Co has more in common with Gallatin Co than it does with Glendive. It is also important to have Yellowstone NP represented by the same district, to ensure consistency essential to the well-being of that ecosystem and for the livelihood of gateway communities. For this, I am in support of maps 11 and 13. Thank you.
Ashley Noonan
This is a RIDICULOUS proposition. Why on God's Green earth does it make sense to separate Flathead county? It needs to stay exactly where it's located IN WESTERN MONTANA. I refuse to let the democratic party once again ruin another state by gerrymandering it's way through. Take your California ideologies elsewhere. Splitting this county means that the democrats are looking to gain power in a way that is completely shady and un-beneficial to the Montana people. THIS IS A BIG NO FROM ME.
Betsy Swartz
I am in favor of Map 11 as is is a fair map, values Native voices, splits the population evenly and adheres to the criteria.
Ethan Seiler
This map is the most competitive out of the new ones proposed, and serves to value Native voices based on what the tribes would prefer, which is something we should have been doing all along.
Kelly Murphy
Map #11 is the best map. I'm in Flathead county and the split makes sense.
Robert L Hawks
CP 11 meets the major preferred selection criteria best in terms of being competitive, plus having common interests and economy, These Montanans with common interest deserve a right to have a reasonable chance at determining their choice of representation in our federal government.
Danette Seiler
This map also splits the population evenly and creates two competitive districts, as the maps should do. However, this one is not as good as Map 13 because of the way the reservations are split across the two districts, with all except one in a single district, and only the Flathead Reservation in District 1. This divides the tribes quite unevenly.
Lloyd Turnage
CP11 is clearly the worst of the 4 remaining maps. It is the most gerrymandered and splitting Flathead County in this manner is a non-starter.
Katie Scherfig
This is the best map. Gallatin and Park counties should both be in the western district and so should Lewis and Clark. It is also competitive which must be top priority.
Amy Talcott
I support CP11, which is the only map that fulfills the commission’s stated criteria and goals of creating at least one competitive district. This map keeps communities of interest together and ensures that Montana’s larger communities like Bozeman, Helena, Missoula, and Butte—all of them linked economically and geographically by the I-90 corridor—have a voice in Congress. These communities are facing similar issues like rapid population growth, housing crises, skyrocketing cost of living, and issues related to higher education that communities in the more rural eastern district are largely unaffected by. By grouping together communities of interest and creating at least one competitive district, CP11 is the only fair and balanced map that ensures all Montanans have a fair shot at having their voices heard in Congress.
Richard Misplon
I am in Favor of Map #11. This map has a competitive district, the one that I reside in. District 2 is not competitive and favors the republican party. If both of the districts are not competitive voters who are not in favor of the republican agenda are not going to be represented at all. In a competitive district, a winning candidate will need to be supported by at least some of the opposing party or at least a significant number of the independent voters. A competitive district will be more likely to produce representatives that give all Montanans representation. Isn't that what this is all about?
Bob Carter
I support this map.
Minh-Ha Trieu
Map #11 is the fairest map. It keeps like communities together and gives Native communities a chance to be heard.
Lisa Heil
I like this map because it is the best chance of having a fair election. It keeps the college towns together and does not split up the union towns of Helena and Butte. It is also the better map for elevating Native voices. I trust the opinions of the Indigenous people who have said they support this map.
Lucretia Olson
I support Map 11. It fits the criteria stated by the committee of being population equal and competitive.
William Hanley
This map fits the criteria for being equal and competitive. 10 and 12 should not even be options, as the Cook PVI shows they are not fair and competitive.
Candace Jerke
This map seems to be the most competitive. It does not split towns and counties like the other maps do and it puts most of the western half of the state together
Ahren Cornelius
Of the final 4 maps, I support CP11 the most. CP11 most closely meets the Congressional Criteria and Goals. CP11 only divides 1 county. It does not split any cities. The map is as compact and contiguous as possible and it is the most fair in terms of not providing significant favor to either political party. I encourage you to vote for this proposal. Thank You!
Desma E Meissner
I do not like CP11. It is a prefect definition of gerrymandering, the practice of redrawing electoral districts to gain an electoral advantage for a political party. By putting both college towns, which tend to vote democrat, in the west and Flathead, which tends to vote republican, in the east the committee is trying to make a Democrat district and Republican district. I believe their buzz word is "competitive" not gerrymandering.
Kathleen Hadley
This is the best map of all the options. It doesn't split any cities or towns, keeps historic communities of interest together and is competitive.
Tom Finkle
I don’t like CP11 because it puts most of Flathead county in the east.
· CP11 is not in the best interest of Montanans. I don’t support it
· CP13 splits too many counties
· Keep Lewis and Clark county whole
Kathleen Kennedy
This map is the only one left that creates a competitive district. It does the best job of doing that while keeping counties whole and those with connected interests together. This map allows ALL Montanans a chance to have their interests represented.
Graham Ian Cummins
This is the best remaining map. It keeps Park and Gallatin, which are interdependent, together. It's fair and population equal, and only splits one county
Virginia Richardson
This seems definitely not a good choice for rural Montana. This also splits too many counties. CP1 and 12 are much better.
Cynthia Parry
This map best meets the stated goals of the commission. It creates a competitive district that does not unduly favor one party. It keeps communities of interest together and provides a chance for all voters to be heard. It keeps reservations whole and aligns Gallatin and Lewis and Clark County with the western part of the state where they are better aligned historically and economically. Fair elections are key to our democracy. Please act in accordance with the commissions stated goals and Montana values.
Forrest Zimmerman
CP11 puts Kalispell in western district. Looks like some serious gerrymandering to me! Let's go with CP12.
Joseph M. Cleary
CP11 remains the best option to put the priority of creating competitive districts over a misguided reverence for county lines in other maps. Competitive districting, not keeping counties wholly within one district, underpins everything that makes our democratic republic function successfully.
Robin Paone
I like map 11 because it meets all mandated criteria and goals of the commission. It is extremely important is to create a competitive district - not favoring one party over the other. Read the criteria here:
https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Topics/Criteria/adopted-criteria-congressional-dac-july-2021.pdf
Dan MacLean
I do not agree with this map. It is a gerrymandering attempt by putting the Flathead region in the eastern district.
Alaina Hardie
I think this is the fairest map. It makes for one competitive district (which I think fairly represents Montana), and leaves Helena in the western district. I support CP11.
Nicholas P Maffei
Keeping L&C county with the west, fairly equal population, and a reasonable attempt at geographical distribution make this map the strongest attempt.
andrew burns
This is the best option. As you can see from the comments it has the most support. It is fair and simple. It keeps communities of interest intact and is competitive.
Michael Enk
I support CP-11 because it's the only map that produces a competitive district for Western Montana which has a rapidly-growing, diverse population best served by a representative who must compete for voters. The voices from Indian Reservations and university towns are more likely to be heard by candidates competing for the western district seat as proposed in CP-11.
Will Swearingen
I think Map 11 is the fairest of the maps still being considered for the following reasons: (1) It keeps Gallatin County intact and linked in the same district with Park County [as all previous congressional maps have done], two counties that have been strongly linked economically and culturally for over 100 years; (2) It will establish a competitive district in the western half of the state, one that still leans Republican but which a Democrat could win, respecting the principle of not unduly favoring one political party; (3) It keeps towns whose economies depend on ski tourism all in the same district, which will help ensure that their shared interests are adequately represented by their Congressperson; (4) It keeps the union strongholds of Butte and Helena in the same district, as all previous Congressional maps have done.
Charles Janson
I am in favor of CP11. The division of Flathead county can be debated, but the fact that much of Flathead country is grouped in District 2 actually makes sense given the shared cultural interests of Native American groups across the northern tier of MT. CP11 best meets the Commission's criteria of competitiveness and keeping intact most counties (all but one) and communities of interest (historically and culturally).
Robert Michael Walters
Wow. Who came up with this one? Nancy Pelosi's staff? Not competitive at all, more like a participation trophy to a party that has ill served the states wellbeing for years.
Alan Ekblad
CP 11 keeps Helena in the western district with Butte, Anaconda and Deer Lodge which share a common union history and shared community interests. It is fair and does not favor one political party over the other. It simply set up more competitive elections throughout the state.
Lorraine Roach
This map is inferior to CP12 for two main reasons: 1) geographically, it is illogical to put communities in the Flathead region into District 2, and 2) it is imbalanced demographically: District 2 has 35,521 more non-white voters than District 1--more than twice the difference between the two districts in CP12, which is inequitable. Given the locations of non-white voters, an exact balance between districts is difficult without significant gerrymandering, but CP12 does a much better job of achieving demographic balance than does CP11.
Robert Michael Walters
I do not like this map. It is gerrymandering at it's lowest and strives to give a seat to people who will not fairly represent the majority of Montana. It also fails to meet the criteria set forth.
Teresa Knutson
Montana has a fair constitution and should have fair congressional districts, not districts which favor on party. Please choose this map
Gail Waldby
I support CP11.
The Gallatin City-County Health Dept. has been a leader in supporting the needs of public health. When they took measures to keep people safe and healthy, businesses & individuals complied for the most part, while Flathead (Kalispell in particular) did not and was and is splintered in its Covid response.
Gallatin County, the cities of Belgrade, Bozeman, and Manhattan are working collectively on a Regional Water & Sewer study to support infrastructure needs.
The Triangle Plan is a concrete example of the cities of Bozeman, Belgrade and Gallatin County working closely together to come up with a cooperative and comprehensive community plan for growth in the Triangle. This is a model of cooperation in problem-solving for land use development and keeping these entities together is in the communities’ interests.
Keeping Gallatin in one district and putting Yellowstone and most of Flathead in another will equalize growth across both congressional districts over the next 10 yrs as these three counties are the fastest growing counties in the state.
Jim Canton
The mere distance any candidate or elected official has to travel so that the people of their district know who they are is too extreme. This commission owes it to the people of Montana the ability to know those persons who they have elected to represent them.
Maureen Byrne
C11 provides 2 districts that share similar economic and social interests. Pros: It consolidates most Tribal Land; it keeps intact the most counties; it groups counties with shared economic and community interests; and gives the agricultural communities a consolidated voice/vote.
Mary Honzel
These map formats are not easy to decipher. Why is it that only Map 11 includes Lewis & Clark County? I strongly support L&C to be in the west where it belongs.
Elizabeth C Schenk
Thank you for doing this difficult work. I prefer Map 11. It maybe nearly impossible to meet all goals including population, race, age, etc. being even in both districts, as well as the logic of geographical distribution. Given that achieving this desire for equality is difficult, the most important element is competitiveness. CP11 seems the most competitive, which then gives a stronger voice to all. Thank you.
Greg J Martin
I need more coffee, I have now made two mistakes. The earlier comment on this map should have read that I prefer map C11 - THIS map. C11. I support C11, not C12. If there's any way you can remove my other comment, I'd appreciate it.
Penney Howe
This map creates too much distance for any one candidate to travel in order to properly meet the people that they represent. You owe it to the people in the great state of Montana that they personally are able to know their Congressmen/women.
Greg J Martin
I inadvertently put a favorable comment on C12. I don't know how to remove it but I strongly prefer C12. We need at least one competitive district and a map that respects tribal reservation boundaries. I support C12.
Emily Qiu
I support CP11 because it creates a competitive district for both parties, which is one of the key purposes of this process. CP11 also keeps Gallatin County together in one district. Gallatin county faces similar challenges and issues as the fastest growing county and has integrally connected communities and businesses.
Phill Christiansen
I disagree with CP11. Kalispell should not be considered as a part of Eastern Montana. Please revise.
Wendy Colleen Fox
I support CP 11. It provides for competitive districts, which I thought was one of the goals of this process. Helena is rightly in the western district where it belongs. Please work together and choose CP11. Thanks!
Alexander Blackmer
I strongly support CP11. Of all 4 maps (though CP12 and CP13 should not be considered, since they were introduced too late in the process), it comes closest to meeting all the Commission's agreed-upon criteria.
Of all the maps, CP11 is the most successful in not unduly favoring a political party. By creating one competitive district, it will encourage common-sense candidates and reduce polarization.
CP11 splits only one county and does so in a way that does not split any communities or towns. It keeps all federal reservations whole. It keeps both Gallatin and Lewis and Clark counties in the Western District, in alignment with their cultural and economic interests.
Shibu Arens
This map is the fairest proposal. It achieves the goals the commission agreed on: to not unduly split communities of interest, not favor one political party over the other, minimize splitting counties and towns, and consider competitiveness in at least one district. This proposal follows our constitution and will be fair for Montanans. I urge the commissioners to adopt proposal CP 11.
Nick Lockridge
Now this is the FAIREST map I've seen. Please adopt Map no. 11. It keeps the traditional union-centric communities in southwest MT intact. Other maps would divide our voices and as a union member, that's unacceptable. Flathead is one of the fastest growing areas in the state and will be changing a lot in the next 10 years, so it makes way more sense for candidates of both parties (in 2 districts) to be learning about and earning the vote of the Flathead districts. Don't kill the union voice just to make the conservatives in the Flathead feel safe for another 10+ years. Map 11 is the Fairest of them all.
Gina Himes Boor
I prefer this map (CP 11) to CP 12. It creates a more competitive district and keeps communities of interest intact such as Gallatin and Park counties. It keeps Lewis and Clark county in the western district and only splits Flathead county. It best achieves the commission's stated goals by minimizing splitting communities of interest and counties/cities/etc, and achieves equal population size and competitiveness (Cook PVI Score R+5).
Lori Ruch
Please do not adopt CP 11. CP 11 is a non-competitive, gerrymandered map. I don’t like cp11 because it puts most of Flathead county in the east. CP11 is not in the best interest of Montanans. Support CP 12 instead, CP 12 is a terrible map.
Kaitlyn Ruch
I am STRONGLY opposed to CP 11. CP 11 is a non-competitive, gerrymandered map. I don’t like cp11 because it puts most of Flathead county in the east. CP11 is not in the best interest of Montanans. Support CP 12 instead.
Deborah Wilson
I dislike this map because Flathead County should be kept intact and in the West. None of Flathead County should be in the east.
Amanda Lockridge
This map keeps Helena and Lewis and Clark County together with Butte Silver Bow and Jefferson Counties. There are several communities of interest kept intact by doing so.
In addition, this map is one of two under consideration (CP 13 is another) that draws a truly competitive district. This will ensure that all voices are heard in our elections.
John Mohar
Montana needs a redistricting like this to make at least one of the Representative seats competitive.
Charles Denowh
CP 11 is not a competitive map because it dilutes communities of interest. Candidates are more competitive when their constituencies share similarities and live in relative proximity to each other, and when the local economies are influenced by the same trends. Flathead County has little in common with Eastern Montana, forcing candidates to run on a different set of issues in the far-flung corners of this district—this is not a recipe for competitiveness.
Elizabeth Moore
Dear Commissioners, thank you for doing this difficult but important work. I urge you to adopt CP-11. I opposed CP-10.
Ryan Bowman
I don't like this -- Flathead and Glacier Counties should be in the Western District. We are very different places with different issues than Eastern MT.
Andi Kucirek
All of Flathead county should be included in the western district.
Mark Richard Rehder
Please keep Park County in District 1. Park and Gallatin Counties are historically and economically connected and should remain this way. The current rapid growth only increases this connection. I am in favor of of CP 11.
Hannah Schweitzer
I like this map the best. It keeps everything competitive and keeps gallatin country whole and Helena stays in the western district.
Mike Volesky
Of the maps left, this is the fairest. It is unrealistic to expect that no counties will be split. This map results in competitive districts.
Janna Lauver
I am in favor of CP 11 because it keeps districts like mine intact with the communities nearby that feed its growth. I live in Three Forks and my husband and kids go to work and school here while I commute to Bozeman 4-5 days a week. Map CP11 Keeps Gallatin and Park counties together, which have strong and longtime economic and cultural ties to one another.
It keeps the resort areas of Big Sky, Whitefish, and West Yellowstone in the same district. These resort communities have shared interests, challenges, and understanding.
Creates one competitive district that any political party can win.
It empowers Native voters because the competitive district will have a reservation. This means that every candidate will have to rely on Native votes to win the district, thus ensuring minority voices are heard.
Thank you.
Hugo Sindelar
I support CP 11 because it creates the most competitive district that minimizes splitting of towns and counties and does not unduly favor one political party. CP 11 keeps communities of interest in tact especially Gallatin County.
Nicki Jimenez
I strongly support CP 11. This map creates competitive districts that do not unduly favor a political party. CP 11 minimizes splitting of towns and counties and it considers communities of interest. Finally, CP 11 it is the best proposal for Indigenous voices to be heard at the polls. Please advance CP 11.
Kathleen Burt
I strongly disagree with Map 11. Historically, when Montana had two districts, (1913-1993) the interests, issues and culture of the east and west sides were very different, just as they are today. Nothing has changed in the geography or economy of the state that might justify changing the districting as drastically as Map 11 proposes. The rough use of the continental divide was--and is--a reasonable dividing line, and splitting of counties should be limited as much as possible. As to "fairness" to both parties, history itself is evidence that Montanans are fiercely independent when it comes to party-line voting. Haven't we just completed 16 years with Democrat governors before the present Republican? How about the numbers and numbers of years Senator Daines' seat was held by Democrats? The pendulum swings back and forth and Montanans have had their favorite sons and daughters from both parties. Using the results of the 2020 election to draw illogical and contrived districting lines makes no sense in the long-term picture. Map 12 is my first choice, Map 10 my second and Map 13 my third. I totally object to Map 11. Thank you
Connie Dale
Terrible map! Flathead should not be put in the East, not only does it not keep communities of interest together, it also would cause our Congressperson to travel vast distances. The Canadian border should be of a more equal split and the same goes for the Native American tribes. This map only has one tribe, the Salish Kootenai, in the West. This map SHOULD NOT even be considered.
Debbie M Churchill
I don’t like Map CP11 because it splits Flathead county and puts it in the east, which is ridiculous! I completely agree with the comments of Edward Salmon!
Doris Fischer
CP 11 comes closest to reaching the stated goal of fair and competitive districts. I also think this option best respects regional similarities in economy, culture, and service systems.
James Holbrook
I support CP 11.This map keeps the union-dense communities of Helena, Butte, Deer Lodge and Anaconda in one, politically competitive legislative district without favoring one party over the other. Helena used to be in the Western District and should remain so going forward.
Charlotte Freeman
I support CP11 because it provides the most competitive congressional election districts. Keeping Park and Gallatin counties together is crucial, as (sadly) Park county is becoming a satellite population to Bozeman, and have similar political interests. It's really important that we have 2 districts that are competitive, so that Montana will finally have honest representation in the House.
Jim Larson
Dividing Communities doesn't make sense. Plan 11 creates a competitive Western seat than can be won by either party. Plan 12, as history has shown, creates an unfair advantage to one party. Congressional boundaries should be fair to both parties.
Jacob Foster
I support Map 11. Of the finalist maps, only 11 does the best job of keeping community intact and not unduly favoring a political party. I think this is extremely important for voting blocs in Lewis and Clark County, Gallatin County, and Pondera County. Furthermore, several of the maps put entire counties that have historically never been in an Eastern District or that wouldn't otherwise be considered Eastern in the East. Therefore, I support Map 11.
Thank you for your time and for your consideration during this process.
David Ingram
CP11 is the worst map of those being considered. By exiling the economic and healthcare hub in the northern end of the district in the east while simultaneously reducing the tribal representation to one entity, make it singularly unsatisfactory. The commonalities of this area include Glacier Park and Flathead Lake which bind us to our tribal neighbors in their management. This, combined with isolation by mountains, highways and weather from the eastern part of the state make splitting the Flathead and CP11 untenable. Please consider CP12 the best compromise
Alan wilson
Just say NO, this is terrible putting the Flathead in the east makes no sense.
Courtenay Sprunger
While I agree that splitting any county is not ideal, I believe splitting Flathead County creates a disproportionate disadvantage for our region, which is already notably more isolated than other counties under consideration for a split. Given its isolation and heavy reliance on tourism as an economy driver, the Flathead County must have a singular advocate focus on the area's overall considerations. Splitting out Kalispell and placing it in the Eastern District means that this community is certain to be underserved. Historically, when we had two districts, Kalispell and the entirety of the Flathead Valley was in the Western District. Kalispell aligns with the industries of the west and far removed from the eastern side of the state in comparison with a county such as Gallatin, which is on the Interstate and only two hours from either Helena or Billings. All Montanans deserve to have a voice and the opportunity to work with their congressional delegation - I believe CP-11 unfairly isolates Kalispell but regionally and economically. I believe CP-10, CP-12 or CP-13 strike a better compromise but CP-11 is an unacceptable solution.
Brian R Globerman
I support CP11 because it achieves population equality, keeps Gallatin County and its cities whole, keeps Gallatin and Park Counties in the new district (Bozeman and Livingston have similar interests), and provides for more competitive Congressional elections. Please adopt CP11.
Cindy Gockel
This is the map I would encourage the commissioners to pick as it keeps Gallatin County whole and keeps Gallatin and Madison County in the same district. The economies of both counties are fueled by outdoor recreation and tourism. Keeping them whole and in the same district keeps these two communities of interest together.
Clinton Nagel
I still think that map 11 is the most representative of what has been drawn. Gallatin County should not be split up as it is the fastest growing county in the state and it has much in common throughout the entirety of the county. To split the county would only lose the voice of many similar citizens and residents who have a lot in common.
Theron Nelson
Clearly gerrymandered to favor one political party. Is not compact. Is ridiculous to have Kalispell in East while Helena and Bozeman are in West.
Virginia F. Leitner
From what I understand, Map 11 is the best choice for fairer representation.
James E Buechle
I prefer to split the state in half as shown on some of the original maps I would pray you folks making the decision as to where the division is it be as the law states. I would also pray your decision be made with the utmost integrity. I also would not want to see any county split. Thank you
Eric Holm
Map CP11 is the most fair and even map of them all. Gallatin County should not be split because north and south Gallatin are so economically connected and together an important economic driver. Lewis & Clark belongs in the western district, not with Yellowstone County and rural eastern Montana. Please adopt CP11.
Layne Rolston
I am writing to voice my support of apportionment map 11. (Congressional proposal 13 would actually be my first choice.) I believe these map options most pointedly address Montana's districting and apportionment objectives and have the best chance to ensure congressional representation that reflects the state's mix of voting interests. The decision of the committee will influence Montana's economic, cultural and environmental direction for years to come and fair representation of all of our citizen's priorities depends on your decision. Thanks for your work on this important task and for your sincere consideration and reflection as you reach a final decision.
Ruth Wardell
Violates MT Code 5-1-115 and the federal Voters Act. This is gerrymandering.
Jerry Gilbert
This is the best map for everyone
Ronald Jerryson
Lewis and Clark and Jefferson counties should be included in the western half. Helena communities have more in common with communities west of the divide.
Mark McKinley
CP 11 is the better map.
Marjory McClaren
CP11 is the best choice. It gives both parties the opportunity to elect an official from their party. Without this map Democrats would not have any opportunity of being represented which represents nearly half of the state's population. Also, if a Republican is elected, maybe they will be more moderate if that species is not totally extinct.
Elizabeth Paddock
I support this map.
Michael Noonan
NO to CP 11. Stop trying to make Montana into California. With a map like this, that is what will happen. Keep Flathead county together and in the western district, which is EXACTLY WHERE IT IS LOCATED -- in WESTERN Montana. Does anyone like CA? Does anyone favoring this map look at CA as an example to aspire to? Giving the party that destroyed that state power here is suicide. I don't care about competitiveness for democrats (marxists). All they do is take and destroy. Move to CA. Go enjoy the fruits of the destruction caused by your voting: power outages, water shortages, ruined schools, high crime and defunded police, overcrowding from an open border, zoning codes meant to end the suburbs, homelessness and tent cities, high taxes, businesses shut down because of covid policies, and open drug use in the public. None of that should ever come to Montana. Vote AGAINST CP 11.
Edward Salmon
This map is unacceptable because it divides Flathead County in a way that can only be explained by Democratic political self-interest. The reason Montana decided to create a bipartisan commission was to ensure that districts were drawn on the basis of legally recognized principles like shared community interests and compactness, not partisan politics. Flathead County functions as a unit culturally and commercially, with thousands commuting every day between its cities, and it also has important commercial ties with Missoula. As Rocky Mountain counties that contain parts of premier National Parks, Flathead County shares far more interests with Gallatin County than it does with the plains of Eastern Montana, and both belong in the western district.
Christopher Shoup
I support Map 11, keeping communities compact and joined, rather than splitting towns and counties is far superior a way to have valid congressional districts.
Jeanette Copeland
After viewing all the submitted maps, I think CP11 is the best choice, altho I dislike splitting counties. Also strongly oppose any elected officials from having any input on this issue as it would absolutely be biased toward their party. We, the People are the ones that should help this commission make a final decision!
Rebeca C Bauder
I support CP 11. It seems like the most fair option.
Donald H Bauder
I support CP 11, District 1, for dividing up the electoral map of Montana. It's the only choice for an attempt at a fair election.
susan d rosen
map 11 gives everyone a fair chance. It makes the most sense
Sam Kuhlin
I don’t like dividing counties, but I’ve lived in both Kalispell and Bozeman and dividing the Flathead makes more sense than dividing the Gallatin. Whitefish ideology is far different than Kalispell, so having separate congressional representation is actually quite sensible.
Don Kaltschmidt
This map is a clear gerrymander… so obvious. The people of Montana will not sit down for this. Flathead out of the west ridiculous!
Jennifer Crenshaw Pryor
I support proposal 11
Amy Olson
In today’s hyper partisan environment we need more than ever strategies to create competitiveness, ensuring candidates need all our votes. This is why I support Map 11. It meets the Commission adopted criteria and goals, meaning: 1) be as close to equal in population as possible, 2) be compact & contiguous while minimizing dividing communities of interest, cities, towns, counties, and reservations, 3) comply with the Voter Rights Act, and finally and most importantly, 4) not unduly favor a political party and take into account competitiveness, ensuring candidates need to work for our votes.
Emma Nguyen
I support CP11 as it does not split Gallatin County and keeps Gallatin and Park County together which is important since the two communities are deeply intertwined. CP 11 would also create a more competitive district, providing the best option for Indigenous voices to be heard.
Robert Hunter
Only Proposal 11 creates a competitive district for Montana. Proposal 11 splits one county (Flathead) but no towns to ensure perfect population equality between districts. Proposal 10 splits Gallatin County and the small towns of Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway, while moving Helena to District 2 unlike any proposal thus far, and would gerrymander the state, creating two safe seats for Republicans.
Albert Pendergrass
I prefer this map as Gallatin is not split between districts and Park and Gallatin counties are in the same district. Residents in Park and Gallatin have many common issues and concerns. There are many of us who thru residency, work, shopping and recreation have vested interests in both counties.
Mike Fouhy
Map CP-11 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.
Kenneth Cook
I support Map 11 because it looks fair to both parties. It’s not giving either side an advantage.
C. Ochsner
Map 11 is my choice of the 2 maps left. I oppose Map 10.
Tom Woodgerd
Map 11 is the most fair in that it provides a balanced approach for both political parties.
Jack Marshall
I dislike this map because it’s not representative of Montana. Montana is a vast rural, for the most part, land. This map is trying to put the two fastest growing counties together in the same district.
The worst part is it is chopping up Flathead County in order to keep the population even.
There is a much better map that should be considered.
https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/e0a5c47f-4434-47ff-b0a9-01233ba3a87b
This map does not split any counties and the population is within 50 people.
Cathy Pasquarello
I support Map 11. We need fair, competitive districts.
Karen Marshall
I dislike this map because it’s carving up Flathead County. It’s removing Native Americans voice from District 1. It’s gerrymandering at its worst. There is a much better map that should be considered.
https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/e0a5c47f-4434-47ff-b0a9-01233ba3a87b
This map does not split any counties and the population is within 50 people.
DAVID SASLAV
I support Map #11 as it creates a competitive district winnable by either party for the foreseeable future. Map #13 is also a good compromise choice as well, from my perspective.
Michael Videon
I am in support of proposal 11.
jeff Meide
I support Proposal 11
Joyce Huff
I dislike Map 11. We are not Eastern Montana.
Wendy Pierce
please keep map 11- I live in Gallatin County right on the Bozeman city line- being in the Eastern Montana district would not represent my needs or priorities.
Ashley Shoemaker, MSW, LAC
I dislike Map 11 because it creates a District with communities that share no interest between Western Montana and Eastern Montana.
Ashley Shoemaker, MSW, LAC
I dislike Map 11 because it is a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines!
Ashley Shoemaker, MSW, LAC
I dislike Map 11 because it isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities.
Ashley Shoemaker, MSW, LAC
I dislike Map 11 because, 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.
Jim Phillips
The stated objectives are keeping district populations as equal as possible, ensuring districts are compact and contiguous, and protecting minority voter rights through compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act. In short, maintaining balance and fostering fair representation. On the whole, map 11 seems best suited to support said goals with well-balanced populations and like-for-like communities together.
Rebecca Cox
I believe that map CP11 offers the most fair and representative division of our state. We are diverse and a;; deserve to have multiple views honored. Map CP11 offers the best chance of doing that plus it meets more of the established criteria.
Laurel Rhodes
Map 11 does the best job of providing a competitive electoral framework, with even population numbers, while keeping communities together.
Tony Loya
REJECT map 11. It is gerrymandering at its best. Comments mention liberals and conservatives. Go without this and political parties. Stick with the fairer split in numbers. Map 11 gives a much less representation of Native Americans in the West. It gives a much bigger difference in the White population between the two districts. It is double the difference from Map 10. Reject 11. GO WITH 10 make it a fair distribution.
VIRGINIA MILLER
Map 11 is the most competitive choice, and does the best job at keeping communities, counties, and economic interest areas intact. From ranching and agriculture to tourism to developing cities, this map ensures that many interest groups are not split between the two districts, therefore ensuring that they have a voice.
Cheryl Bourguignon
Map 11 is the best option as both political parties have an opportunity to win. Thus this map is a better choice for fair representation.
Bruce Schwartz
CP 11 seems like the more equitable distribution of population and does not split major communities.
Deborah Wilson
This map carves out specific party districts and do not comply with Montana Statutes and constitutional requirements.
You must follow the law in this regard which is 5-1-115 (MCA).
Allow no split counties.
Deborah M. Wilson
P O Box 399
Kila, Montana 59920
dmwilson@acwei.com
Colette Daigle-Berg
Commissioners~Thank you so much for doing this important and challenging work. I am from Gardiner. 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.
George Dawson
In terms of population divide among ethnicities, this does not seem fair to the Native AM population by a staggering percentage compared to the rest of them. Neither of these maps are good, but it the law states that it can't be a political decision, so it terms of population/ethnicity division, this map unfairly targets one groups representation
Gordon Wallace
This map does not serve to keep communities of interest intact. It intentionally splits off Kalispell into the east with Gallatin and Whitefish in the west with the only reason being competitiveness. While this would obviously be more likely to create one competitive district, and competitiveness is a goal that the commission is authorized to consider, competitiveness, and all other enumerated goals, are necessarily secondary to the required criteria. Setting up a district for the sole purpose of unduly benefiting the Democratic party, while splitting up communities of interest and making the map less contiguous is improper. As such, CP10 should be adopted instead of CP11.
Wendy Lynn Riley
I support Map 11. While not perfect, it keeps Gallatin County whole, plus includes Park County, which makes sense as there are numerous connections between Gallatin & Park Counties. I live in Park County but do much of my shopping, health, and other business in Gallatin County. Also, the deviation is less dramatic as compared with Map 10 (-1 vs 7). Map 11 is preferred by Western Native Voice, which is important to me that our Native Tribes feel they have a fairer voice than Map 10. This map provides the best chance for fair representation.
Jackson Smith Ranch
Seems like it's drawn to give each party one seat. Not going to be a competitive race for either seat. Agriculture is essentially only important in District 2 and District 1 is for non-agricultural politics. Flathead County farming has nothing in common with Eastern MT agriculture. This CP isolates the Flathead Nation from the other 7 tribes in Montana and weakens the Native Vote for District 1.
Kathleen RAkela
MAp 13 keeps the two large university towns together in one district. The towns of Bozeman and Missoula should not be in the same district due to the demographic of having most of the college students (including Butte) in the same district. The college towns need to be in separate districts.
Bruce Bell
I support CP11 as the best map for two districts in Montana. It does not divide Gallatin county into urban and rural areas. It is the better choice for fair representation.
Lori Yurga
I support CP11 as the most equitable choice for Montana. It does not split Gallatin county and keeps Lewis and Clark county in the west.
Karen L Morris
I believe CP11 provides the most equitable opportunity for representation in the state and is preferable because of this.
Moffatt Prescott
This map best represents a fair and just breakdown of voting districts. Clean lines that do not split counties and voting centers up unfairly. Allowing neighbors and communities to have a more balanced say in politics.
Ann Karp
While this was not one of my preferred choices, it's the best map left. I support this map because it does not unduly favor one political party and is the most competitive.
James C Frey
I think CP11 gives the best chance for equal representation within the state and does not divide the large Galatine County
Eric Grove
I support adopting cp11 as it is a more fair representation of the current and historical differences between western and eastern Montana.
Alan B Leech
CP11 seems to me the worst choice. CP 10 is a better representation of MT population, and doesn't split large communities. CP11 would be worse in keeping populations of relatively like minded thinking together and is more divisive in collection of ballots. Please do not choose CP11.
Alan B Leech
I believe that CP11 is the better map since it keeps large communities intact and allows for more fair assessment of relatively like populations.
Ann Haggett
I prefer Map #11 for the following reasons:
--It comes the closest to providing competitive redistricting
--It allows communities of interest to participate together, i.e. The Golden Triangle and the Highline retain their joint agricultural interests/needs. Likewise Bozeman and Missoula are communities of similar interests in large student populations, extreme rapid growth and related housing crisis. They should share their interests/needs in one specific district.
--While neither map allows all of Montana's Native Tribes to participate in representation with one voice, Map #11 is thought to give Montana's recognized tribes a more fair voice (as per Western Native Voice published post).
I urge you to adopt Map #11.
James C Frey
CP11 gives the State an equal chance for representation and does the least dividing of areas with like interests
Charles Davis
Please select redistrictring proposal CP11. Best division of population. No splitting of towns. Best balance of political parties.
D Curtis Starr Jr
CP11 is the fairest division of Montana of the two finalists. Please choose CP11 for redistricting.
Leslie Millar
I favor this map because it is fairer than the other map, which favors republican control of the state by gerrymandering. Please vote for #11.
Marcie Roe
Kudos to those who worked so hard to solve the redistricting of Montana's new voting map. I personally favor CP11. I simply find it the most "FAIR."
Tracy Donaldson
Of the two commission-proposed maps, I prefer CP11. Mainly due to the fact that it includes both Helena and Bozeman in the western district while keeping all counties but Flathead intact (included in a single district).
Teddy Roe
I opt for Proposal 11 as the most fair configuration for 2 U. S. Congressional districts for Montana. It appears to do the best job of making each proposed district consistently competitive and reflective of the State's natural historic voting patterns.
Shelley Thurmond
I oppose CP 10 since it is blatant gerrymandering.
Shelley Thurmond
I support CP 11 because it is the more fair of the two remaining options.
Candace Dyer
Looking at the proposal, it is clear number 11 is the best as it provides cohesive boundries for towns and counties. It is important to keep our local communities together. Our elections should be about providing as fair a playing field as possible.
Julie Sirrs
I strongly favor CP11. It's fair to both Republicans and Democrats in Montana, allowing for a competitive election for at least one of the seats.
Walt K Weissman
The goal is as close to fair as possible even knowing that none of these is perfect. CP11 is clearly the fairest.
anita brawner/ brian fraker
This map is not good because it places republican areas in the east district and democrat areas in the west district. Clear gerrymandering. Also almost no native influence in west district. Possible lawsuit?
James Melstad
I strongly support CP11. Derek Skees complained about the gerrymandering that one of the proposals included, but including L&C County in the eastern district is clearly another form of gerrymandering. Placing L&C Co in the eastern district would put a lock on full Republican control of the State. The currently Republican party does not resemble the party of 25 years ago and cannot be relied upon to rule fairly as demonstrated by the recent legislative session and subsequent alarming behavior. I believe that many voters were deceived in 2020 by deceptive late campaign ads and by the silly "Defund the Police" movement that was very poorly named and was never popular by any voters in MT. Now that we can see clearly what the Montana Republican party is about, it would make no sense whatsoever to go with CP10. Progressive and Independent voters would be locked out for another 10 years. I am a 69-year old life-long Independent voter raised in a conservative Republican family in SD. The current Republican party represents only the worst aspects of the same party of 25-30 years ago. Thank you for the opportunity to comment!
William Hanson
Democracy means one person one vote with an across the State opportunity to have it be weighed equally, so I favor #11.
Fred L Longhart
Option 11 is the only option that will give Democrats a chance to be represented. The other option favors the Republicans so much that nearly half of the state's population will have no representation in congress.
Ruth Weissman
I prefer CP11
Robyn Morrison
Of the two #10 and #11, #11 is a much fairer choice. I live in a gerrymandered district outside of East Helena but I have to vote in a gerrymandered district that slices through Republican areas and always elects Republicans. It will be nice to have my votes matter. Also, I respect the opinions of our Native American leaders. We need to make sure their votes matter.
Michele McMullen
I prefer this as it splits up less communities than option #10
James M Pappenfus
I like districting as on plan 11. It is much more fair
Robert Bukantis
I support map 11 as the best of the 2 remaining options. I think it is best to leave Helena in with Western MT. I like that this map, at least for the most part, does not split communities.
Christine McKay
I'm in favor of CP11. It represents the people of Montana more fairly and gives everyone a better chance of being heard, including our Tribal communities. It isn't a good plan to further divide our communities and have unbalanced representation. Please settle on CP11 for the benefit of all Montanans.
Edward Dickman
The districts in this map are less compact than CP10, and thus it fails the Constitutional criteria.
Further, this map was clearly drawn to favor the Democrat party by removing as many Republican voters as possible from the western district. Further, this map violates the goal of keeping communities of interest intact by carving much of Flathead county out of the western district. Kalispell has more interests in common with Whitefish than it does with the eastern district. This map's only goal is blindingly obvious: to give Democrats as much advantage as possible and thus it fails the goals for districting.
Donna Williams
Neither map is ideal. Even though map 11 puts only one reservation in district 1, it still provides more voice to Native voters than the other map. (I almost wish we could turn the map drawing over to Artificial Intelligence instead of partisan human ignorance. Oh well.) I agree with the advice of Western Native Voice. CP11 is the better choice.
Margaret Gorski
I think Map 11 comes closest to my concerns:
1. Ensure that our two party system works and people benefit from having a fair fight between ideas.
2. Honor existing jurisdictional lines.
3. Recognize the Tribes as sovereign nations and that they provide a unique voice that deserves to be heard and fairly represented.
4. The district shares common economies so that the Representative can advocate for those industries fairly and not pit one against the other.
5. Don’t draw lines where we end up pitting rural issues against urban issues. Issues common to each demographic should have an opportunity for fair representation.
Lawrence Maxwell
I live in Kalispell.... Eastern Montana and Kalispell should vote together. I suppose map 11 which allows that.
Mildred Whalen
I think CP11 will be the fairest choice for voters.
Vicki Blakeman
Both of the proposals are heavily weighted to the majority party in Montana. CP #11 is a far more equitable division. Gallatin County should not be divided the way it has been on the other map. Please choose CP #11 as the fairer of the two options. It is within the competitive range of the Commission adopted criteria and goals. Thanks.
Eliot A Strommen
Additional comment if I may. As for Livingston & Bozeman being locked at the hip, do yourself a favor and google Bozeman Real Estate Group website and see what they have to say about that, especially in 2020. They list six (6) reasons that Livingston "ISN"T" like Bozeman. Blows the argument that Livingston is a bedroom community of Bozeman to pieces. Map 11 isn't it.
Katheryn S. Bark
I favor Map 11 but I do support keeping all of Flathead county in it. I don't think it is in the best interest of Montana citizens to split a county up in the maps. I feel that will be confusing for voters and also for the staff of the county office affected.
William J Cardin
I support map 11 or CP11 as the most appropriate choice.
Eliot Strommen
So, Park County borders Meagher, Stillwater, Carbon, and Sweetgrass counties but we are to assume that all the folks in Park have nothing in common with those counties because of, well... Livingston! Do yourself a favor and log on to the "Bozeman Real Estate Group Website" and see what those folks say about Livingston back in 2020. Blows the "Livingston is Bedroom community of Bozeman" argument to pieces. And arguably, as time goes on Livingston will have less and less in common with Bozeman simply because Bozeman is pricing itself out of "Montana".
Who needs to drive to Bozeman (especially over the pass in winter) to buy a $100 dollar hamburger, or whatever? Billings is a nice, (and arguably safer) drive away on I- 90. Just saying. And regarding Bozeman being "split up", take a look at the last 2010 -2022 redistricting map for the MT legislature and you'll see Bozeman has no less than four (4) different districts. Found that interesting. And finally, I suspect many of the folks in Lewis & Clark County (including Helena) would argue that they have more in common with Cascade County (Great Falls) than say.....Deer Lodge, or Anaconda, or Missoula (I-15 & I-90). Map #11 really doesn't stand up to honest scrutiny!
Debra Miller
Map 11 is a more fair and competitive division that will better allow voters to elect representatives who will reflect their views. It is vital that Montana's closely divided constituencies have an even playing field and each person’s vote is counted.
Laura Cater-Woods
while not perfect, CP 11 comes closest to a fair and competitive redistricting. Support
John Bundy
I prefer this map because although it divides one county, it appears to keep communities together rather than split them for political advantage.
Jim Hamilton
CP 11 makes much more sense for keeping common interests together. Splitting eastern Gallatin County, West Yellowstone and Big Sky from other tourism based areas (as in CP 10)sets up poor representation for residents.
William Michael O'Leary
I support Map 11 as the most equitable and representative of the interests of western Montana. This part of our state, with the exception of Billings/Yellowstone County, is experiencing, and likely will continue to, the most growth which warrants adoption of this map.
Daniel Volkmann
I support CP11. CP11 is a better compromise and more fairly represents current community divides, maintains competitiveness, and adheres to historical boundaries. This plan closely follows the historical precedent of the 1980s Congressional districts, moving only two counties to reach perfect population equality.
Brianne Harrington
CP-11 is the more equitable choice.
Jesse Mahugh
CP 11 seems to make the most sense historically and for common regional interests.
Connie Dale
Do NOT split Flathead County, vote NO re: Map 11. It fails to keep communities of interest intact and it would force our Congressperson to travel vast distances. Follow the Montana Law, MCA 5-1-115! MAP CP1 was the best and most fair.
Nicole Schubert
This splits Flathead county and has FOUR tribes on one side! This will create a BIG disadvantage for the voices of the tribes. Please split so two are in West and three in East. That way the split is more even and the House Reps have to listen to them because their vote counts more and it will keep us from going to the extremes. The Rep will have to listen. Also, I live in the Flathead and want to be represented as well! The Rep won't need to come up here on the East and same on the West. We'll be ignored! Not fair! Also, you DON'T NEED TO SPLIT THESE COUNTIES to get even populations so why do it unless you're trying to gerrymander? Please put two biggies on each side: Galatin on East with Yellowstone and Flathead contingently nice on West, with Missoula. Also, keep Glacier over on West and the tribe. THIS will allow for better representation by the Rep. The Rep will be able to better represent a district that has similar needs, bringing it to the center, hearing the voices of the minorities, like the tribes. Please consider such a new map if possible. Thank you.
Eliot Strommen
Talk about gerrymandering! Map 11 is it. So..Park County borders Sweetgrass, Stillwater, Meagher, and Carbon counties and yet Livingston is too good for them and needs to be with Bozeman? Park County is not just Livingston folks. Arguably, in the coming years Livingston will gradually have less and less in common with Bozeman simply because Bozeman is pricing itself out of Montana!
Interstate 90 does runs to Billings which is seasonably safer than fighting the pass to Bozeman to buy a $400 dollar hamburger! And, pretty sure a large portion of Lewis & Clark folks would say their county blends in more with Cascade (Great Falls) than say....Deer Lodge, or Missoula, especially those East of the divide. Finally, Bozeman folks argue against splitting up the town. Understand the that argument. But, do me a favor and go look at the last Montana legislature redistricting for 2010 to 2022. Bozeman has four (4) different districts. Just found that interesting. Thanks for allowing my comments.
Geraldine M. Jennings
CP 11 creates a more balanced population, considers our Native American population and splits fewer counties. Billings and Great Falls share more like values and should be in the same district.
Eve Holthausen
I support proposal 11 because it is fair...
Chris Pope
The future district map should offer the voters of Montana a balanced set of choices for elected representation that gives the best opportunity for a robust discussion and debate on the issues of the day. Map 11 -- while not perfect -- offers the better solution by honoring existing communities and more carefully addressing the urban-rural diversity of the state -- allowing citizens to feel that their vote will better contribute to economic, social and environmental issues facing their communities. I strongly recommend adoption of Map 11 to move Montana forward.
Wanda Thomas
I prefer CP11, our State would benefit from a competitive more balanced redistricting map
Charles D Jennings
I support map CP 11 as the fairest option. It splits fewer counties and cities the CP 10. It puts Great Falls and Billings, cities with the same character, in the same district.
Eric Berg
CP 11 is the best option, it reflects historical voting and best represents the voters wishes for a fair election.
Karen Zackheim
Map 11 is the best of the options provided. I urge you to select this plan.
Hugh Zackheim
Map 11 does the best job of providing a competitive electoral framework, with even population numbers, while keeping communities together.
Amy Spicka
I support #11, it more evenly distributes the state population wise.
Bob Carter
Ditto what so many others have said about creating one competitive district. This is my choice.
Lincoln Roberts
Map 11 looks like the right way to split the state.
Sandra Koness
Proposal 11 is the more equitable of the two, splitting one county but no towns. It makes more sense to divide Flathead County rather than Gallatin. Farming is important in Flathead County as well as in the East and deserves representation.
Bruce Peterson
My preference is to put similar together- all rural together, all cities together, all reservations together, all the “Boot” (as per previous governor description) of Montana together, and then still be contiguous. IMPOSSIBLE, but think Proposal 11 fits better. Do not like split counties, whether Flathead or Gallatin, but Gallatin more drastic so choose Proposal 11. Proposal 11 also gets more reservations in one district.
Diane Rewerts
Map 11 clearly is the most equitable for the state based on population and historical practice.
Logan Jackson
Map 11 offers a competitive district. Considering the size of Montana and its counties, creating equitable maps that follow all boundaries, geographical and political, is just not possible.
Jeremy Gingerich
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". 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. They should be representative of the people and the landform.
Mary Hall
I support Map CP 11 as the most equitable option.
Walter Mallard
I'm in favor of map 11. This seems like the most fair and competitive map proposed.
Patrick Vaughan
I support CP 11. This map would create two districts that would provide competitive districts for our future elections. This will be Very Important to the future of Montana and the Nation.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Patrick Vaughan
Nancy Dunne Byington
I support choosing CP11 as the fairest distribution of potential voters.
Hank McClain
I support this map
Elizabeth A Colantuono
Please support proposal 11 which draws the more competitive map for our state. Proposal 11 allows more equitable representation of all Montanans without restricting any voter’s right to have a voice at the table.
Colin Mcwilliams
I support proposal 11 for fair districting!
Larry M. Dyer
Proposal 11 splits one county but no towns providing equality between districts. It's fair, equitable and avoids gerrymandering obvious in proposal 10 as evidenced by moving Helena to District 2.
Joni Harman
I believe map 11 is the fair and equitable choice for our new district.
Randy L Kellogg
Proposal 11 is the correct choice.
Daniel Biehl
Map 11 offers a fair and competitive western congressional district that will allow diverse voters to elect representatives who will reflect their views. Given the hyperpartisan clash of political views in our era, it's vital that Montana's closely divided constituencies have an even playing field.
Arthur Bennett
Flathead County is in the far northwest part of the state so why artificially carve out Whitefish? Do not think this map represents the state properly - Map 10 geo East/West is best
Linda W. Pierce
Map 11 is the only choice, because it it more fair in terms of population
David J Jones
I feel that CP11 is the most fair and will provide the best outcome that will follow the will of the majority of voters regardless of their party ties.
Earl R Owens
CP11 has many positive aspects, the greatest is that it provides a competitive district. Without adopting this Proposal almost half of Montana voters will essentially be disenfranchised.
Karen Savage
I prefer Map 11. It achieves equal population, and I believe it best preserves community of interest. With Map 11, Flathead County would be divided, with part going to the Eastern District. This makes sense because farming is an important industry to both areas. There is still a substantial amount of farming in Flathead County, and lately, small, thriving, organic micro-farms have been booming. It makes more sense to divide Flathead County rather than Gallatin (as Map 10 does).
Moira Linam
I support Map 11 because it offers the most equitable balance in representation and ensures that no towns are split. This will help reduce voter confusion and allow all of our voices a chance to be heard.
Dennis James Semprini
CP #11 seems to allow for the fullest representation of more of the citizens of Montana. This is NOT about representation of one party over another. It's about each of us getting a fair equal say in our government.
Robert Skaggs
I definitely think version CP 11 provides the best opportunity for representation for the people of Montana.
Marcus Golz
The only choice that should ever be made in a representative democracy is the one that provides true representation of its citizens.
Cathy Weber
# 11 makes one of the districts competative. #10 allows no real competition anywhere in the state. It seems obvious that #11 is a much more fair option.
Rebecca Weed
Map CP-11 makes the most sense. Splitting Gallatin County would seem like disenfranchising all its inhabitants. (I am one).
Bernadine Gantert
I support CP11.
This plan closely follows the historical precedent of the 1980s Congressional districts, moving only two counties to reach perfect population equality.
As the community of Bozeman continues to face rising housing costs, more and more Montana workers and families find themselves commuting from Belgrade, Gallatin Gateway, and Livingston to Bozeman for work. CP 11 ensures this critical economic connection isn’t divided by district lines.
This map keeps Jefferson and Broadwater counties together with Helena, making sure that most Montana workers are kept in the same district as their workplace.
This map keeps all of the Rocky Mountain Front, Golden Triangle, and Hi Line intact, where agriculture remains such a vital part of the local economy. Rural interests are an important part of Montana's diversity and heritage that should be kept together for a stronger voice in Congress.
Doris Brill
Please use map 11. This looks like the most fair and competitive map proposed.
JoAnn Hanson
I support map CP-11. It creates the most equitable congressional districts for Montanans and also unites communities where people live and work such as Lewis & Clark, Jefferson and Broadwater counties.
Joseph L O'Rourke
This map does not represent the true political makeup of the voters of Montana. It does not acknowledge that Montana is a conservative state with a vast republican majority, but attempts to gerrymander the new congressional district so that leftist democrats have a chance to secure a congressional seat that they most certainly have not earned.
Jeff Morrow
this map seems slightly competitive, whereas the other is not at all
Cheryl Brill
I support map 11. It seems to provide the most bipartisan representation and appears much better than map 10 or the other maps. Please use map 11 for the re-districting plan.
Sandra Carpenter
Even though it looks a little goofy, our big state will have 2 districts and this one makes the most sense in keeping it competitive.
Joanne MacConnachie Morrow
I am in favor of CP 11 because it is the only option of these two that has any hope of having one competitive district! We need a competitive district. Flathead County seems to have more in common (politically) with Eastern Montana, and it's good that Gallatin County is not divided in CP 11.
Ron Cox
Keep Kalispell in west and Helena in east. Exact equal population is less important than geographic cohesiveness and similar interests.
Aaron
CP 11 is a fairer division for our state. CP 10 is a gerrymandered map and goes against the principle of a fair democratic process.
Michael L Miller
Plan 11 results in a competitive district and is the more logical demographic grouping, compared to the other finalist. Please approve plan 11, which will require a competition for voters approval, and is a more fair grouping of our states population.
Karen Knudsen
It's important to keep all of Gallatin County in one district. It's important to keep Bozeman and Livingston together in one district. It's important to keep Broadwater and Jefferson Counties connected to Helena, a community where many of these county residents are employed. It's also important to have a significant Native American presence in District 2 so that candidates serve their needs. It's important to keep mountain recreation together in District 1 and cultural areas together in District 2. Neither of these maps are perfect, but 11 is preferable to 10.
Cynthia Parry
This plan appears to make the most sense. Lewis and Clark County has more in common with the population centers in the western part of the state than the largely agricultural eastern part of the state. If the goal of redistricting is to ensure fair and equitable elections, please choose this option.
Mark Mackin
I want at least one congressional district to be competitive so that the candidates are forced to listen to the entire range of constituent concerns. Otherwise, the candidates end up in safe districts/silos. Safe districts tend to the political extremes and do not produce or encourage a wide range of debate and policy making suffers.
Weat Mattis
CP 11 insures no towns are split which will help reduce voter confusion. It also offers the most equitable balance in representation. SP 10 splits Gallatin County and the small towns of Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway and moves Helena to District 2. This is intended to tip the balance in District 1 and gives the impression of gerrymandering. For this reason, I support CP 11 and oppose CP 10. We need fair and equitable districts, regardless of party affiliation.
Samsara Duffey
I am still unclear why the commission had to add these two options after the initial ones which worked to keep communities of interest together as well as to make competitive districts. While this is slightly different than the option I preferred, I support map #11.
Jon Orton
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 politics into this? This map is more political than our friend, Map 10. 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...
Julie Wester
I'm writing in favor of Map 11, which keeps communities together. The alternative-- Map 10 -- seems to divide Gallatin County for no apparent reason. Given how fast Gallatin County is growing, dividing it up for elections will cause endless unnecessary problems. Thank you all for your service on the redistricting commission. May you choose wisely and well!
Steve Harper
#11 is much better than #10 for Montana
Nancy Volle
I think Map 11 allows the more urban part of the state and the more rural part of the state to elect people who can advocate for the unique needs of urban and rural communities. I realize our largest city, Billings, is in eastern Montana. However when the rest of our bigger cities elect candidates that can advocate for urban needs, Billings will also benefit. Same for people in the more agriculturally oriented parts of western Montana. They will benefit from candidates elected by eastern Montanans. Also, I think Map 11 allows our original people, our Indian population, to better unite for their common interests.
Brad L Arndorfer
I am advocating for CP11. It is the most fair representation of the population split and making a historical effort to fairly balance the districts. It appears Montana's population is growing and this would appear to be the most accurate measure of equal growth in both districts into the future.
Bridget Morse
I support this districting over the alternative.
Linda Hanson
All Montanans deserve a voice and this #11 is most apt to create the fairest representation.
Nellie Smith
I read recently that people like George Soros actually PAY -- yes, PAY -- people to act as influencers online and bombard comment sections to prop up his prized Left. Just thought I'd share that. Sad, I must say, that his sleazy and smelly fingers are touching out beautiful state. But cheating is all his people have. No one in their right mind wants a socialized country. We stand in the way, and so he's pushing. Two words: GULAG ARCHIPELAGO
Chris Thelen
Option #11 best represents all Montanan's, not just one political agenda. We all have the right to have a voice in our state.
Thomas John Schmidt
Map #11 adheres to all of the criteria that the bipartisan commission voted for unanimously at the outset of this process. Map #10 is brazenly uncompetitive.
Nellie Smith
I’ve never seen the dumbed-down education and entitled welfare system on better display than I am right now. Most of you are completely clueless as to what this process is about. What’s more, you don’t want to understand it.
We are NOT supposed to look at how redistricting one certain way will “better serve” the new districts, via “competition,” while you also propose to care about “shared values”… What kind of education have you all had that gives you these ideas? How have you been brought up? Where does this sense of entitlement come from? You want the Democrats to have a better chance to win in the Western district because that will be “better”? Better for whom? The Blackfeet? In your new and final map here, you’ve tossed the importance of “shared values” that you held near and dear a couple short weeks ago. Why? The Blackfeet is a very important and influential tribe – one of the largest IN THE COUNTRY – who likely has “shared values” with Western Montana. Yeah? Will the Blackfeet be “better” in the East? I’m sure they will be fine and the sun will still rise, but the optics are quite poor for the Democrats. One may wonder if you don’t just use the Montana tribes when it benefits you politically…one may wonder…but History SHOWS the truth.
I always thought people communicated what was in their “best interest” at the ballot box. Since when do we have a system manipulated to try and tell everyone what their “best interest” is, to determine the OUTCOME? It seems the Dems want to have the best chance for a pre-determined outcome…this was communicated in neon at a recent hearing…granted, democrat numbers are down and dwindling, thanks to your man installed as “President.” How is that working out for you?
But let’s take a step back here. I’ll try and play along with the Left’s way of thinking, trying to “fix” vote outcomes. Let’s do what we’re NOT supposed to do: let’s look at the 2020 presidential vote and crunch numbers as we decide how to draw two congressional districts in Montana, for the “betterment” of the West. "We’re so thoughtful, we’re like martyrs."
Based on Montana’s 2020 presidential election returns:
Map 11’s Western District has 13 counties that voted majority Republican; average republican vote was at 67% in the 13 counties; total republican votes in these 13 COUNTIES was 92,436; total republican vote in this map’s Western District, DISTRICT-WIDE= 160,410.
Map 11’s Western District has only four counties that voted majority Democrat; average democratic vote was at 55% in the four counties; total democratic votes in these four COUNTIES was 93,355; total democratic vote in this map’s Western District, DISTRICT-WIDE = 147,627.
In the West, which party had the most votes in the 2020 Presidential election returns? Not the Democrats. Mind you, this count doesn’t even reflect the hi-jinks likely played out in places like Missoula, where democratic vote counts are possibly inflated, sketchy at best, fraudulent at worst. Time will bring forth the truth. Anyhow, the Democrats DO NOT have more votes than Republicans in Map 11, based on the 2020 presidential returns. If we want what’s “best” for everyone, and we're going full politic here, wouldn’t the Democrats try to draw a district that reflects MAJORITY concerns, values, etc.? Why force a democrat district when the Western district is NOT democrat?
Let’s take this a step further:
In Map 10, still looking at 2020 presidential returns, the Western District would have 12 majority republican counties, plus a geographically-small republican-majority portion of Gallatin County; DISTRICT-WIDE voter totals for the republicans would be approximately 139,000.
Democrats in Map 10 would still have four majority counties in the Western District, with an approximate total of 113,000 votes DISTRICT-WIDE.
It’s easy to see that the democrats have higher numbers in the Western District when Map 11 is employed and Gallatin County is contained, to the tune of (approximately) 35,000 more votes than can be found when Map 10 is used. However, they still DO NOT have more Democrats than Republicans, now matter how you try and slice the state up to your benefit, it isn’t happening.
But Map 10 offers the western district a better share of the reservations, which the democrats have hitherto argued to be a most important factor.
Map 11 is clearly gerrymandering, which is illegal, which is fraudulent, and this crap needs to stop. Montana is NOT a democratic state. It simply IS NOT. It may change, but if/when it changes, it needs to happen at the ballot box. Fraudulent lines drawn to benefit one party over the other when the parties have already spoken IS FRAUD. It's CHEATING. The democrats have to STOP CHEATING.
Jean Woessner
I favor this map because it is a fairer distribution, and leads to a more competitive district. It groups areas with similarly aligned economic interests together. It does not split cities. Tribal interests are represented in both sections of this map, CP11.
Ken and Peggy Cook
We have to have one of the districts competitive. I don't like Kalispell being in the east, but it appears that is our choices. Helena being alone in the east then we might as well burn our vote, as it will not mean anything.
Dennis Heinzig
Map #11 creates a more competitive solution that will allow all voices to have a chance to be heard.
Jacey Anderson
CP 11 is the fairest map of the two options available. It makes absolutely no sense to move Helena to district two. This option splits the population of Montana evenly and best represents its constituents.
Rebecca Bain Patchell
Yes on CP11.
NO on CP10.
Nancy Winslow
CP 11 represents a fair and balanced division of the state.
JACK R GROVER
CP-11 IS THE ONLY REASONABLE CHOICE
John Simms
CP11 is the more equitable choice.
Andrew W. Lenssen
CP 11 is the only suitable construction of the two districts in Montana. This configuration is not gerrymandered for political gain.
Valerie Watson
CP-11 is my choice as I believe it is the fairest map for all of Montana. It keeps like minded communities together and minimizes splitting of communities as well as gives Montana a competitive district so all voices can be heard and not drowned out by partisan gerrymandering.
Paula Darko-Hensler
This map best represents like constituencies and is the ideal way to make sure fair representation takes place
Beth Perry
I support map CP11. It is a more fair and would represent the wishes of the people more closely.
Catherine Ockey
I support map 11, which I believe creates two competitive districts, creating a more fair election of state representatives.
Marlene Simms
CP11 is the more fair of the two choices. It more closely follows historic precedent and will provide more competitive races for our two Congressional seats
David Tyler
I support CP11. My family has lived in Northern Gallatin County for 35 years. We do not want to see Gallatin County divided and with CP11 we will be in the district aligned with our interests.
Greg Hayes
I support CP 11, which creates a more fair map than CP10. Please do not create a partisan gerrymandered line to favor only republicans, as CP10 does.
David Wilson
I support Map 11 as being the fairest split for both parties, and makes geographic sense. Its the fairest way to split the state while maintaining a logical east/west districts.
Jessica Glebke
Map 11 makes the most sense as it keeps those towns and cities in the Western side of the state with common issues (housing, exponential growth etc.) together and does the same for towns and cities East of the divide (depopulation, ailing main streets etc). Also does not split Gallatin county which makes zero sense besides an effort to gerrymander.
Wendy Pierce
This keeps areas such as Bozeman, Missoula, Helena, Butte and Whitefish that depend on recreation and tech together and allows a representative to work with our interest.
Pam Lemelin
I support map CP11 because I want my voice to be heard. In the past, our state has been known to have had folks splitting their votes between candidates on both sides of the aisle and not just voting the party line. (Jon Tester, Steve Bullock) However, it seems that partisan voting is become more common and I fear that the wishes of people like me will not be represented in Congress if the map is gerrymandered to advantage Republicans candidates.
MArshall Bloom
After due consideration, I support CP-11. This option is the fairest and will give the best representation for all of the voters in Montana. Thank you
Lisa Robertson
CP-11 is the fairest proposal. We need to have fairness and balance in our districts. Please choose CP-11.
David R.Paoli
CP 11 provides fairness to the division of congressional Districts.
VICKI M WALBRUCH
Map #11 previously with (2) congressional districts the economic connection of Livingston and Bozeman would be maintained. This follows a historic precedent set in the 1980's. Also Native voters are empowered with this plan.
Amy Darling
CP11 facilitates more competitive races, which is always better for the people of Montana. Please reject CP10!
Edward Cooney
I favor CP-11 as it divides the population more evenly and creates a competitive district. We have been a purple state for decades and need to reflect that fairly, not one-party rule.
jasmine krotkov
Proposal #11 comes closer to giving a fair chance to the minority party to have their voices heard in the public sphere than other proposals currently under consideration. This proposal also makes an honest attempt to keep communities whole.
Brian Globerman
I prefer map 11, it is more fair. I would prefer a map that keeps Gallatin County whole.
Donna Martin
Unfortunately, I wrote a lengthy comment supporting Map 11, on Map 10. I do Strongly Support Map 11. No map is going to please everyone and adjacent cities are bound to be separated. I have lived in Bozeman, Helena, Kalispell, Browning and St. Ignatius. I currently live in Libby. Dividing Flathead County, even though separating Whitefish from the rest of the county, makes more sense than actually dividing small communities, some under 500 people, in Gallatin County. Also, it actually benefits all 7 reservations to have at least one competitive district even though the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes is the only reservation in this map. Having the other 6 in another district gives Native peoples a stronger aggregate voice in the non-competitive district as well, even though they may have different local concerns. Gerrymandering relates maps that unduly favor one party over another, map 10 does that for both districts. Since competitive means that either party has a chance of winning elections, map 11 gives non-Republicans some hope of being heard. Therefore, I STRONGLY urge you to make Map 11 the final choice.
Douglas 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
Gordy Lister
CP-10 is BEST. The Entire Flathead needs to stay in the Western District. Conservative State Senator Blasdele is very up on these things and recommends we go with CP-10
Tashina Smith
This map is the least favorable of the two maps proposed as it creates awkward division of the state. CP10 is the better option.
Irene Erdie
I support CP11. It is a much more equitable split. Please choose CP11 for redistricting.
William F Heinecke
CP 11 is too convoluted -Flathead County has nothing in common with the counties in District 2. It should be rejected
Kramer Wilson
This map gives tribes a voice and splits the population evenly. 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.
Laurie Ekanger
I support CP11. It places my community in the district where interests are more aligned.
Erin Vang
I support CP11, which gives both parties a fair chance to win representation for our state and above all which protects the voting rights of native Montanans.
Jim Parker
Dear Commission,
As a 30+ year resident of Montana, I am emailing you today to speak IN FAVOR of Proposal 11 and in opposition to Proposal 10.
Proposal 11`is a much more equitable and fair map to use then Proposal 10 which favors one party over the other in a non balanced re-districting.
Please select the fairest of the remaining two maps which is Proposal 11.
Thank you.
Lance Brill
I support Map 11. It seem to be the most equitable and fair both from a historic perspective as well as ensuring native votes and keeping the districts competitive. Please choose Map 11 for redistricting. Thank you.
Benjamin M. Darrow
I prefer this map, CP11. I grew up in Whitefish, about where I put my dot, and I believe that Flathead would benefit from having both representative districts have a piece of it.
I much prefer this to the splitting of Gallatin, which seems blatantly designed to help one party. Also, this map results in both districts having an interest in constituencies that are west of the divide.
Brandon Prior
I support Map CP 11. Under CP-11, population split is equal, county split is minimized, and city/town split is avoided. More importantly, CP-11 creates as competitive districts as possible, while additionally empowering the native vote, providing engagement to both Canadian and WY corridors, and keeping communities of similar industry connected for purposes of representation at the Federal level.
Ross Johnson
As somebody who grew up in Conrad, and now lives in Great Falls, this map better reflects the geography and local economies within each district. Pondera County is an eastern front county, and should remain in the eastern district. Critically, if the intent is truly to create at least one competitive district, this map is the better choice.
Cindy L. Johnson
I support Map CP-11. This map does not separate cities right down the middle. It is not perfect, but the far better option of the two.
Craig K Menteer
I support Map CP11, ● This plan closely follows the historical precedent of the 1980s Congressional districts, moving only two counties to reach perfect population equality. ● Areas that heavily rely on ski tourism to support the local economy are kept in one district, forcing a Congressperson to pay attention to the needs of areas that use the winter outdoor recreation to drive economic growth. ● As has always been the case when Montana had two congressional districts, the deep economic connection between Livingston and Bozeman is respected under Proposal 11, ensuring district lines don’t divide the flows of workers, innovation, and dollars between the two communities. ● This map keeps Jefferson and Broadwater counties together with Helena, making sure that most commuters are kept in the same district as their workplace. ● This map keeps the union towns of Helena and Butte together, as every redistricting plan in Montana has previously done. ● This map keeps all of the Rocky Mountain Front, Golden Triangle, and Hi Line intact, where agriculture remains such a vital part of the local economy. Rural interests are an important part of Montana's diversity and heritage that should be kept together for a stronger voice in Congress. ● Native voters are still empowered under this plan, as there is a competitive district with a reservation, meaning that every candidate has to rely on Native votes to win the district. Non-competitive districts don't elevate voices and ensure accountability in the same way. Thank you for your engagement and effort to provide a democratic foundation for Montana’s redistricting responsibility.
Domenic A Cossi
Please select this map. It is historically consistent and does not break up Gallatin County, where I live. I would hate to see our county divided. I also would hate to see two uncompetitive districts, which hurts democracy. This one has at least one competitive district.
Susan Kemper
I support Map CP11, ● This plan closely follows the historical precedent of the 1980s Congressional districts, moving only two counties to reach perfect population equality.
● Areas that heavily rely on ski tourism to support the local economy are kept in one district, forcing a Congressperson to pay attention to the needs of areas that use the winter outdoor recreation to drive economic growth.
● As has always been the case when Montana had two congressional districts, the deep economic connection between Livingston and Bozeman is respected under Proposal 11, ensuring district lines don’t divide the flows of workers, innovation, and dollars between the two communities.
● This map keeps Jefferson and Broadwater counties together with Helena, making sure that most commuters are kept in the same district as their workplace.
● This map keeps the union towns of Helena and Butte together, as every redistricting plan in Montana has previously done.
● This map keeps all of the Rocky Mountain Front, Golden Triangle, and Hi Line intact, where agriculture remains such a vital part of the local economy. Rural interests are an important part of Montana's diversity and heritage that should be kept together for a stronger voice in Congress.
● Native voters are still empowered under this plan, as there is a competitive district with a reservation, meaning that every candidate has to rely on Native votes to win the district. Non-competitive districts don't elevate voices and ensure accountability in the same way.
Thank you for your engagement and effort to provide a democratic foundation for Montana’s redistricting responsibility.
Ruth Kopec
I support Map CP 11 for the creation of the new congressional district for the state of Montana and request that the commission adopt this map.
Map CP 11 closely follows the historical precedent of the 1980s congressional districts, moving only two counties to achieve population equality, an important factor in congressional representation.
Map CP 11 also allows for the economic connection between Livingston and Bozeman, which was historically been the case when Montana had two congressional districts. This ensures that the flow of workers, innovation, and dollars between the two communities will have support from the congressional representative.
As a skier, Map CP 11 is important to me because it unifies areas that heavily rely on ski tourism to support local economies by keeping them in one district, thereby requiring the representative for that district to keep the needs of those economic communities in mind when voting on key issues such as climate and infrastructure.
I also appreciate that Map CP 11 keeps the area of the Rocky Mountain Front, Golden Triangle, and Hi Line intact, where agriculture remains such a vital part of the local economy. Rural interests are an important part of Montana's diversity and heritage that should be kept together for a stronger voice in Congress. While tourism and technology are growing sectors of our state economy, agriculture is still the largest factor and needs protection through a single representation in Congress.
Finally, Map CP 11 empowers Native voters under this plan, as there is a competitive district with a reservation, meaning that every candidate must rely on Native votes to win the district. Non-competitive districts would not elevate minority voices or ensure accountability in the same way.
Fredrica H van Berkum
This is the the more reasonable map.
Audrey Hall
I support Map #11 as it is the most fair.
Nels Broste
CP-11 is not perfect but is close to what we need. Not sure why Flathead County is carved up that way. Seems odd.
Brian Cayko
Map CP-11 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.
Charles W Wheeler
This is the better map. It had less deviation (D1 and D2), maintains rational groupings, and better reflects an equitable division of the state.
Rebecca M Riedl
I support Map 11. This is a competitive map, and is fairest map to all parties involves.
Benjamin Dickensheets
Thank you to the commission for the good-faith work they have put into the redistricting process. With so many special and regional interests in the state, our redistricting committee has been tasked with a herculean challenge. This map has the major downside of splitting up Flathead county, and also separates Kalispell from the western district. On the other side, CP10 suffers from a divided Gallatin county and separates the union-invested cities of Helena and Butte. Both maps keep the university towns of Bozeman and Missoula together, and largely keep the ranching/farming interests of eastern MT together.
One extremely important consideration where I'm unqualified to weigh in is the representation of Native American populations within the districts. Reading through the comments section of this page seems to reveal two orthogonal arguments: that a more even split of Reservations between the two districts ensures better representation overall; and that ensuring a sizeable Native American population within at least one politically competitive district would encourage Native American interests to be addressed as a way of courting votes. It's hard to make the case against either of these arguments at face value, and I strongly encourage the commission to consult Native American community leaders and independent analysts for their perspectives on this crucial element.
Zehra Osman
As has always been the case when Montana had two congressional districts, the deep economic connection between Livingston and Bozeman is respected under Proposal 11, ensuring district lines don’t divide the flows of workers, innovation, and dollars between the two communities. This map keeps all of the Rocky Mountain Front, Golden Triangle, and Hi Line intact, where agriculture remains such a vital part of the local economy. Rural interests are an important part of Montana's diversity and heritage that should be kept together for a stronger voice in Congress. Native voters are empowered under this plan, as there is a competitive district with a reservation, meaning that every candidate has to rely on Native votes to win the district. Non-competitive districts don't elevate voices and ensure accountability in the same way.
Patti Steinmuller
Map 11 adheres to all mandatory criteria and meets the additional goal of a district that does not unduly favor a political party. This map places in Gallatin County and Park County in the same district which share travel, transportation, economic, and communication interests. Maintaining Bozeman and Missoula in the same district is logical in terms of their shared interest and commonalities of their university populations and innovative research and business sectors. The shared interests of Butte and Helena would be well represented together in the western district. Although map 11 splits Flathead County into eastern and western districts, the community of Whitefish shares common interests with the other communities in the western district. Map 11 keeps the agricultural counties of the Golden Triangle and the Hi-Line intact. Overall, map 11 is the better choice regarding mandatory criteria and the additional goals.
Joe Loos
CP11 is better than CP 10. While it splits Flathead County, it leaves Gallatin County whole and balances out the voting history to give both major parties a shot. That seems more fair to me.
Joel A. Shouse
I prefer Map 11 and putting all of Flathead County into the same District. I know that this creates a slight deviation in population, but I feel it is better to keep communities together and slight deviations in populations between
Districts is appears to be acceptable. It also makes the Western District more competitive.
Christy Jutila
What was wrong with CP1?
Christy Jutila
Nice attempt at a more concealed gerrymander. How in the world can anyone keep a straight face and say Glacier is Eastern Montana? Really? The point is to make both districts as equal as possible of giving the voice to everyone, not carving out areas to make sure we have a split party state.
Teri Seth
I like Map 11 because it makes a competitive district on the west side that potentially gives voice to the communities in western and central Montana that have generally more diverse social views and economic interests.
Map 11 brings together the following common interests:
Bozeman should be grouped with Missoula (Flagship universities towns);
Gallatin and Park Counties share many commuters and are gateway communities for Yellowstone NP;
Tourism based economies are grouped;
Agricultural counties have a strong voice.
Tribal nations have a voice.
The western district in this map is by no means a sure win for either party. It is however a district that would be competitive. Candidates would need to willingly represent a broader variety of interests and views.
Map 10 is aligned to eliminate representation for diverse views and to ensure safe, easy republican seats. It absolutely favors the republican party.
In short, Map 11 gives voice to issues different from those represented pretty consistently in the eastern district (Agriculture, mining, rural communities) by creating a District that brings together Helena, Butte, Bozeman, Belgrade, Livingston and Missoula.
I urge you to select map 11. Thank you for serving on the committee. I very much appreciate your willingness to serve.
Stephane Fort
CP11 gerrymanders Flathead Co. into eastern Montana. This is a bad map. CP10 works better as Flathead needs to stay in Western Montana.
Tori Fort
The CP 10 map is good as it keeps Flathead in Western MT. Cp11 is a bad map as it is obviously gerrymandering.
Sarah G Hughes
CP11 keeps counties and other areas of common interest intact. It also creates a competitive district not unduly favoring one party.
TERRI L NELSON
Plan 11 better acknowledges communities of common interest. CP 10 should be rejected.
Damion Lynn
This map manages to divide the state evenly while also keeping like communities together. It is an obvious flaw that CP 10 splits Gallatin County into the Eastern District. CP 11 recognizes that Gallatin county along with the rest of the Western District relies heavily upon tourism. CP 11 also keeps together communities that are heavily tied together via commuters such as Bozeman and Livingston and Jefferson and Broadwater counties. Since each district includes native populations this map ensures that native people continue to be apart of our legislature.
Jennifer R Copley
This map seems to allow greater political competition within the state, and does not appear to be gerrymandered for the purpose of squelching competition. Please support this option.
Michelle Saurey
I support map #11. Either map, in order to create a fairly numbered representation for each disctrict, has to split a county. Gallatin County seems more appropriate to keep together, while placing WF in that same West district due to similar economic considerations.....the western counties, for the most part, are considering a wider variety of economic drivers that include tourism, tech, natural recreation & skiing, art & culture, etc....where the eastern part of the state is more ag & industrial oriented. This map splits the Native reservations fairly evenly, which means that both district representatives must take those voices into consideration.....we need competetive districting & this gives us the best opportunity for that....we do NOT need to be districted for the benefit of one party, as in reality, this state is more purple than red & every resident in this state deserves fair & competetive representation no matter what geographical location they reside in.
Kimberly E. Gresham
I support CP11 because it groups like economic interests such as tourism, agriculture and more urban businesses, and best ensures representation of all the socio-economic spectrum in Montana.
Michelle Dorrence
Of the two options, Map 11 is the most fair to both parties.
It also keeps Gallatin County united.
Maryrose Beasley
This map does more harm than good for the people. It gerrymanders way too much. It divides the Indian Nations. It creates divisions in our state. It is unacceptable.
Robert Gresham
Drawing these maps is a challenge and will always carry some partisanship. I like the way our commission is set up - it seems a fair way to choose. Leaving it up to the legislature would be a partisan disaster.
I believe from looking at the two maps (CP10 & 11) that CP11 seems fairer and would allow the best representation of the diverse political interests that co-exist in Montana.
Susan Gobbs
I prefer CP 11 for the reasons others have listed. Keeping the greater Helena area together, keeping Bozeman and Livingston together and not splitting up Gallatin county.
Mark Anderlik
Neither CP 10 nor 11 were my preferred choice for redistricting. That said, CP 11 is the best of the remaining two. I think both maps do a good job at keeping contiguous areas together. Both maps follow more or less historical district lines as well and minimize splitting counties. Why I think CP 11 is superior is that it also maintains the political balance that has long been a prominent feature of Montana politics. For a very long time Montana has not had a long-term domination by one party over another. And that has ended up serving Montanans well in that candidates and elected officials need to appeal and be responsive to a wide range of voters. CP 11 accomplishes best the goal of “each and every Montanan is entitled to an equal voice in the halls of the U.S. Congress. . .”
John Kleinert
Map CP-11 is a terrible map that is based on trying to carve out specific party districts and does not comply with Montana Statutes and constitutional requirements. Please throw out this map and select map CP-1 as the map is most fair and actually adheres to the law.
Heidi Roedel
Of the two maps this one (CP-11) I strongly oppose as it splits our county and adds our community to the eastern side of the state. Travel would be difficult and burdensome for our candidates who run with no guarantees.
MARK ROEDEL
SPLITTING AND PUTTING PART OF THE FLATHEAD IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT IS UNACCEPTABLE. CP 10 IS A BETTER CHOICE
Helen M Sabin
This is the least favorable of the two compromise maps. It creates and artificial and awkward division of the state into two districts.
Bob Hughes
I favor CP 11 because it would be a competitive district which either party could win. CP 11 keeps communities with common economic interests intact: Bozeman, Livingston and Paradise Valley are together as are Billings and Kalispell. These areas have voters of similar interests and culture. Helena and Butte belong together in the same district for these reasons as well. Likewise, CP11 keeps Gallatin County intact and it keeps Gallatin County and Park County together, with the two counties’ extensive economic interconnections. MSU and U of M would be together. It keeps the Highline intact and the heavily agricultural areas undivided. The parts of the state dependent on tourism and skiing would be undivided. Population split is equal. CP 11 best meets the criteria of competitiveness, economic cohesiveness and fair representation for Montana citizens.
Marc L Sabin
a. The configurations of both districts 1 and 2 are less compact with this map than with CD-10, giving rise to awkward and inconvenient lines of communication between distant areas in the respective districts. This makes interagency coordination and cooperation for emergencies and contingency operations more complex and difficult.
b. This map breaks the historical western slope community of interest among Flathead and the other counties on the western side of the continental divide, and also divides Flathead County into three pieces, with two geographically separate pieces in District 1 and one, by far the largest piece, in District 2.
c. This map places only 1 Indian reservation in District 1, with all the rest in District 2 and thus is detrimental to Indian voting rights in District 1.
d. This map places 3 of the 8 largest cities in District 2 and 5 of the 8 in District 1. This unbalanced distribution places the fastest growing county (Gallatin) and city (Bozeman) into District 1, which will have to bear the economic stress of that growth rather than have that stress shared across both districts and both Representatives. Additionally the deviation in population, is likely to become distorted and significantly out of balance as this growth occurs.
Sarah Pennington
Of the two options, I feel 11 is the most fair and logical. It keeps Gallatin County united and provides an opportunity to both parties.
Jenette Denson
This map does not work because the map splits a county West of the Continiental Divide (Flathead) and puts it in an Eastern District. Flathead County has little to no political, economic or cultural ties with the vast number counties to the East. It also isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities. It looks like a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along politcal lines
Cathy Brown
Map -11 is a terrible map because it is based on trying to carve out specific party districts and doesn’t comply with Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. Please throw out this map and select CP-1 as it is the best map that adheres to the law.
Donna Eakman
CP-11 does not seem competitive with 5 cities that usually vote blue--Whitefish, Missoula, Butte, Bozeman, and Livingston. It pulls Flathead out awkwardly--large area to cover for Eastern district. I prefer to go back to Map CP-1.
Dianne Hansen
Map CP11 puts the Flathead in the East Montana district! I believe that The Flathead IS WESTERN Montana and can not support this map! The Flathead, what comes to mind? Kalispell area. No way does the Flathead or Kalispell or Bigfork belong with our wonderful eastern part of Montana. The Flathead is Western Montana.
Cameo Flood
This map is gerrymandered. Flathead county needs to be with the rest of western Montana.
Roy Ray Melton
Map CP-11 is a terrible map that is based on trying to carve out specific party districts. It does NOT comply with Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. Please throw away this map and select map CP-1 as compliant with the law.
Kathy Workman
I'm pretty sure a a high school government class could read the law and get this done with common sense. This makes no sense from so many aspects.
Jane O'Toole Vorsheck
Please reject this map. It makes no sense to divide Flathead, furthermore the Flathead has no economic or cultural ties with most of the Eastern district. This is strictly partisan.
Steve Paulson
Both of the current congressional district proposals are weighted in favor of the majority party – CP 11 is the closest to having one competitive district, and that makes it the most fair proposal of the two. As stated in the state’s redistricting goals: “No plan may be drawn to unduly favor a political party.”
To me, the reason to ensure at least one competitive district is to avoid a situation in which 45% of Montana’s people are voiceless. It is important to prevent our republic from deteriorating into “two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch.”
To do otherwise – to ensure that neither district is at all competitive – would be a cynical act designed to deprive a significant segment of Montana’s people of political representation. This is a hard position to justify.
Please adopt the CP 11 proposal.
Jay Russell
This map fails to split the state evenly. Putting the Flathead in an Eastern District makes no sense. Reservation representation lopsided. Please reject this map.
Noelle Johnson
With both of these new maps (10 & 11), there are BIG things that don't make sense. For this, putting any part of Flathead in the eastern district is absurd. Map 1 still seems the best--holding truest to the mandatory criteria set by the commission. If the issue w/map 1 is 2 counties are split, put Cascade & Gallatin fully in the eastern district. Of the 2 new maps, #10 is the better of the 2.
Robert M Farnum
This map would definitely favor a Democratic candidate in CD 1. Tying Bozeman and Missoula into the same district would tip the balance away from rural voters.
Katherine and Ronald Bachrach
We support this map.
Jonene Bernhardt
Please do not divide Flathead County with part of it in Western District and part in Eastern District--that is absurd!
Dr. William Nickolas Hagen
This is clearly a illegal and unconstitutional map. Thid is based only on creating a Democrat district. This illegally puts tribes in one district and splits Flathead County for political purposes only. This will end up in Federal Court.
Nathan L Varley
This seems to be the most fair version of a districting map
Josh C Turner
it does not make any sense to split the county and have it devided like this.
Laura Johnson
The ill-advised comments of support for this map lead me to the conclusion that #11 map is the result of conscious political gerrymandering. This map was arranged to provide a conclusive D party win. That is gerrymandering. The divisions by established standards should be based on geography and population. Why is there a concern about splitting towns? Population wise, it makes sense and it would encourage candidates to take into account all political perspectives in their district. It dramatically decreases divisive outcomes
Laura Perry
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?
Brooke Flynn
Map 11 looks the fairest to me. Montanans have long favored bipartisan representation. This division allows the possibility for bipartisan representation to come once again.
Daniel Lee
this map is lame and gerrymandered. Kalispell and the Flathead Valley have very little if no political or economical ties to the eastern part of the state. Why'd you lump Kalispell with any town/city east of the Mountains is beyond me unless of course one is trying to gerrymander the state into two distinct factions, one blue and one red.
Joan Melcher
I think Map 1 keeps like communities together and is the best option.
Raymond Vincent
No part of Flathead County should be considered in the Eastern District. This map is gerrymandered to include both Universities in one district. This map is drawn in an attempt to anoint a Democrat to the Western District.
Janice Belcher
I like plan 11 because it does not split up Gallatin county, does not split up a town, and keeps ski areas and recreational areas vs. agricultural areas separate.
Alyson Roberts
Of the two final maps, this one makes the most sense for Montana from economic, social, and cultural reasons. It keeps communities of interest, such as resort towns of Big Sky, West Yellowstone, and Whitefish, as well as agricultural communities. Representatives of both districts will need to listen to Native communities, which empowers an important minority. It also creates a competitive district without unduly favoring one political party. It is important to remember that neither district guarantees a Democratic candidate a win, but minority representation is a foundation of our democracy and this proposed maps ensures fairness and the possibility of a competitive district. I support this map.
Josiah 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 on this map.
Douglas Edward Schmitt
It is a lopside geographical map that took a lot of creative gerrymander by the Democrats and Independants that somehow think a 2nd district ought to guarantee we have 1 democratic representative and 1 republican one - pre-ordained by them because they are tired of not having a democrat in the single district we've had for years. It cuts into the Western Part of the State and splits up counties and jurisdictions & Cities in a sloppy manner that is not reflective of either west or eastern regions of Montana. It puts the heaviest growth cities in the western region that are already trending more democratic with Missoula and Bozeman, and it disproportionately puts the majority of Tribal lands & reservations in the Eastern district - another lopsides sloppy outcome. Knowing where voting trends are headed demographically this map CP 11 will result in 2 democratic districts by the next Census in 2030. The outcome the democrats would love and for all the wrong reasons. Let's not forget this state voted heavily for republican presidential candidates for most of the last several elections, and normally votes republican for decades for the majority of State wide offices and republicans have a slight majority in the Legislature. We have a democratic and republican senator in Washington DC - which proof that we are a bipartisan state with repubilcan leanings in the end. This Map throws all that away & is just a blatant cheap stunt power grab with no logic or fairness to it. And it's why people like me despise politicians & stunts like this and the eventual outcomes. Do the right thing and use CP - 10. It is a lot more reasonable than this excuse for fairness.
GORDON E JACOBS
I do not like this map, its obvious this map is drawn to favor one party. It certainly does not meet the requirements of HB 506, which is the Law of Montana. CP1 is the best choice and meets all the requirements of the Law. Redistricting should be about what is equitable, right and fair for all Montana! We are either a Nation and State of Laws or we are not.
Jean Weiskotten
CP11 is a much more fair representation of our state. I live in Whitefish and being in district 1 makes more sense to me than having Gallatin county carved up. CP10 seems more like a move to gerrymander into 2 Republican districts.
David A. Skinner
This thing is an egregious gerrymander at best, leaping 100 miles to rip Republican votes out of competition with the Missoula/Bozeman progressive axis. Bozeman, on the other hand, is ADJACENT to Park County in the east. This is prima facie garbage. "Fairness" my can. "Competitive," my rosy red.
Carol Buchheit
Everyone’s vote can and should count. Redistricting according to Proposal 11 comes closest to the ideal of representative democracy by allowing one of the two districts to be competitive along many parameters: population, contiguous geography, interest groups both culturally and economically. I believe Proposal 11will serve our voters and State government best.
Leah Talbot
Map #11 is the fairest for Montana voters. It will restore balance in the state's electoral politics, which is greatly needed, and give a voice to the disenfranchised.
Ronald James Nason
This map does not fit because the Kalispell area has such a great influence on the western part of Montana and to not let it have representation that effects that part of the state is not equitable. Also the geographical location does not fit with the eastern part of the state.
Indigo Scott
While neither map is perfect Map 11 does a much better job of keeping communities together (like keeping Broadwater and Jefferson Counties grouped with Helena where many people from those counties work). Similarly it keeps large economic blocks grouped together (ski towns with ski towns, farming communities with farming communities, etc) meaning a representative of either district would be better incentivized to work in favor of local interests and rural voices won't be drowned out.
Timothy Bechtold
I prefer Map #11 over Map #10. I prefer keeping the northern golden triangle area agriculture sector in the same district; keeping Livingston and Bozeman together and keeping all of Gallatin County together; keeping Jefferson and Broadwater counties together with Helena; and keeping Helena and Butte in the same district. I don't know if there is a perfect way to create two districts, but Map#11 is better than Map#10.
John Zirkle
I support Map #CP11 because it keeps Gallatin County intact and does not split the town of Big Sky, where I live. It is important to keep towns together in elections to make it more competitive for voters. I also support this map because it elevates indigenous representation. Please do not split up Gallatin County.
Todd Bernhardt
A clear attempt to gerrymander a specific political outcome rather than keeping people in the same geography and with common economic interests together. Keep the Flathead united and in the West! Terrible map!
Raymond Vincent
Both Map 10 and 11 have been heavily gerrymandered. However map 11 puts 1/2 of Flathead County in the Eastern District of Montana which is political bunk. Map 10 is far more in line with Montana's Constitutional Requirements. Map 11 is blatant gerrymandering for the Democrats.
Sharon Nason
I do not like this map because it puts Flathead County in the eastern district and I do not see what Flathead County has in common with the eastern part of the state. It seems to me it more closely aligns with the western district economically.
Jeffrey Bennett
I dislike this map. It appears to be an unnatural east vs. west split. There is obvious Gerrymandering in the Flathead area to favor Democrats. The other map probably favors 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. Don't accept a map that changes the will of the people. Make a simple east/west line.
Elizabeth Madden
I clearly see CP 11 as the better map for defining our two Montana districts - it is the only map that does not excessively favor one party in both of the districts. With CP 11 we will have one district that falls within the competitive range. CP 11 closely follows the former (1980s) congressional districts, shifting only two counties to reach population equality. CP11 is also supported as the map of choice by Western Native Voice (and other indigenous groups) as the only map that will give Native American voters a voice at the polls.
Hillary Carls
Proposal 11 is a smart decision for Montana's economy. It keeps the recreational economic region together, as well as the agricultural economic region.
Bonnie Wolgamot
I support Map 11 b/c cutting up Gallatin Co. is a blatant move at partisan gerrymandering. By choosing Map 11, it will make the races for these seats much more competitive, ensuring that the candidates who win them actually paid attention to every voter they represent, rather than being a shoo-in for the Republicans. If we want to keep Montana a democracy, this is the only option left to us to do that.
Bridget McMillion
I support map CP11 as it keeps the 2 areas competitive--Our candidates would have to campaign and present their views to each district and earn each vote.
Susan R Orr
Map 11 is a better representation of what the districts were like back in the days when we had the Western and Eastern districts. While I don't believe Flathead county should be in the eastern district, I also think Helena should be in the Western district. I appreciate the hard work you all are doing, but our map should be competitive and not gerrymandered .
Kim Larson
Flathead County is west of the Continental Divide and certainly should be included as part of the West District. I do not like the idea of breaking counties into areas. This map not only puts most of Flathead County in the Eastern District which is rediculous, but includes areas a couple hundred miles to the east in the Western District.
It also cleverly shows Whitefish, only about 13 miles due north of Kalispell included into the western district which is a clearly a political move.
Tina Begay
CP11 Map empowers Native American voters. I strongly support map CP11.
Geri Malberg
I do not believe splitting Flathead County and moving it to the east side for representation will accurately represent our area. Our area has a geographical and cultural unity and it should stay as one area for representation.
Bradley W Abell
I am District #1 County Commissioner from Flathead Co. and this map would place my residence in the eastern congressional district and the majority of the people in my district in the western congressional district. I don't believe this division is legal according to state law because it is obviously being put forth to consider competitiveness which is contrary to state law.
Cathy Brown
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.
Robert Brown
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.
Gary Eliasson
This map does not accurately divide the districts. A better plan would be shown in Map CP10.
Bradley W Abell
I am District #1 County Commissioner from Flathead Co. and this map would place my residence in the eastern congressional district and the majority of the people in my district in the western congressional district. I don't believe this division is legal according to state law because it is obviously being put forth to consider competitiveness which is contrary to state law.
Phyllis Eliasson
I do not support this map. It's division does not fairly represent the area population.
paul burns
I like CP11 as Gallatin and Park counties need to be united.
Beverly Bilyeu-Carkeek
CP11, in my opinion, seems specifically developed to favor one political party over another, versus CP10. Actually would like CP1 to be revived to consider among top choice(s) if process leads to such an opening.
Jessie Kane
I prefer map 11 as Native voters are empowered under this plan. There is a competitive district with a reservation, meaning that every candidate has to rely on Native votes to win the district. Non-competitive districts don't elevate voices and ensure accountability in the same way. This map also keeps the Rocky Mountain Front, Golden Triangle, and Hi Line intact, where agriculture remains such a vital part of the local economy. Rural interests are an important part of Montana's diversity and heritage that should be kept together for a stronger voice in Congress.
Danny Choriki
I am not a fan of splitting any large county for the temporary and artificial target of starting with a balanced population between the two districts. I think that a one or two percent variance in the population targets is preferable than having a large county split.
That said, my read of Gallatin County is that it is more homogenous than Flathead County. So if I had to split one of the two, it makes more sense to me to split Flathead.
I have never been a fan of geographical districts in a winner-takes-all-election model. Too often this leaves a sizable minority without representation. Map 11 seems to have a better chance of ensuring proportional representation of Montana's population.
Robert Schultz
I support moving forward with this map. It presents a reasonable representation of for the communities within it.
Shane E Noble
This map is definitely superior to #10 and makes races more competitive.
Melinda Ferrell
While map #11 is preferred, it could be finalized to provide a more competitive district in District 1. Competitive districts was one of the goals of the Commission. Competitive districts produce Representatives who remain more engaged with their constituents which is what our Democratic Republic should be about. If these are the final 2, then I prefer 11 over 10, but a final tweak would be preferred.
Mary McKenna
Include Meagher and Cascade in the Western District.
Steve and Beth Hinebauch
This is a bad map. It is terribly gerrymandered.
DAN A MITCHELL
I prefer Map 11 over Map 10. It looks more contiguous, more logical, more compact, & less "gerrymandered" than 10. While no map will satisfy everyone and someone will always raise an objection, Map 11, I believe, the better of the two proposed.
Brad Cloud
I thank the commission for its work on this difficult task and for soliciting the electorate’s opinion about it. Of the final two plans, I favor CP11. In my experience, federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, Education, Housing, Food Assistance, Roads and Transportation have the most fiscal and practical impact on citizens of any particular area and population density is the most significant determinant of how those services are delivered. Thus, in my opinion, Montana will be best served by a plan that keeps population centers together while also keeping less populous, rural centers together and CP11 does that best.
Cindia Ellis
I cannot support CP11 alternative map. It appears to split a county over political ideology and isolate one tribal community from all other tribal communities. This map as drawn has the overtone of political gerrymandering to make one political party more competitive over the other. 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.
Nicholas Maltby
Doesn't make any sense to not only pull the majority of Flathead County into the "eastern" part of the state, but to then also split out part of it doesn't really fit with what is going on here. The lines seem very selectively drawn around certain areas of the Flathead County.
Catherine M Redfern
I support CP11 and the opportunity for fair competition for both House Seats
Betsy Mancuso
Flathead county should remain in the western district.
Rachael Caldwell
I support CP 11. It encourages a competitive western district and follows the historical precedent of the 1980s Congressional districts. None of these maps are perfect, but this is far better for true democracy than CP 10.
Lance Franz
I like CP11 because it locates all of Gallatin County in the Western side of the state. It also allows for more competitive voting in the proposed Western district.
Dennis Sandbak
I cannot support this alternative. Really; splitting a county over political ideology! This map as drawn has the overtone of political gerrymandering to make one political party more competitive over the other. 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.
Jeff Clausen
CP #1 should be the go to Map. It follows the KISS principle and it is geographically logical, compact and contiguous. There has to be some splitting of counties, but CP 11 putting Flathead County in the East except for the Whitefish area is purely partisan gerrymandering. It's proponents talk of competitiveness, but in their doublespeak it is just another word for winning. That is not a guiding principle. Montana has shown time and again to defy prognosticators voting for President Trump by a wide margin during a sixteen year run of Democratic governors.
Grace Hodges
I support CP 11. It keeps together communities of interest, and allows a competitive western district. It also closely follows the historical precedent of the 1980s Congressional districts, achieving perfect population equality. It's not perfect but it's much better than CP 10.
Jesse A. Logan
Maintains county integrity and fairness to indigenous populations.
Marye Alice Wozniak
This division reflects the historic division for Montana the we had 2 representatives. It should provide competitive districts which should be the goal of elections rather than weighting districts to be non-competitive
Jeff Benson
I like this option whereby there are no split counties.
Bill Jones
Map 11 does not make sense. Keep Flathead in west. Has nothing in comparison to eastern Montana. Be realistic. Don't accept this map.
Stacy Dare
Please DO NOT pick this division. Thank you.
Debra L Johnson
I am not even going to try to be diplomatic about this redistricting plan. It is the most stupid thing I have ever seen. I've always felt pride in Montana for be fair and having integrity. This proposed plan includes neither of those attribute. Shame on you for even proposing it.
Bill Ellis
I dislike Map CP 11 because it splits Flathead County, which would create a demarcate districts, and It isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities. I fill that the tribal community need to have equal voice in both districts. You need to follow MCA 5-1-115 the Redistricting Criteria to create equal and fair districts.
karin connelly
This division reflects the historical division for Montana when we had two representatives. It should provide competitive districts which should be the goal of elections, rather than weighting districts to be non-competitive.
14065954175
Given the massive growth of Missoula and Gallatin Counties, why not put ALL of Flathead County in the Eastern District? This would keep all the counties undivided, and in a few years the populations of the Eastern and Western districts will balance out anyway, given the growth patterns. We are doing all this for the long term, not just one year!
Christopher Heffner
I think it is important to have Gallatin and Park Counties together, since they are heavily integrated and need coordinated policy initiatives.
Bill Ellis
I dislike both maps CP 10 and CP 11 because they do not follow the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 5-1-115 Redistricting Criteria.
We should take another look at map CP 1 and adopt it because it follows MCA 5-1-115 redistricting criteria as close as possible.
Christine Gandel
I prefer Map 11 since it appears to be most fair and does not divide Gallatin County.
Marisa S
This map seems like obvious gerrymandering. Splitting Flathead county so the majority of the counties votes don’t effect the democratic strongholds of Missoula etc yet they still get Whitefish votes is wrong. The point of the districting is not to keep like minded area together. If you want people to feel like their vote counts don’t pick this one.
Sean Ashby
I prefer CP10 over this one.
Whitni H Ciofalo
Splitting Gallatin Gateway from Bozeman alienates many of us who have strong connections to both of these communities. The same could be said splitting off Springhill, Big Sky, and all of Park County. The Gallatin Valley (and in many ways, Paradise Valley) is tied together culturally, socially, and economically. Dividing this part of the state into two Congressional Districts is not a fair proposal and goes against the original goals and intentions of the Commission. Please support Map 11.
Craig Cowie
I prefer map 11 over map 10. In order to maintain equal populations, both maps have to divide a county, and both maps have to have a part where one of the districts reaches into the other (map 11 has the eastern district reaching into the western, and map 10 does the reverse). But map 10 also breaks up Gallatin county. Thus map 10 breaks up two communities (one by having the western district reach east, although that does not divide a county, and one by breaking up Gallatin) while map 11 only breaks up one community (by breaking up Lake where the eastern district reaches west). Map 11 also keeps the areas surrounding UM and MSU, which are culturally similar, together.
Joanna Adams
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.
Douglas John Nicholson
The splitting of Flathead county into both districts makes no sense. Flathead county is separated wholly from eastern Montana, geographically. All of Flathead County should be contained within the western district, with the other counties that it has direct ties with, geographically and politically.
Wendy Williams
I dislike this map because 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
Caitlin M Chiller
It is important to keep Gallatin and Park counties together as there is much shared economic and cultural interest between the two counties. This map keeps the two counties in the same district.
Russell and Rebecca Kingman
Flathead county has NO economic ties, nor cultural or political with the majority of the counties in the Eastern district. Flathead has ALWAYS been a part of western MT, the Whole County! This map (cp 11) separates the flathead and the Canadian interface that brings the Canadian tourists to the Flathead ,and to the Blackfeet, tourism areas. Map 11 makes it so that the districts are not compact; once you split up Flathead co you make a candidate or elected official for the eastern district, to have to travel a lot of miles and to travel across the divide in what would be difficult travel in winter, to campaign or to stay in touch with those in the flathead, therefore it does not meet with the criteria of MT law. This map also isolates the Kootani tribe from all the others. Map 11 thus seriously messes up the presumable goal of more equal representation within district 1 and 2 for the tribal community as noted by the commission's figures on the maps. Additionally, by law you must choose what is the least disruptive to the communities. Gallatin county on the east side is primarily rural, the west side associates more with bozeman so a split there has merit. However Flathead county populace is associated with everything in the west. It has never been "eastern MT." CP 11 appears to be a partisan attempt to split the flathead along political lines. Therefore we urge you for these reasons, to NOT adopt CP 11.
John Henson
Flathead County resides west of the Continental Divide, plain and simple. There is no logical reason to overextend the reach of the eastern counties this far, as it disproportionally skews the representation that members of Eastern Montana counties have over their considerably further West counterparts.
Melissa Jardstrom
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.
Does it appear that this map may not follow this Law?
Yvonne G Gritzner
Neither map is perfect; Map 11 keeps working communities together better. Though there is only one Indian Reservation in District 1, people from all tribes are living on university campuses in District 1.
Melisa Schelvan
Splitting Flathead County makes no sense. This split creates a District with communities that share no interests between Western Montana and Eastern Montana, while isolating one tribal community from all other tribal communities. This appears to be a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines, which is unacceptable. Further, this map violates the requirement that districts are "compact", forcing candidates to travel vast distances to campaign.
justin w cleveland
Wow the flathead is eastern MT???? One Reservation in the west???? The eastern rep has a lot of miles to cover across Hwy 2, this map is not worth considering.
Beverly Williams
I'm a hard "NO" on CP-11. It is unfair to split Flathead County in half.
Keith Baer
When I think of Eastern Montana I think of towns like Billings, Miles City, Sidney, and KALISPELL. Can we say gerrymandering at its finest.
Elliot Adams
This map is a partisan train wreck.
Kathleen Anne Burt
The idea of splitting Flathead County is ludicrous. Kalispell has about as much in common with Plentywood as Oz does with New York City. Please, please scrap this idea--it makes no common sense whatever.
Theresa Holmes
In my opinion, the Redistricting Commission should throw out all previous maps and go with this map proposed by Tonya Dyas that has NO SPLIT Counties or Reservations. In addition, it ensures "communities of interest" have approximately equal representation in BOTH districts, as well as that BOTH districts have borders with Canada. As Tonya wrote: "I don't think more perfect maps could be drawn. These proposed maps are based strictly upon population & contiguous counties. Absolutely no gerrymandering was involved. No counties are divided and none of the Tribal groups are divided. Best yet, the population difference between District 1 & 2 is only +/- 50 people for a population deviation of 0% . It complies with all the Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. The population of the green district is 542,062 (-50) and the orange district is 542,163 (+51) for a net difference of 101. The big thing is that NOT ONE COUNTY IS SPLIT !"
The important point is that this map is LEGAL. As I said in my comments last time, we should be focusing on COOPERATION as EQUALS, not on competition between those who accept Reality and their places in it and those who do not. Thank you.
Cydney Henderson
Never before in Montana history has a western county, Flathead, been included in an Eastern District. Flathead County is not at all similar to the Eastern District with regards to its political, economic or cultural makeup.
Mark R Smith
When evaluating this map 2 questions need to be asked: 1) Do Whitefish and Kalispell have less in common than Gallatin and Park counties. The answer: No.... splitting Flathead county so that Park county must be added to the west to balance the map is really wrong. Also the constitutional requirement of keeping communities intact is violated. I would say that Park county actually identifies with and relies on Billings more than Bozeman. NO on this map
The second question: How does grossly favoring republicans in the east make it OK that democrats are therefore not as behind in the west? It doesn't make it OK! NO on this map.
Brian McHugh
I like this map because it does a good job of keeping counties together and aligns counties with their ideological history. Specifically, CP 11 keeps Gallatin County, the fastest growing county in the state, together in one district. Carving up this county into two districts as proposed in CP 10 makes absolutely no sense and should not be considered. Also, this map keeps ideologically similar counties like Park and Gallatin, along with Lewis and Clark and Silver Bow, in the same district.
Ronalee Skees
I urge a do not adopt on this map, it is a partisan attempt to split my community along political lines. Flathead County is in a community of interest with the West. I do not support any split of the county. 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. It isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities.
Dr Frank C Seitz
n whatever redistricting options are considered, I STRONGLY endorse maintaining the boundary integrity of each county. Carving up a county impresses me as naked political gerrymandering (which I think is illegal).
DR. FRANK C. SEITZ
In whatever redistricting options are considered, I STRONGLY endorse maintaining the boundary integrity of each county. Carving up a county impresses me as naked political gerrymandering (which I think is illegal).
Deb Bond
Map 11 provides the most competitive of the 2 final option and represents Montanans the best.
Adele Seitz
I like Map #11 because it is good common sense. The districts are relatively equal and there aren't split counties to add to the work load of that county.
Beth Sim Simpson
This map is much more balanced to create a competitive district. Unfortunately it does still separate a county but it is the best of what is presented.
Amitava Roy
This map will be more balanced than map #10 in terms of keeping communities of common interests. For example, Missoula and Gallatin counties, the homes of the universities and the future of Montana economy, are intact and together in this map. If we can get over the urge of hushing down diverse voices by gerrymandering and focus on the actual future of Montana, then this is the map. Keeping the Gallatin and Missoula counties intact and together will help the growth in the Ravalli county, which can become the next biotech hub. The biotech hub in Raqvalli county can benefit from cohesive policies among the three counties to employ Montana university graduates in world-class biotech research and industry facilities. Let's say no to twisted political ploys and yes to the future progress of Montana.
Jonmichael Weaver
This map clearly diminishes the Native American voice in the western district by only including one reservation, leaving the seven others in the eastern district. In my opinion, clearly trying to send a message of exclusion and lack of representation by dividing the state this way.
Andy Shott
I like Map 11.I believe it sets up at least one competitive district and includes the counties with UM and MSU. This gives students a better chance to be influential.
Leslie A Taylor
Map 11 should be adopted because it appropriately keeps Gallatin County in one district. The issues faced by both Bozeman and Livingston include housing affordability, as well as the need for more schools and access to health care. Dividing Gallatin County as is done in Map 10 is a blatant attempt to diminish or erase the votes of thousands of Montanans. While, ideally, no county should be split, at least keeping fast-growing, populous Gallatin County in one district provides at least an opportunity for its needs to be addressed.
Geof Gratny
It's not right to have Flathead county divided between 2 districts. It is and always will be part of western Montana.
Rick Franklin
This map should be in the dictionary under gerrymandering.
Although it is illegal to consider competitiveness, it is clear that the Commission will ultimately choose a map based on competitiveness. If that is the case, then the Commission should define competitiveness and agree on the standard that will be used to determine competitiveness
Since this is a map that will determine two U.S. Congressional Districts, the best way to measure competitiveness is to use the U.S. House Races
In determining competitiveness, the Commission should use races outside of 2020
I dislike this map because:
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
Even though both districts include the Canada Interface, Map CP-11 separates the Canada Interface which brings Canadian tourists to Flathead and Blackfeet tourism spots
It fails to keep communities of interest intact, such as forestry and tourism
It creates a District with communities that share no interests between Western Montana and Eastern Montana
It isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities
It a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines
It is not compact when a candidate for the Eastern District would have to travel vast distances to campaign in the Eastern District
Stefanie Hanson
I highly dislike Map 11 because it is gerrymandering at its best by splitting flathead county and putting part of flathead county in the eastern district when they have nothing alike with that side of the state. Flathead county has zero political, economic or cultural ties with the vast number of counties in the easter district. It isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities which is unfair. It is designed to attempt to split the flathead along political lines.
Karen Lannom
Of the final two maps up for consideration (10 vs 11) I am in favor of map 11.
David Johnson
Map 11 is so poorly designed that someone wants us to believe Flathead County is not in western Montana. Lets get the politics out of redistricting and attempt to use geography along with population. Both districts should benefit from the resources of one of our major universities. Common sense should be that a population center centrally located is the ideal candidate to be split into both districts. The Bozeman area is rapidly growing to the west and should be considered the ideal location for final line adjustments for population. Folks running for office would have to consider all sides of an issue when they campaign. After all we want our representatives to work together for all of Montana not just the East or West. Will Bozeman really mind having two representatives? Put the line along 19th or main!
Connor McHugh
Given that both remaining options require splitting a county, I believe that this map does a better job keeping like minded communities together.
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.
MICHAEL K REDBURN
The adopted map must recognize existing political subdivisions such as county lines. The population variations that might result are of less concern when considering the need to keep communities of interest together and avoid voter confusion and disenfranchisement.
Jim Bennett
Use Map 10 not 11 for redistricting. Flathead County/Blackfeet reservation should not be handled this way per map 11. Gallatin County population growth is a concern for all but putting it in the west is not right.
Cathy B Mitchell
Map 11 – I dislike this map because:
*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
*Even though both districts include the Canada Interface, Map CP-11 separates the Canada Interface which brings Canadian tourists to Flathead and Blackfeet tourism spots
*It fails to keep communities of interest intact, such as forestry and tourism
*It creates a District with communities that share no interests between Western Montana and Eastern Montana
*It isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities
*It a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines
*It is not compact when a candidate for the Eastern District would have to travel vast distances to campaign in the Eastern District
Joel Mowrey
I support map #11 because it splits populations evenly and appears competitive by not supporting one party over the other. It makes sense to keep Park and Gallatin Counties together as they share economic, social, environmental, educational, and artistic values and interests.
Ana Pederson
Splitting Gallatin County is a terrible plan for several reasons. I strongly support Mapp 11.
Mark Beland
Map 11 will make candidates campaign for votes and make their case to those voters. Map 11 gives voters in both parties a better chance to be represented. This map does not break up communities with a common interest. Please choose Map 11.
Robert Dwyer
This map disrespects the Continental Divide. Constituents East and West of the Divide have different interests and concerns. Citizens would not have their interests properly represented, especially in the Northwest part of the state. Do better.
Also, UM and MSU should be in different districts so they are not competing for money/appropriations/grants with the same congressman/congressional office. Each major university ought to have its own congressional representative.
Laura Langdon
I support map 11 because it would lay the foundation for a competitive and equitable election process that either party could win.
Mary Ann Dunwell
Proposal 11 is the only one of the two final maps that includes a competitive district. As a state representative in a very competitive district, all along I’ve testified for competitiveness and political fairness. Proposal 11 includes one district that will require candidates to work hard and engage with voters and constituents to earn their elected seats. Map 11 gives both political parties a fair and equal chance in at least the Western District.
Kimberly Dudik
I strongly support #11. It is a fair map that keeps areas with common interests together, follows county boundaries the best, and does not split Gallatin County for partisan reasons as #10 seems to do.
Bill Freese
I suppose I can find fault with any proposed map, but of the two I have heard are the final choice, this one is the more reasonable. I have seen comments suggesting it would be fairer for Native Americans to split them more evenly between districts. In fact, that is the exact opposite of the truth, as any minority neighborhood split up by gerrymandering can tell you.
jeff griffin
The map is fair, preserves counties. Preserves reservation.
Edwards Gloria
I strongly support #11 as a districting choice. Living in Gallatin County, I think it’s important not to divide our county.
Annie Thomas
Map 11 keeps many vital Montana communities together; their economic connections intact. This is a competitive map and also follows closely the precedent set in the 1980s Congressional districts with population equality.
These maps must be competitive.
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; more affordable housing and the other, jobs. Please do not do this.
Map 11 is best choice and I request that this be the chosen map for voters in Montana.
Kristi Chester Vance
Under Map #11, Native voters are empowered as there is a competitive district with a reservation, meaning that every candidate has to rely on Native votes to win the district. Non-competitive districts don't elevate voices and ensure accountability in the same way. Additionally Map 11 closely follows the historical precedent of the 1980s Congressional districts, moving only two counties to reach population equality.Map 11 respects the deep economic connection between Bozeman and Livingston, as well as allows areas that heavily on ski tourism to stay in the same district, ensuring their congressperson prioritizes their needs and economic success, both of which are essential to our state's economy. Map 11 does the same for Helena and Butte, as well as keeps together all of the Rocky Mountain Front, Golden Triangle, and Hi Line intact, where agriculture remains such a vital part of the local economy. Rural interests are an important part of Montana's diversity and heritage that should be kept together for a stronger voice in Congress.
Cindy Gockel
I support map #11 as it keeps Gallatin county whole and keeps Gallatin and Madison counties in the same district. Outdoor recreation and tourism is important to the economies of both counties. Keeping Gallatin county whole and Gallatin and Madison county in the same district will provide us greater strength when working with our member of congress.
Michael Scott
I like this alternative. I like that there is a lot of focus on communities of interest and economic interests as well plus, in almost all cases, respecting political jurisdictions (realizing that's not 100% possible given population). Living in Bozeman for the last 30 years i've seen how interconnected Bozeman and Livingston are. This maintains that connection. I also like that virtually all the ski areas in the state remain together, given how much of an economic force they are. I also like that the CSKT stays within one district as opposed to being divided up. The boundaries also respect agricultural economic communities of interest east of the divide. Finally, having lived in Bozeman when we had two congressional districts that largely worked, I like that this alternative is pretty close to those boundaries.
Kristen Walser
I support Map 11. Keeping Gallatin County together is important, so some people don’t have 3 different ballots for city, county and state, and because the whole county is anchored economically by Bozeman, MSU, and the hospital. Livingston and Bozeman are also closely tied economically, and through our connection to Yellowstone ecosystem. Helena and Butte have close ties, too. At least the northwestern counties share the northern border issues with the northeastern part of the state.
Thor Larson
This map does a good job at deception. The population is even now but will soon be uneven as most of the fastest growing counties are in the western district. Kalispell is included in the east which just doesn't make sense. And there is only one reservation in the west which is very unfair to the Native population.
Pete Talbot
I strongly support proposed congressional district #11. It is the most equitable option presented for the Montana electorate and best represents the interests of voters statewide.
Emily Rolston
I support CP11. CP11 is a better compromise and more fairly represents current community divides, maintains competitiveness, and adheres to historical boundaries. This plan closely follows the historical precedent of the 1980s Congressional districts, moving only two counties to reach perfect population equality.
Kirsten Gerbatsch
I urge the Commission to select the district configuration in CP11.
First, it meets the overriding consideration of creating competitive districts. CP 11 is more competitive than CP 10. The importance of competitive districts ensures that elected representatives will be most responsive to the needs of all voters rather than just serving the needs of those with their party affiliation.
Second, CP11 is the superior option because it acknowledges the economic connections between communities by keeping linked communities like Bozeman and Livingston in the same districts. These communities would be best served in the same district.
Connie Rader
I find it hard to believe that this map is even a choice. It gives the Native American community no voice in the west district with only one community being represented. It gives the west district barely any northern border exposure, and placing Gallatin and Park Counties together is clearly trying to gerrymander. Throw this map out. Map 1 was the far superior map, second place is map 10.
Barbara Neilan
As a native Montanan, growing up in Bozeman, and living in Missoula, I believe that CP11 is the best representation for our State. It has historical precedent closely following the 1980s Congressional districts. It keeps economic interests together, giving a strong voice to agriculture and empowers Native voters and ensures accountability in a way we have not hard in the past.
Jeremy Carl
Why, other than partisan politics, is this map even being considered? Flathead County has absolutely nothing in common with Eastern Montana. When we do non-partisan activities in this state, such as sports, Flathead is in the West and Gallatin is in the East. That's what should have been done here, which would have put the fastest growing counties in different districts. But at least the other map under consideration puts some of Gallatin in the East, while splitting up the fastest growing county in the state to comply with equal population requirements..
Patty Franklinq
I dislike Map Option 11 because: 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, even though 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 also fails to keep communities of interest intact, such as forestry and tourism. It creates a District with communities that share no interests between Western Montana and Eastern Montana and, it isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities. This is a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines and does not compact when a candidate for the Eastern District would have to travel vast distances to campaign in the Eastern District.
Although it is illegal to consider competitiveness, it is clear that the Commission will ultimately choose a map based on competitiveness. If that is the case, then the Commission should define competitiveness and agree on the standard that will be used to determine competitiveness. Since this is a map that will determine two U.S. Congressional Districts, the best way to measure competitiveness is to use the U.S. House Races in determining competitiveness, the Commission should use races outside of 2020.
Jason Rappe
CP11 better represents local communities. While neither CP11 or CP10 are perfect, I believe CP11 more fairly represents current community divides, maintains competitiveness, and adheres to historical boundaries.
Dean Center
Of the 2 remaining maps, this is the better of the two as it puts the Flathead Valley and the Gallatin Valley in different districts. Any map that puts them in the same district would already be out of compliance with the equal population requirement, due to the rapid growth in these two areas.
While it is undesirable to split up a county, it is inevitable in this situation, unless one of the convoluted maps is revived. The specifics of the division of Flathead County should be carefully considered, and possibly should be redone to reduce the perceived advantage to one or the other political party.
Finally, I am an Independent and therefore think both parties are inept and place their welfare and power above the good of the people. There are a great many people who are not affiliated with either party in Montana, and solely political arguments over these maps don't carry much weight with us.
Philip Maechling
I support option 11 as the most balanced option. Montana needs more Mike Mansfields, and fewer negative voices.
Ruth Wardell
Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2021
5-1-115 Redistricting criteria which state the state's criteria AND federal criteria... COMPETITIVE is NOT a legal criterion. "Competitive" comes from quality candidates, not from redistricting. This map is gerrymandering.
Gina Himes Boor
I support CP11.
K. Bradley Lotton
The map is supposed to give people on the east and west districts equal representation. This is pure partisan politics being played at our expense. While the second choice is somewhat better both these maps fail. Map 1 is still the superior choice
Katherine Butterfield
This ridiculous map puts the divide west of the continental divide and shouldn’t even be drawn for consideration
Nicholas Schwaderer
Splitting up Montana in this manner, with Flathead in the East, is absurd and doesn't pass the smell test. Please reject this map.
Fred Schmook
Proposal 11 is my choice. I oppose proposal 10.
Kristi DuBois
I support this map because it creates one district that is competitive. Without a competitive district, there would be little incentive for people to vote in Congressional races. Without a competitive district, only half of Montanans would adequately have their views represented in the House. We need to keep fair competition in these races so that our representatives will listen to us.
Pamela Boyd
Proposal 11 is the only unbiased division. I oppose Proposal 10 and support Proposal 11
MELANIE MORONEY
#11 is by all means the very best choice!
Jeanne Satterfield
Why in the world would you split Flathead County and put most of it in the far Eastern District? Makes no sense at all. CP10 is much more representative of Montana and more fair to the voters.
Joi Gratny
We in the Flathead are NOT Western Montana. Map 5 that is not being considered now was the best and most fair map that was presented. I don't understand why you got rid of it?
Jinnifer Mariman
Please select this map, No. 11, as it best keeps similar communities together so that their elected representative will best represent their interests. Also, this follows Montana's historical precedent and achieves the commission's goal of being competitive.
Sue Beland
Map 11 best represents historical Congressional districts with perfect equality of population. This map keeps Belgrade, Gallatin Gateway, Bozeman, and Livingston which have people living and working in all of these communities and which means peoples’ interests overlap into all of them. Map 11 will permit one district to have some competition in the voting process. Map 11 keeps large rural interests together which are so important to Montana. This map will require candidates to work for the votes rather than just filing for office and being sworn in. Commissioners please choose this map to give Montanans a chance to make Montana the Great State is has been.
Carol Van Tuinen
This map makes sense for many reasons stated by others such as keeping areas heavily relying on skiing tourism together, rural areas are combined more-so than the other map, native voters have more of a voice, etc. I want to emphasize that drawing the lines so Democrats have a competitive chance to elect a representative at the national level is fair and democratic. Drawing the lines that practically guarantee only Republican representatives is not. 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.
Brianne Rogers
I support this map - I appreciate that it keeps Gallatin and Park counties together - so many of our regional services and coordinated between these two counties and issues of interest for our Federal delegation including Yellowstone National Park will be better served by having these two counties together.
Pat Flowers
I urge you to select the district configuration described by CP11. It best satisfies the overriding consideration of creating competitive districts. The importance of competitive districts ensures that elected representatives will be responsive to the needs of all voters rather than just serving the needs of those with their party affiliation. CP11 also honors the economic connections between communities by keeping linked communities like Bozeman and Livingston in the same districts. Thanks for your consideration.
Julie Verellen
I do not support this map. Kalispell should not be in the same district as Billings. This is not representative division of boundaries and should not be considered.
Chris Muhlenfeld
This map doesn't make sense, and should never have been proposed. I hope that Montana ends up with the fair, reasonable map proposed in CP10.
TIM HODGES
I like CP11 as it preserves county lines as natural communities of interest.
Oxana Gamba
This map is a try to sabotage the democracy. absolutely not !!!
Ron Lambert
Map 11, while not perfect, seems to be the option to best provide for a balanced and representative electorate.
Ace Schneck
I support Map 11 as it divides MT on boundaries that make sense as opposed to Map 10
Evan Jones
I support this map because it represents a fair alternative to the Map 10 model. Lewis and Clark County is a growing part of the state and with that growth more business alliances across the state but especially in the West. I personally have to leave the county into the West side of the state for business every week (along with many of my neighbors).
Keith Allen
I support CP 11 as it more fairly represents historical boundaries when Montana had two Congressional Districts. This allows Montana's two Congressional representatives to better represent parts of Montana that will typically have similar interests. This map also does a better job of keeping whole counties together within the districts. Thank you.
Ashea Mills
I support this map because it splits populations evenly, it is competitive, it does not support one party over the other, and because it keeps Park and Gallatin Counties together. We are enmeshed in many ways--I live in Park County, but the majority of my healthcare and shopping is in Gallatin County. We share families, friends, economy, recreation, landscapes, values and more. Please do not split us.
Thomas Meinzen
I support this map. It does not break up Gallatin County or Bozeman and divides Montana more fairly. It creates a competitive western district that will compel representatives there to appeal to both sides of the aisle, and groups the interests of eastern Montana and western Montana more cohesively and fairly. As one can see with the positive comments from both sides of the state, this map serves Montanans more fairly than CP10.
Garth Neuffer
I support Map #11 because it does a much better job of keeping my home and community of Bozeman and Bridger Canyon together. It also keeps intact the broader communities of interest in Gallatin and Park counties, and creates a competitive new district that lets all Montanans express their political and policy views. This one is a keeper!
Debra McNeill
This map is the best choice for redistricting because it keeps Gallatin and Park counties in the same district, it doesn't split up Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway, and it keeps the union towns of Helena and Butte in the same district thereby strengthening the voice of unions with their representative. It also provides the Tribal community with a voice in a competitive district. And most of all, it creates a competitive district rather than two districts that can be easily dominated by one party.
Chadwick Moore
Despite the issue of splitting Flathead Co, this map seems to be the best alternative to represent Montanans fairly.
leigh Dykema
Missoula and Bozeman should be in separate districts to be fair
Anne Christensen
This map is much better than map 10 as it keeps Gallatin County and many other communities of interest intact. There could be some tweaking to improve it, but overall much improved.
Russell O'Leary
As a public lands voter, map 11 seems like the best option. It places a fair amount of public land in each district to ensure that they remain a priority of whoever is elected to these seats.
Map 11 also places Helena and Butte in the same district, which makes sense, considering their long standing historical ties. If these two maps are the final options of the commission, please choose map 11.
John Kirtley
I support neither CP11 or CP 10. Both seem to be clear examples of gerrymandering. How does Flathead county have more in common with the eastern district than Gallatin county? I suspect that many Flathead county residents are unhappy. The districts are supposed to represent the people, and NOT political parties!
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
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
Eleanor Barker
I support Map 11 because it seems to create two districts with equal numbers, and equal chance of advancing candidates from either party. No counties are split, and the map closely follows the historical precedent of the 1980s Congressional districts, moving only two counties to reach perfect population equality. The map also keeps Jefferson and Broadwater counties together with Helena, making sure that most commuters are kept in the same district as their workplace. This map keeps all of the Rocky Mountain Front, Golden Triangle, and Hi Line intact, where agriculture remains such a vital part of the local economy. Rural interests are an important part of Montana's diversity and heritage that should be kept together for a stronger voice in Congress.
ALAN C WILSON
Reject this map, it is a blatant attempt to divide a conservative county.
Helena Lovick
I support Map 11 because it doesn't split counties or communities with common interests unlike what I saw with Map 10. Please vote yes on Map 11. Thank you.
KATHLEEN Evans
This map offers the greatest representation to the most people in Montana. Why should the university cities be separated unless you want to deny them both representation. This way, everyone has the best chance of being represented on the Federal level.
Jaret Kadlec
Map 11 has much more of a fair and even chance for both districts and represents the people of western, central, and eastern Montana much more fairly than map 10
Amy S Katz
I support this map, for all of the reasons cited by others, and especially since it creates a balanced playing field wherein both parties have a shot at winning the new district. Please select Map 11.
Debbie Ehlert
Reject this map.
Joseph Nangle
Separating out Helena and dividing Gallatin and Park Counties would adversely affect the voting solidarity of southwestern Montanans concerned about economic , regulatory, and tourism related issues critical to our communities.
Laura Frazee
I think this map is the best option of the two submitted by the committee. I think it makes more sense to keep Gallatin Co intact.
Mary Halloran
Congressional districts should have a balance of geographies, communities and populations. This map does not achieve that goal. It’s ludicrous to think Flathead should be part of the Eastern district. The two university cities should definitely be separated. This map all but eliminates the Canadian interface for the Western district.
There is questionable adherence to the Montana Code Annotated 2021 - Redistricting Criteria:
"(2) (a): The districts MUST be compact, meaning that the compactness of a district is greatest when the length of the district and the width of a district are equal. A district may not have an average length greater than three times the average width unless necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act.”
— Has a cartographer confirmed that the Western district in this map actually complies with the Redistricting Criteria for compactness?
______________________
"(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: (b) political affiliations of registered voters"
— The recently adopted consideration of competitiveness should not usurp mandatory criteria. Clearly gerrymandering in the name of competitiveness is at work on this map.
Linda Mahr
When we have a voting system as Unrepresentative of the people as the electoral college, at least taking the time to divide districts so ethnicities, economic interests and geographic locations are more equally represented seems the only fair approach to a democracy. Map 11 does this better than 10.
Peter A Reynolds
I support this map, for all of the reasons cited by others, and especially since it creates a balanced playing field wherein both parties have a shot at winning the new district. Please select Map 11.
Claire Kleese
This map is not only more balanced approached to the districts but also empowers the Native voters in our state. I strongly support this redistricting map CP11 as a lifelong citizen of this state.
Callie Pecunies
I support this map because it keeps Gallatin County as a whole. As the fastest growing area in Montana, it's important to have a unified voice representing the shared interests of the entire county and tourism-based region. The eastern parts of Montana largely operate on a different platform - more agriculture, less tourism - that deserve to be represented by an individual who can make decisions that will positively affect a majority of the region which he or she represents. Please choose this map!
jeff Griffin
This is the best map for both republicans and democrats
Martin William Lester
No map is going to make everyone happy, this one best fills the requirements
Sharon S Patton-Griffin
Keeps counties and towns together
Sue Kirchmyer
Map #11 is more fair because it doesn't divide up counties and towns.
Charles F. Hinch
Provides most fair distribution!
Marsha J. Hinch
Most favorable for fair representation!
Janet L Childress
#11 is much fairer because it does not unduly favor a single political party. It adheres closely to historical congressional district boundaries that were in place prior to MT losing a seat in Congress.
Cities and counties with similar interests are kept intact (Livingston and Bozeman.) Helena and Butte are kept together, as every redistricting plan in MT has done previously. The map also importantly keeps the HiLine, Golden Triangle, and Rocky Mountain front intact where agricultures ia a vital party of the local economy.
As a Lewis and Clark County resident, I strongly prefer being included in District 1 since Helena has much more in common with the western part than the eastern part of the state.
This map makes economic, social, and cultural sense. It does not split communities with simialar interests. It honors tourist regions and it honors agriculatural regions.
The primary goal should be to ensure that ALL voices are heard. Under this plan, all votes count. This map is not a "give me" to the GOP. Maps that favor one party do not elevate every voice. I do believe the idea of democracy is to have every voice heard and not one party dominance.
Franki Parson
I support map 11, because it keeps Gallatin County whole. I think that any map that splits existing communities (counties) does not help with solving issues that are specific to those communities.
Debbie Churchill
CP-11 puts a county West of the Continental Divide (Flathead) in the Eastern District. Anyone who looks at this map can tell it is drawn for political reasons, which is contrary to Montana law. Also, Flathead County has no political, economic or cultural ties with the vast number of counties in the Eastern District. Even though both districts include the Canada Interface, Map CP-11 separates the Canada Interface which brings Canadian tourists to Flathead and Blackfeet tourism spots. This maps does not keep communities of interest intact, such as forestry and tourism by putting Flathead in the Eastern District. CP-11 is a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines. This map does not comply with Montana law because it is not compact when a candidate for the Eastern District would have to travel from one corner of the state to another to campaign.
Terrence Churchill
CP11 is a partisan attempt to make the Bozeman area a super democrat stronghold. Most of that area is populated with out of state people that bring out of state ideas. The Canadian interface in CP 11 is all but eliminated from the representation of the western representative. Splitting up the Flathead it is obviously politically and competitively motivated. This map makes it obvious that competitiveness is the driving force of the democratic side of the commission. Competitiveness was NOT supposed to be the primary prerequisite to making a map that the majority of the state will have to deal with for the next decade. The wording in the rules stated may not will or shall. Majority of Montana rejects CP11
Josie Johnson
I support Map 11 because it keeps all of Gallatin county in the Western District which is the one most likely to address issues that impact our community, given that most of the state's more populous cities will be in the western district. I also believe that it is healthy for the public discourse and civility for there to be at least one district in the state that is competitive and offers a large portion of the population (albeit slightly less than a majority) at least a possibility of being represented. Putting that aside, it would not make sense for those of us in Gallatin County that fall outside of the lines in Map 10 to be aligned with the interests of the eastern district since those are highly unlikely to reflect the issues and concerns that we face.
Rebecca Frucht
I support CP 11 because it makes economic, social and cultural sense -- it doesn't split communities of interest (Park/Gallatin); empowers Native communities; and honors agricultural regions. CP 11 is a much stronger map than CP 10.
Linda Kenoyer
I do not like Flathead County being split, and I have a philosophical problem with districts being shaped around recent voting patterns, but it keeps Bozeman intact and includes Livingston in the Western district. So, because I live in Livingston and prefer to be represented in a district with more in common with my community than the eastern district, I like this map.
Stefanie Hanson
Please reject both CP 10 and 11 and go with Map 1 as it complies with Montana statutes and constitutional requirements.. Thank you
Mary Mulcaire-Jones
I like this map as it makes for a more competitive situation in Montana. This is a healthy move for our state.
Anne Boychuck
I dislike this map because 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
• Even though both districts include the Canada Interface, Map CP-11 separates the Canada Interface which brings Canadian tourists to Flathead and Blackfeet tourism spots
• It fails to keep communities of interest intact, such as forestry and tourism
• It creates a District with communities that share no interests between Western Montana and Eastern Montana
• It isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities
• It a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines
• It is not compact when a candidate for the Eastern District would have to travel vast distances to campaign in the Eastern District
Dan Boychuck
I dislike this map because
• 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
• Even though both districts include the Canada Interface, Map CP-11 separates the Canada Interface which brings Canadian tourists to Flathead and Blackfeet tourism spots
• It fails to keep communities of interest intact, such as forestry and tourism
• It creates a District with communities that share no interests between Western Montana and Eastern Montana
• It isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities
• It a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines
• It is not compact when a candidate for the Eastern District would have to travel vast distances to campaign in the Eastern District
Mike S
I dislike this map because 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. Even though both districts include the Canada Interface, Map CP-11 separates the Canada Interface which brings Canadian tourists to Flathead and Blackfeet tourism spots. It fails to keep communities of interest intact, such as forestry and tourism. It creates a District with communities that share no interests between Western Montana and Eastern Montana. It isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities. It a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines. It is not compact when a candidate for the Eastern District would have to travel vast distances to campaign in the Eastern District.
Zach Nell
This map does not meet the compactness criteria for redistricting because it divides communities with common interests for political purposes. While this map keeps Gallatin and Park counties compact, it does the opposite for Flathead County. This map tries to skew a more Democratic vote by splitting Whitefish and Kalispell. The Flathead should be compact regardless of how politically different those two communities are. In addition, this map divides Columbia Falls, West Glacier, and Browning into the eastern district. Those communities do not belong in the same district as the communities in eastern Montana. It also harms the communities of the Blackfeet tribe by politically prioritizing Gallatin and Park counties into the west. Is that really how we want to treat the Native population? Sparing their vote because predominant white communities Bozeman and Livingston matter more?
Dan Boychuck
I dislike this map because
• 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
• Even though both districts include the Canada Interface, Map CP-11 separates the Canada Interface which brings Canadian tourists to Flathead and Blackfeet tourism spots
• It fails to keep communities of interest intact, such as forestry and tourism
• It creates a District with communities that share no interests between Western Montana and Eastern Montana
• It isolates one tribal community from all other tribal communities
• It a partisan attempt to split the Flathead along political lines
• It is not compact when a candidate for the Eastern District would have to travel vast distances to campaign in the Eastern District
Mark G Smith
This map attempts to pack Democratic votes by including as many metro centers as possible into the western district.
Natalie Adams
Bad map! This map clearly ensures a Democratic stronghold with Bozeman and Missoula included in one district. The point of the committee is to select fair maps. Neither of the maps in my opinion are good options. The committee selected two very partisan maps and its very clear!
Kyle Joyner
I support and recommend the selection Map CP #11, as it does better job of keeping the counties togethers, provides for a fairer realignment and, being a resident of Lewis and Clark County, there is more in common between L&C cnty and the western part of the state than that of the eastern part of Montana and thus CP 11 would allow for better representation not only for those in my county but the state overall.
Johanna DeVries
Map 11, unlike map 10, keeps Gallatin and Park Counties in the same district. These counties historically vote similarly.
Lora Wier
I support this proposal as it is the most fair.
Katherine French
CP11 is by far a better map for keeping communities of interest together. Park and Gallatin counties are intrinsically interconnected economically and geographically, and many people commute between these communities for work and school. All these factors are the same for Helena and Butte, which should also be kept in the same district. CP11 also keeps many agricultural regions in tact, especially in the Golden Triangle and along the Hi Line.
Nancy Cornwell
This map represents competing interests better than CP10. It keeps several geographical, economic, cultural and political interests in mind. Gallatin County (and even Park County with whom many interests are shared) remains whole. It keeps important ski area interests together. It keeps our strong union communities together. Each district will be able to engage in deliberations about the stresses and strains on our national parks. It doesn't split up any single Native American reservation. It has the best metrics of the two and in spite of dubious claims of gerrymandering, it prevents that exact result (embedded in CP10), by creating a potentially competitive district (it will still be a heavy lift for democrats, but it is theoretically possible). Let's not disenfranchise a significant minority of Montanans by diluting them into silence. Please choose CP11.
Robin Pleninger
I support map 11 because it ensures competitive elections.
Stan Downs
I support this proposed map (CP11) for three reasons: 1. There is significant Native American representation in each district which I believe is politically important. It keeps Bozeman and Gallatin County together which is a close knit community with common interests and it keeps the surrounding communities associated with Helena and includes Butte which shares similar interests with Helena. Finally, This map provides continuity and collective strength for the rural agricultural and ranching interests important to this state.
John Brock
These recent maps reflect more work by the Redistricting Commission as they appear to be headed toward agreement. Of the two, I urge the selection of Map 11 as it provides for a competitive district in the West.
Mark T. Savinski
I prefer Map #11 for the redistricting of the two Congressional Districts. It is the much fairer maps of the two alternatives. It provides a competitive district while adhering the closest to the historical boundaries of the prior Congressional Districts when Montana had two Congressional Districts in the past. Map #11 keeps the cities of Livingston and Bozeman together, which is positive because both cities have long standing common and shared interests. The same can be said for keeping Bozeman and Park County together. Additionally, Map #11 keeps the resort towns of Big Sky, Whitefish and West Yellowstone together, which is positive because these resort/tourist driven communities have common concerns and mutual understanding. I also feel that Map #11 provides a strong voice for Montana's Native-American population, which is very important in our State. Map #11 also follows more logical geographic boundaries and should ensure fairer representation of Montana's population in future elections. I strongly support Map #11 for the Congressional redistricting in Montana.
Christian Black
Christopher J Morigeau
The only real reason this map should be favored, in my opinion, is that Native voters are empowered under this plan, as there is a competitive district with a reservation, meaning that every candidate has to rely on Native votes to win the district. Non-competitive districts don't elevate voices and ensure accountability in the same way. It's long past due this country and state start giving Natives the respect in politics that they deserve. That includes ALL parties and candidates, not just the usual players.
If the above is not enough, this map additionally pays respect to rural Montanans and keeps all of the Rocky Mountain Front, Golden Triangle, and Hi Line intact, where agriculture remains such a vital part of the local economy. Rural interests are an important part of Montana's diversity and heritage that should be kept together for a stronger voice in Congress.
Two very valuable and important voices solidified by this map. It's a no brainer to go with CP11.
Judy Lewis
CP 11 does not split communities of interest, like Livingston and Bozeman, Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway. It is a more competitive district reflecting the changes that are happening in Montana growth patterns. It does not favor one political party over another. This map tries to give more of an equal voice to all residents of Montana.
Jeffrey Waldo
Map 11 achieves a balanced approach to two representative districts without unduly advantaging either political party. To achieve the balance, there is some splitting of Flathead County, but the grouping of the communities in each district is logical as the map links communalities of interests.
Map 10, on the other hand, splits Gallatin County which separates areas with communalities of interest.
I think Map 11 is fair and balanced.
Terry Dokken
This map appears to provide at least one competitive district, and is more likely to remain so as the population of the state increases. It also more closely resembles the historical districting when MT had 2 district. Please select this map.
Shelley Johnson
This map gives more populations representation in elections. Please select this one.
Robert Saurey
No map that includes any part of Montana west of the Continental Divide in the Eastern District should be considered!
John Evans
Choose this map.
David Rockwell
This is the fairest of the two maps. Please accept this map to keep competitive districts.
Thomas Millett
Reject this map for dividing a large county and splitting a large community (Kalispell). Resurrect map CP-1.
Roger Matthew
I'm a native Montanan and came of age when there was 2 Congressional Districts, the Eastern District high plains, rural and Republican, and the Western District more urban, mountainous and Democratic. I have no problem with returning to this type of representation. This map gives Democrats a fighting chance, and it keeps Gallatin County whole. I'm in favor of this map.
Atticus C Cummings
Approve this map!!!
This is a fair map and far better than the alternative. It follows more logical geographic boundaries and should ensure a more fair representation of the population in elections!
JANET S BLACKLER
This is the better of the two maps. It adheres most closely to the historical boundaries of our legislative districts.
Glenn Wehe
This map is EVEN WORSE than the other one. REJECT THIS MAP
ROBERT FREY
Map 11 is far more representative of the east/west: Rep/Dem divide of the state. by including all of Gallatin, Missoula, and Lewis and Clark counties in the western district. Map 10 would "crack" the Bozeman area by setting the boundary for the east on the eastern Bozeman city limits, and exclude Lewis and Clark county from the western district. There are a lot of citizens (myself included, as I live 1/2 mile east of the Bozeman city limit) that identify with Bozeman that would be excluded from the western district on Map 10.
Yvonne M Rudman
I prefer CP11. It accomplishes the Commission's goals of population balance and georgraphical compactness and recognizes that Gallatin and Park counties are a geographical, environmental and economic entity; thus Gallatin should not be split and both counties should be in the same district. I'd prefer that Flathead not be split for many of the same reasons.
Kenda Kitchen
Map 10 is better divided that 11. It does divide Flathead Co. which I don't like but it keeps state more equally divided giving a moderate Democrat or Republican a chance which 10 would make sure we had Republicans.
Allyson Gomolka
Why are all the heavy democrat areas all concentrated into one district? Clearly a gerrymandering effort. Very strange division of the flathead that is not necessary. Go back to East-west division that has worked historically.
Jeremy Gomolka
How long is it going to take for you to remove the liberal politics out of redistricting? I am ashamed of the job you are doing public servants. Why are you so reluctant to leave the choice of government up to "we the people" of the State of Montana by creating districts that split east/west and do not weight the democratic side?(maybe follow the continental divide? it is one of the natural barriers that was spoken of in the law you are supposed to be complying with) If the majority of the people in Montana have conservative values that is none of your business. It is your job to create districts that follow the will of the people and the Law in our state. Not to ''correct'' or I should say ''give control of'' our state to a minority view.
Kenda Kitchen
First I was surprised after going through the first 9 maps that they were all thrown out and suddenly we have two new maps! However of the two I believe 11 is a far better split, both maps keep the districts east and west so the representative does not have to drive through the other district to get back to theirs. 11 is much closer on the population split. I hate to see any county split but 11 does a fairer job of dividing the county's that it does divide. This map just better represents the populations of the state and gives a fairer chance in both area's for a fair election.
Kenda Kitchen
First I was surprised after going through the first 9 maps that they were all thrown out and suddenly we have two new maps! However of the two I believe 11 is a far better split, both maps keep the districts east and west so the representative does not have to drive through the other district to get back to theirs. 11 is much closer on the population split. I hate to see any county split but 11 does a fairer job of dividing the county's that it does divide. This map just better represents the populations of the state and gives a fairer chance in both area's for a fair election.
Jeremy Gomolka
How long is it going to take for you to remove the liberal politics out of redistricting? I am ashamed of the job you are doing public servants. Why are you so reluctant to leave the choice of government up to "we the people" of the State of Montana by creating districts that split east/west and do not weight the democratic side?(maybe follow the continental divide? it is one of the natural barriers that was spoken of in the law you are supposed to be complying with) If the majority of the people in Montana have conservative values that is none of your business. It is your job to create districts that follow the will of the people and the Law in our state. Not to ''correct'' or I should say ''give control of'' our state to a minority view.
Dianne Hansen
I'm suspicious that Montana values will slide farther from our Montana consciousness due to transplants and students coming from other areas into our University towns. This map emphasizes the larger towns grouped together into one district. Bad plan because the big cities are becoming more and more uncompetitive politically as transplants from other areas move there.
Jim Gomolka
This map is clearly gerrymandering a democrat district. It is not compact and divides communities with common interests. Some tribal voices will be rendered mute. There is no competition with this map. Dem and Rep districts will be enshrined permanently. People won't have incentive to vote. Bad map favoring Democrats and little legitimate benefits.
John Wright
It is down to whether having Helena in the Western District is worth putting the Blackfeet and Salish Reservations in separate districts. Also, should Kalispell be placed 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 instead be a matter of which map best serves the citizens of Montana.
Cynthia Di Francesco
Map 11 keeps the business districts of Park and Gallatin Counties together, critical for the management of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, healthcare and business. Also reflects Montana today and provides equal chance for both parties to win an elected representative.
Alene Tunny
This map will give representation for western rural communities, indigenous peoples, and provide population equality. This map gives both political parties an opportunity to win and allows for actual competitive elections!
Mark P Dobday
Keep some sort of balance.
Linda G Semones
This is the one. It keeps Gallatin County whole, as well as Gallatin Gateway and Big Sky. It keeps Gallatin County and Park County together, as communities of interest. It keeps the universities together for strong representation. It keeps the highline undivided, the farming area of the State undivided, the areas depending on skiing and tourism undivided, and has an equal population split. It keeps Helena and Butte in the same district as they should be. It also creates one competitive district. This map best meets the goals and criterion established. Good map.
Susan Buchanan Hess
This map is not fair! It is an attempt to consolidate a single party into one district. It puts all the larger (growing) cities into one district except Billings. The tribal communities are unduly represented in both districts and minimizes the importance of tribal input. This map clearly creates a democratic district that is noncompetitive to fairly represent this state. The Montana values need to be protected from liberal transplants that will move into the larger cities and move us further away from the Montana way of life (freedom of government tyranny).
Kari Gunderson
I favor this map as it is more fairly drawn. It doesn't disenfranchise Native Americans. It is the best map of the two available for consideration. Thank you.
Hill Mescall
A district map should not be drawn to favor any party. This one does. Don’t break up counties and add more confusion .
Map 11 doesn’t give enough say to the Native American Communities who have always gotten a raw deal.
Tonia Dyas constructed a GREAT map I believe it was Number CP 1 . I don’t feel it got the consideration it deserved . She worked very hard too incorporate the Native American Territories and the larger cities in a fair and honest way moving forward. Please review it with fresh eyes. If you choose not to then CP 10 is at least a better choice than CP 11.
Sharon S Patton-Griffin
This map does the best job of keeping counties and reservations intact. It also keeps "communities of interest intact best. Map 10 has unequal statitists in several categories.
Toni Semple
This map reflects fairness and diversity.
James Reavis
This compromise map CP 11 is preferable over the other map CP 10. The western district keeps the college towns and urban communities of Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula together. Indian reservations are kept intact, and only one county is split. This map is a decent compromise. Kalispell is connected to the Hi-line and it is reasonable for Kalispell to be a part of the same district with those communities.
Julie Quenemoen
This map is both the most competitive and population equal of the two. This process has demanded a lot of devotion and commitment from the districting commission. Sending appreciation.
Ann Ingram
I do not like this map. It takes all the items important to the democrats like both universities in the same district and splitting the Flathead with Whitefish(democrat) in the west with Missoula, Bozeman and Butte and putting Kalispell and Big Fork in the East?? I am amazed that they have abandoned their tribal allies with only one nation in the west and the rest in the super republican district in the east, essentially neutering any influence or importance to their perspectives. I am curious to see the tribal response to being thrown under the bus.
Traci Rasmusson
This looks like the best map of the two available. It more closely follows the historical precedent set by earlier re-districting efforts.
Julia Shaida
The most fair of the two remaining maps.
Michele S Carey
I don't like this map. Although it is better in that it leaves Gallatin County intact, it still splits Flathead County. I think counties should be left intact. Keep trying.
Marilyn Grams
I agree this map gives fair representation to moderate voters like me, and also gives both political parties an opportunity to win. I agree that Map 11 is the better solution because it groups communities together with common concerns like West Yellowstone, Whitefish, and Big Sky and groups cities together with common concerns: Bozeman and Livingston. Map 11 also follows historical precedents from when MT used to have 2 Congressional districts.
David Ball
This map only splits Flathead County and is the better choice. A better option was map 18 in the original set of public maps. Map 18 changes this map by moving Lewis and Clark to the east, includes all of Flathead in the west, and splits Broadwater County, which only has a population of 6774. It is competitive in the west.
Nancy Bussiere
This map creates the best possibility for competitive elections. It will give representation to indigenous peoples, representation for western rural communities, as well as providing population equality. Those voices have not been fairly represented. This map gives fair representation to moderate voters and also gives both political parties an opportunity to win.
Sally Behr Schendel
Map 11 is the better solution because it keeps cities from being split, such as Big Sky; groups communities together with common concerns like West Yellowstone, Whitefish, and Big Sky; groups cities together with common concerns: Bozeman and Livingston.
Shannon K Thomas
Map 11 is a competitive map that follows historical precedents from when MT used to have 2 Congressional districts. This map empowers Native voices as there is a district with a reservation ensuring candidates will need to vie for the Native vote. As a Helena resident and Union member, this map keep Helena and Butte together as every prior redistricting proposal has done. Unlike Map 10, this map does not favor one party over the other. We must not allow partisan rule in our state for the next 10 years. A competitive map is a must.
Sharon Stokesbary
Of the two remaining maps, this one seems the most balanced and will offer the fairest election.
Jeff McNeish
Of the two remaining proposals, this is the only one that provides for a district that does not unduly favor one political party.
Cindy Havens
Thank you very much for all your hard work in this very tough job. I'm not a political pro, but it seems pretty clear that CP11 is far more fair, balanced and competitive (doesn't split cities or Gallatin County), and would allow representation for similar interests. Yay for democracy and allowing voices to be heard.
Patricia A Hogan
Map CP11 is preferable to Map CP10, because it gives a competitive result, while maintaining roughly equal population splits. Only CP11 has a district that does not unduly favor one party over the other.
Tonia Dyas
Both map 10 & map 11 are bad maps. They both carve up their respective "sacrificed county" in an attempt to get the population deviation where they want it. Map 10 carves up Gallatin county, and Map 11 carves up Flathead county. These counties are carved up so bad that voting precincts are divided ! Something that the district drawing tools provided to "we the people" don't allow us to do - therefore neither of these maps can be recreated in the provided tools.
How about y'all stop gerrymandering and go look at the map I drew and submitted back in Sept. It meets ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS : contiguous, compact, DOES NOT SPLIT ANY COUNTIES, does not split any Native American territories, and the population deviation is +/- 50
The Democrats should like it because it has Missoula, Great Falls & Helena all in the same district.
The Republicans should like it because it separates Gallatin (the fastest growing county) from Missoula. This will hopefully keep the population growth in both districts fairly even over the next 10 years.
Here's the URL - Go Look - it's a good map for everyone !
https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/e0a5c47f-4434-47ff-b0a9-01233ba3a87b
Billy McWilliams
I support this map, it makes for a competitive race, that could help make our politics less divisive. It gives a voice to our community and hope for the future of Montana.
Maureen O'Mara
This map gives a voice to many groups in this state that are usually underrepresented. It gives a united voice for the rural communities in the western part of the state; the Indigenous voice will be given representation. This plan closely follows the historical precedent of the 1980s Congressional districts, moving only two counties to reach perfect population equality.
Gail Waldby
I support this map, because it is population equal and competitive (Cook PVI Score of R+5). It also includes Park and Gallatin Counties in one District, honoring their close relationship.
Brian Koukol
As a proponent of the democratic process I feel our political landscape has not valued the right of the people, but have played to the right of politics parties. The process we know as gerrymandering has more often than not played to the political power bases and we have seen too often the candidate with the lesser votes win the race. I believe the division of Gallatin County would just perpetuate the problem. Please institute map 11 where Gallatin County is included with the southern portion of the western district to achieve a balance in preserving a fair and equitable vote
David Ingram, MD
This map is a blatant attempt to create a democratic district which is noncompetitive by carving out Kalispell and part of Bigfork and putting them in the East with Mile city and Glendive. It also minimizes the importance of all tribal input by putting only CSKT in a "democratic" stronghold, reducing their influence and putting all other nations in the East. I ask my fellow Montanans how they can justify the creation of a "competitive" district without gerrymandering, when the states' representatives are 67 Republicans and 33 Democrats, without using illegal criterion.
Scott Burke
This map is the definition of gerrymandering - try to lump in as many liberal areas on the same map to win a seat. Why not straight down the middle of the state where the population is split evenly - why was that thrown out? Everything else is manipulation pure and simple.
George Havens
No matter the map chosen, not everyone will be pleased. This map however is the best at creating a competitive district where everyone's voice might he heard. That alone, should be the reason for the acceptance of this map.
Tom Woods
Let's face it. You are going to make somebody unhappy with whatever you choose, but this map does a better job of creating districts that are economically and geographically cohesive. If it's a "competitive" district that's a win for everybody. Competition is a good thing, right?
Judith Davis
Montana voters deserve the chance to have competitive districts. Gerrymandering is not what is expected from this committee. Please, consider the fairness of map 2.
Janice Clinard
Considering how Montana's population is skewed west, this map does a great job of balancing population while leaving a reasonable chance for a competitive district.
Perry Helt
I don't care for either of these maps, call this one GERRYMANDER! and the other one gerrymander lite. What is wrong with CP1 or Cp3 ? Oh yeah, they make the "progressives" scream because they don't cram a lopsided number of Republicans into the eastern district so they can carve out a U.S. House vote for the "New American Left" in the solidly Republican state of Montana! How come you don't list the distribution of R and D voters in this one? Is there some kind of secret to be kept? Think about all the disenfranchised R voters created when such a large # of them are shoehorned into the east. Think about what the left does to R voters when they have the advantage, why should we treat them any differently?
Julie Fogarty
This map keeps the union towns of Helena and Butte together, as every redistricting plan in Montana has previously done.
Rebecca Steely
It makes no sense that I would be in the western district, while my family that lives 15 min north of me in Kalispell are in the same district as Broadus. Bozeman belongs in the eastern district far more than Kalispell.
Charles Kankelborg
I appreciate how this map keeps me with my neighbors and co-workers in Gallatin county. Overall, I think this map does a better job of creating two districts that each have coherent needs and interests.
Seth Berglee
Bozeman is less than a 6 hour drive from SE MT, Kalispell is 10.5! If you are going to split a region, splitting the fastest growing city in the state makes sense. If the goal is to make a "competitive" district then the commission should be looking at previous CONGRESSIONAL races and not presidential. In addition, if you make one district a 50/50 you are then making the other district uncompetitive.
Jim Buterbaugh
This map seems to keep all the large cities but Billings in a group in one district and all puts all the Indian reservations in a group in the other district along with Billings. Big cities and the reservations always votes democrat. Unacceptable map
PJ McNeal
This map provides for similar economic interests to remain grouped together. Adopting this districting map will be a step forward in helping to assure that all Montana voices can be heard. It will least allow our Congress women and men to consider only their partisan constituents' desires. This map better represents our Treasure State values and American ideals.
Charity Fechter-Shirley
Like that it doesn't split Gallatin County and keeps it combined with Park County. Doesn't split Bozeman growth area when it is focused on western issues. Keeps Big Sky (which is partly in Madison, partly in Gallatin) in one district. Not too excited about splitting Flathead County, but Whitefish and Kalispell are entirely different communities.
Nancy Metcalf Loeza
The new district still leans Republican, yet it gives the Democrats a chance at least. I want a new district that gives each party a chance. We have such an extreme lone voice in the house now, it would be nice to have a chance to elect a more moderate problem solver, be them Democrat or Republican.
Quenemoen Joni
This map appears to be fair. It seems to consider important issues such as those who commute to work, rural issues, etc.
Lucy Morell-Gengler
This map seems to provide the best distribution of the population and areas of similar concerns.
Katie Renwick
No map is perfect, but this seems like the better option to me. It is more fair than the others, and will do a better job of making sure that the concerns of all Montanans are considered by politicians by creating a district where both major parties have a chance.
Marcus H Smith
This map strikes a fair, competitive balance that is Montana!
Carrie Jones
Competition in Elections is one of the most important factors in tying communities together and moderating civic behavior. This map does a better job of that.
Ada Montague
I believe this map will give everyone the most fair chance at election. It balances the yin and yang of this great state appropriately.
Liane Johnson
I think all of these maps but one (7) have been so poorly designed that I am tempted to say give the new representative to the next state in line in hopes that someone there makes decisions based on common sense instead of gerrymandering guiding a commission which is supposed to protect the people not a political party. Use the mountains for the divider and get on with it.
Anne Banks
I believe Map 11 is the better choice. It groups Missoula, Helena, Butte, Bozeman and Livingston together, sharing interests and a somewhat more liberal point of view than the eastern parts of the state. The large agricultural areas of the the state are included in district 1. No cities are cut in half.
Patrick Berryhill
This map would likely send two Republicans to the House of Representatives, whereas CP-10 would guarantee it. CP-11 contains a better balance.
James Ray
This map does not split up Gallatin County and does not represent the egregious gerrymandering as does the other proposal.
David Buckingham
This map successfully divides the state into the two leading ideologies, liberal and conservative, and would therefore enable the elected congressperson of each district to more-wholly represent the values of their respective constituents. Is this not the foundation of our representative democracy?
Roger Breeding
This is much the better choice. It keeps all of Gallatin County together, and with Park County also.
Noreen Breeding
Of the two choices, this map is clearly superior in that communities of shared interest, i.e. Bozeman, Livingston, Helena, and Missoula are kept together. No large population centers are cut in two. It best reflects the actual population distribution of the state.
Jennifer Ray
This map is by far the best option, splitting up counties is never a perfect solution, however I agree that splitting up Flathead county in that manner allows both areas to be represented more appropriately. Splitting up Gallatin County and including Bozeman in the East absolutely makes no sense and is a prime example of blatant gerrymandering
Sally Speer
Map provides equal distribution of population
Larry Smith
I meant Pondera County, not Teton County, in my previous comment!
Larry Smith
I think this map is the best of an imperfect situation. While dicing up Flathead County is a problem, it's either Flathead or Gallatin, given the situation. The inclusion of L&C and Gallatin in the west and Teton in the east makes way more sense than the alternative.
Richard Haas
This map represents the people of Montana. It keeps communities together, and gives each party a chance of whining an election.
Teresa Larson-Pohndorf
Thank you for the time and effort put into this decision, and I appreciate the opportunity for public comment. My vote is for Map CP11, mainly because I am opposed to splitting up Gallatin County. I've been a Montana resident for almost 30 years, and after living in Bozeman I would also agree that it makes sense to group Park County with Gallatin County.
Jason Printz
I am a 5th generation Montanan from Missoula. Everyone knows that The Flathead and the Eastern part of the state are more idealogically aligned, as are Missoula, Helena and Bozeman. CP11 represents this perfectly.
Frank Curry
This map does not represent a equal split of the state it only gerrymanders a district to favor one party. This is an outright attempt to make sure all the more liberal areas are in one district. If you only take into account make a distribution more competitive and throw out the rest of the rules then this is that map. Other maps not used are better than this one.
Marlene Hutchins
Thank you for your hard work. I see how this map keeps counties and similar communities together (Helena/Bozeman/Missoula). I notice that Great Falls and Billings, two larger population centers, are grouped together in District 2--makes the districts competitive. The populations are as close as they can get. This map gives District 1 a shot, a voice--without favoring--making it competitive. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Barbara L Aas
while still problematic in dividing counties this map more accurately describes MT and seems the. most bi[artisan which is the goal.
Barbara L Aas
while still problematic in dividing counties this map more accurately describes MT and seems the. most bi[artisan which is the goal.
Eric Grove
While certainly not perfect, this map comes closer to reflecting the value differences between the rural and urban parts of our state. Both of those value systems are important. For the good of our democracy, those differences need to be given relatively equivalent footing during elections
Chris Catlett
This map seems the most reasonable in keeping counties together, and keeping similar communities together (BZN/Missoula University communities, and rural communities). It also puts Great Falls and Billings together which are two larger population centers.
Clint Whittle-Frazier
No map will be perfect, but considering these boundaries will be set for the next 10 years I think it's the best choice for Montana. One district has Bozeman/Missoula, and the other has Billings/Kalispell. Both these areas have similar interests and culture, and having a representative from each would balance Montana well in Congress.
Jason Krumbeck
Although this map does split Flathead County, it is less egregious than the alternative map that splits Gallatin county to create two Republican districts. It will create a competitive district (which Republicans would still be favored to win). A competitive district serves the interests of moderates/independents. The alternative is a situation where the election is really decided in the primary where usually whoever is furthest to the right wins. I support this map. It provides fair representation to moderates and provides a real chance for either party to win as well.
Unfortunately it seems that something has to be split either way, and it makes much more sense to keep Missoula and Bozeman together than to separate them.
Elizabeth Bird
I believe this is the better map. I agree with others that splitting Gallatin Valley/County splits common interests (especially as my address is just barely inside of the eastern district which I find distressing). The split in the Flathead area seems more sensible as described by other commenters. I urge the commission to select this map. Thank you for your hard work.
Leslie Sill
This map gives an unfair advantage to the democrats in that both the college towns of Missoula and Bozeman are in the same district. Additionally, I live in Lake County, but in Bigfork along the Swan River. With this map, it separates us from the rest of Bigfork which is in Flathead county. Those in Bigfork in the Swan Lake area are also affected.
Jay Johnson
This map is perfect. It almost guarantees a Democrat candidate remain competitive in the Western district. Based on 2020 Federal election results, this allows the Democrat strongholds of Bozeman, Helena, Missoula, and most importantly Whitefish to monopolize the Western district countering any Republican votes and turning The Great State of Montana purple.
Clinton Nagel
Does it really matter that much if the populations of both districts are so close in population? If not, I don't understand the little carve out of Flathead County. How much population is contained in that section? I've been consistent in my opposition to splitting up of counties. Yet the totality of this map is close to how the reorganization should look like.
Keith Hanssen
Statistically speaking, this map is closest to the committee’s bipartisan objective.
Aaron Traxinger
This map makes more sense to me than the other one. It keeps the areas of the state that most reflect each others interest together. The Eastern half of the state is primary Ag and Industry and can be represented by someone that is looking out for them and the western district is less Ag and industry. Livingston, Gateway, Big Sky and Bozeman are all pretty much the same community and should not be split. From my experience of visiting Columbia Falls and Whitefish every summer, those two communities seem less cohesive.
Paula Marie Yvette Morin
This map eliminates Kalispell Flathead county which is unfortunate. However it seems to be a realistic effort to include Gallatin, Lewis & Clark and Missoula counties intact. Primarily Helena, Bozeman and Missoula have much more in common in terms of community needs, population growth and resource-development planning. Please select this map!
Roger Fischer
Why isn't there a map that splits the state in a north/south fashion? Wouldn't that make for more competitive districts?
Roger Fischer
This map has my support. It keeps Gallatin and Park Counties together, both of which have much more in common with the western half of the state. Please choose this map, not CP 10.
Roger Fischer
This map has my support. It keeps Gallatin and Park Counties together, both of which have much more in common with the western half of the state. Please choose this map, not CP 10.
Karl Neumann
It’s the fairest split, keeps the fastest growing and changing county, Gallatin, together.
DAVID L FAUTH
CP11 MAKES THE MOST SENSE FOR ALL OF MONTANA
Brad Tschida
Putting Kalispell and much of Flathead County, by and large, into the same district as Broadus and Powder River County is inane.
Maps 1, 3, 7 & 5 are much more representative of the industrial and economic differences in this State.
Both CP -10 and 11 are unrealistic and strive to meet the subjective "competitive" standard. You can certainly do much better than either of these unqualified efforts.
Thomas Cuezze
This is an excellent map which I wholeheartedly support. It's not 100% perfect, but it's about as close as the commission will ever get. This map:
-Keeps Gallatin County whole and keeps Gallatin in a district with Park County, ensuring these two closely tied areas are represented together.
-Keeps Bozeman and Missoula, the state's college communities, together, as I have urged in my previous comments. College towns are a unique community of interest.
-Ensures tribal representation in both districts.
-Creates a cohesive east/west divide, with a mining/forestry/tourism, more urban western district and an agriculture/industry, more rural eastern district. This is how the state has been divided in the past.
-Puts most of the agricultural areas of Flathead County as well as Kalispell in the eastern district, which is the most logical and "least bad" option for evening out the population
-Keeps Whitefish, which as the commissioners noted is very different from the rest of Flathead County, in with the western district
-Most importantly, creates a "fair fight" district. Montana is a 55-45 red state, so one red district and one competitive district makes sense. This map means the western representative will have to be a moderate who listens to all voices.
In conclusion, this is the right map for Montana.
Andrew R. Brekke
This map tries, but fails in my opinion with the Flathead now part of Eastern Montana? Not a good compromise.
Elle Son
Shared Canada border: barely; reservations equally distributed: no; terrain and space evenly distributed, barely; main university towns equally represented: no; overall population evenly distributed between the districts, yes; counties divided, no; gerrymandered, somewhat (but better than the monstrosities introduced last week...I appreciate the effort from EVERYONE, but we have to be real). Thank you for giving us this chance to provide input.
Steven Eschenbacher
While I appreciate the Commission's attempts to divide equally, Flathead County is a complete disaster. There needs to be consideration given to the local government being consolidated as much as possible within one district.
Splitting Flathead County this way is a very transparent attempt to minimize the collective vote of that County in order to ensure maximum chances for the current Democratic Party.
TL
I believe rural areas of Central and Eastern MT should not be in the same district as Bozeman, Missoula and Billings.
James Peter Koscielniak
I think both congressional districts should be as competitive as possible. There should no 'safe' districts in States that have more than a single Representative across the entire country; regardless of party affiliation!
Add Comment
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 districting@legmt.gov