MyDistricting | MONTANA
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by
Provide your comments for consideration in the 2021 Redistricting process
Show me how
Your comment has been added to the map.
Labels visible at zoom level 10.
Labels visible at zoom level 13.
Labels visible at zoom level 17.
Current Map Zoom:
Population and Geography based on 2020 Census Redistricting Data File
I by far prefer Map 11, but if I have to choose between Map 12 and 13, Map 13 is the fairer option.
As stated in my comments on Map 11, I think that is clearly the best one. However, since 12 and 13 are apparently the final runners up (how did that even happen), I think 13 is superior to 12, mostly because it is more competitive and will allow our state to grow and change and have those changes matter. It also takes Native American tribes' wishes into better consideration.
Mary Ann Wellbank Smietanka
As stated on the Commission’s website, “Each and every Montanan is entitled to an equal voice in the halls of the U.S. Congress and under the dome of the state Capitol in Helena. This is where that promise is kept.” However, Proposal 12, does not keep that promise. In fact, it assures that Montana will continue to be dominated by Republican perspectives and lawmakers. I live in Clancy Montana, just south of Helena. Clancy, like Helena, suddenly finds itself in the Eastern District, although we are located in the western portion of the state and have more in common with other western communities. An examination of voting patterns over the last decade shows that the proposed split would favor Republicans, defying the Commission’s objective of not unduly favoring a political party. On the other hand, Proposal 13 more fairly splits the districts and promotes competition between the parties. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment. I urge you to reconsider the Commission’s preference for Proposal 12 and instead adopt Proposal 13, a much more impartial apportionment of the districts that would promote, rather than impede, competition and provide better options and fair elections for all Montanans.
I am supportive of Map 13. The other map basically goes against true democracy by diluted our growing populations. The argument of not wanting to become CA is flawed. (MT is so far from CA in so many ways, this is not real..) People coming here are, in fact, paying taxes. They are now Montanans whether people like it or not. We need to have everyone's vote count, even if we don't agree with one another.
Draw the map fairly. Don't be splitting a county like Gallatin just to tilt in favor of Republican representation.
I am for Map 13.
Terrible idea. The process appears to be breaking down. This is by sliding into very substantial and visible gerrymandering. Three counties split! As an independent voter who lives in a split county (for State races) I want the map to conform to County boundaries. And I want Lewis and Clark to be in the new district because Republicans don’t even care about representing independent voters.
This map is gerrymandered. Lewis and Clark County should not be divided. I would prefer County’s be honored with the exception of tribal lands. Listen to the Tribal leaders. I’m an independent voter but I don’t belong with the Red half of the State.
I support this map as it is more competitive, and also includes Helena in the Western district where it historically was.
I support this map because it creates one district that might be competitive. Having at least one district that's competitive is very important to keep people interested in voting. This is one of the most important goals of the commission.
Susan R Orr
I don't like this map because it splits counties like Gallatin and Lewis and Clark, that's ridiculous!
I support Map 13. It provides a balanced and fair representation of all Montana voters.
I strongly support map 13. Gallatin Co and Park Co are increasingly interdependent on each other economically and socially. Park Co is a major bedroom community for Gallatin Co, and residents regularly travel between the two. It is fair to say that residents of Park Co go west to Gallatin Co far more than they go east for shopping, recreating, dining, airport access, etc. Furthermore, these two counties contain all of the Montana entrances to Yellowstone National Park, and it is vitally important to have consistent, uniform representation for our gateway communities and for the resources and tourism that Yellowstone provides and protects. Public lands, specifically our national parks, bring in billions of dollars of revenue for local economies every year, so I believe it would be most beneficial for the state to locate both Glacier and Yellowstone within the same district. Please advance CP 13 and thank you for your time and hard work delivering fair maps for Montana.
Last night I submitted a vote in favor of CP13 but my comment indicated that I favored CP11. I do support CP11 but I meant to state that I strongly support CP13. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment!
Map CP13 creates the most balanced, competitive districts of the two options.
After studying the various options, I find this map to be in line with the commission’s goal of a competitive district, and it most closely represents western Montana.
Dear Honorable Committee Members, Once again, I commend you on your considerable efforts during this process. Montana is growing, changing, evolving and we need as much balance as possible in order to not disenfranchise any community in this great state. As an INDEPENDANT resident of Montana I've taken a close look at both redistricting maps. I'd like to see the committee remain unbiased and I'd like to see a map that equally favors ALL Montana residents and is balanced from a political perspective. I much prefer the equilibrium offered by Proposal #13 to represent all Montana residents in Washington. Thank you!
Earlier today I submitted comments about Map CP12 and urged the Commissioners to reject that map in favor of Map CP11. I still believe Map CP11 is a more appropriate map for Montana than CP12; but at the time of my writing, I was unaware that Map CP13 existed. After studying Map CP13, I believe map CP13 is the fairest of the options under consideration and want to urge the commissioners to adopt Map CP13. It creates a new District that does not unduly favor one party over the other and would most likely be competitive. It also does an excellent job of keeping communities of interest and communities with cultural ties together. Map CP13 includes at least two Tribal nations in both districts, an improvement over Map CP11. This is an important improvement because the Blackfeet and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai have a long history of working together on common interests and both should be included in the Western District. Map CP13 keeps Helena in the Western District where it belongs because of it's common cultural and economic interests with Deer Lodge, Anaconda and Butte. This map also keeps Park County, Bozeman, Big Sky and West Yellowstone together which is important given their common interests and what is essentially an economic region. CP13 unfortunately divides Jefferson County from Butte and I think that is a mistake given their common interests and interconnectedness. This map also divides three counties which might not appear to be ideal; however, I believe it does so in a way that keeps communities of interests together and puts them in the District that has the most common interests with them. Map CP13 is a fair map that makes sense. As I stated in earlier comments, drawing the perfect map may be impossible. But I believe Map CP13 is the one that comes the closest of all those we've seen so far and it will serve Montanans well for the next ten years. I urge the Commissioners to adopt Map CP13. Thank you for your work and for considering my comments.
I support map CP13. It meets most of the criteria agreed to by the commission. Although a few communities are divided, communities of interest are not. Both districts are competitive and keep like geographic areas together.
This map is good because it strives to make the voting districts as competitive as possible.
I don’t like this map because it splits too many counties and communities.
I'm not sure the intent of Map 13, but I don't see that it follows the intent of the districting parameters in the law, so I oppose it. Looks like we're carving up the map with no benefit, and to the detriment of Native Americans and rural residents.
I am opposed to Map 13. I believe it unnecessarily divides communities and fails to provide fair representation for Montana's rural communities and Native Americans.
This is the best of the newer maps. It keeps to the committee's charge to create districts that have equal population and which are both competitive. It also most closely matches one of the original maps that had the support of Montana's tribal communities. It answers concerns that previous maps had the entire Canadian border within one district, as well. This one ticks all the boxes for a fair map.
Of the final 4 maps, CP13 would be my 3rd choice. It is better than CP11, but places too much emphasis on being competitive rather than reflecting the character of the districts.
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 current 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. Now that we can see clearly what the Montana Republican party is about, CP10 and CP12 clearly create non-competitive Districts. The AP has demonstrated this clearly. Progressive and Independent voters, like me, 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. Thank you for the opportunity to comment!
I oppose this map. It does not represent a fair distribution.
This map appears to be more of a "Let's make a safe Democrat seat" than an attempt to draw the boundary lines to keep the mutual interests of Western vs Eastern Montana intact.
This is by far the worst map that I have seen. Maps should not favor one political party over another The Commission needs to minimize the splitting of counties, as stated in the Commission's goals. The Democrat Commission members map splits three counties total, while the Republican map only splits one. Lewis and Clark County, Jefferson, and Broadwater Counties should be kept in the East. They are in the Missouri River drainage, which flows in the east. Like Eastern Montana, these three counties also rely on agriculture. Park County should also be put in the Eastern district. The county is located in the Yellowstone drainage, which also goes East. Support MAP 12 instead, as by far the fairest map.
I support this map.
I support Map 13 the most out of the 4 final (if we can trust the maps to be final) alternatives. It meets the stated criteria of equal population and is the least biased toward one party.
Map 13 is the most fair and competitive according to the Cook PVI, so it should therefore be the chosen map. Maps 10 and 12 are not competitive and should not have even been an option.
I supported Map 11 but Map 13 is a reasonable compromise. It seems to be fair in regard to even population and competitive districts. It keeps Flathead county intact and it has two tribal nations in option. Thank you for your consideration.
I have been a resident of Lake County and the Flathead Indian Reservation for 38 years. I served as a governor-appointed member of the Flathead Basin Commission for 3 terms, 12 years, from 2005 to 2017, including several years as chair. I am writing to urge you to support redistricting map 13. I believe it is the fairest of the options still under consideration and would best ensure proper representation of Montanans in Congress. Many of the comments from participants in the hearing yesterday stressed the need of the Commission to follow the law in making your decision, but some were not acknowledging that part of the difficulty you face is that the laws call on you to draw the lines in consideration of a number of factors which can pull you in different directions. There was little mention of one of the most important of those laws, even though it is noted on the website of the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission: 42 USC 1973, which states that no district, plan, or proposal for a plan is acceptable if it affords members of a racial or language minority group “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” In addition, as your website also notes, the Commission must consider “communities of interest.” In Montana, the “racial or language minority groups” of primary concern, acknowledged in our state Constitution, are our Indigenous citizens and communities. They are also groups that have historically been underrepresented. In the political process that non-Indians imposed upon Indigenous communities, they have been harmed more often than given voice over the past 132 years. When we are drawing lines in regard to these provisions and mandates as they affect Indigenous people in Montana, it is therefore appropriate that we give careful consideration to the comments from representatives of those communities. The sole Indigenous testimony, to my knowledge, at the October 30 hearing was from Shelly Fyant, Chairwoman of the Tribal Council of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Due to time limits she was not able to complete her testimony, which would have clarified, as is stated in her full written testimony, that her preference is for map 13. (I will note here that while I am submitting my comments as a private citizen, I work as a historian and geographer for the CSKT.) Ms. Fyant noted in particular that both of the districts should include at least two Tribal nations, something that is accomplished by map 13, which includes both the Blackfeet and Flathead Reservations. It is worth noting that the CSKT and Blackfeet not only work closely together on many issues, but have also been intermarried for many years, with many families now closely related. This was recently shown in powerful ways when our state mourned the passing of Blackfeet Chief Earl Old Person. One of his great-grandsons is Vance Homegun, who is an enrolled member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, one of the ablest young learners of the endangered Salish language, and a teacher at the Nk̓͏ʷusm Salish Immersion school in Arlee. When Chief Old Person’s body was transported from the funeral home in St. Ignatius to Browning for the funeral services, many members of the CSKT showed their respect for the Blackfeet leader by standing in silent tribute along Highway 93 as the hearse — led by law enforcement vehicles of both the CSKT and Blackfeet — passed through St. Ignatius, Ronan, Pablo, and Polson. In a sense, the people of the CSKT were showing the same respect that Mr. Old Person had shown to the Salish community five years before, when renowned elder Louie Adams passed away and Mr. Old Person drove to Arlee to deliver a stirring eulogy in the jam-packed community center. All of which reinforces our understanding that the Flathead and Blackfeet reservations indeed constitute a “community of interest,” and that both should be included in the western congressional district. Map 13 also satisfies the two main concerns raised by many Flathead County residents at the hearing: that Flathead County not be split or attached to eastern Montana, and that the laws are followed. As former chair of the Flathead Basin Commission, I would also note that map 13 has geographic coherence, as is also called for in Montana law, by encompassing the totality of the Flathead drainage system within Montana. In fairness, we should all note that many aspects of our political and cultural geography straddle the Continental Divide, and this poses special challenges for the Commission. Every one of the maps crosses the divide, including map 13; but map 13 does so in way that accords with the strongly expressed wishes of many residents of Helena, who have noted their cultural and economic affinity with the communities just to the west, particularly Butte-Anaconda-Deer Lodge. The same is true of Glacier County. It encompasses the east side of Glacier National Park, which for 111 years has defined and protected the “Crown of the Continent,” a world-renowned symbol of how both the environmental and cultural identity of this part of the world span the Divide. Indeed, during my time on the Flathead Basin Commission, we expended considerable resources in working with the Blackfeet Nation to protect the Flathead Basin through the establishment in Browning of a check station for aquatic invasive species — a check station that guarded the eastern gate to the Flathead system. For all these reasons, it is clear that map 13 makes sense, and is the best and fairest of the available options.
The CP13 map has a low Cook PVI score, indicating it is more competitive, less partisan, and more fair.
I dislike the fact that so many counties are split.
Gary H Eliasson
This map does not represent Montana- It splits too many counties.
James & Virginia Richardson
This can't map can't even be considered logical. It splits too many counties and would not represent Montana equally.
This map splits way too many counties. There a much better map that splits ZERO counties and gets the population between the districts within 50 people but for some reason y'all just keep ignoring this submission... [ https://districtr.org/plan/45763 ] . If I have to choose between CP 12 or CP 13, CP 12 is the better choice because it only splits 1 county and that county's population is small in comparison to many MT counties.
I support CP 13. Although I felt that CP 11 and more so CP 7 were much better maps, CP 13 is an acceptable compromise map. Whereas CP 12 is overly favorable to to having a republican bias by comparison. Furthermore, as a Helena resident, I believe that those of our city would be better represented by the western district while those of L&C county would be better represented by the eastern district which makes the county division acceptable.
Jeanne F Olson
Map 13 does appear to keep populations with mutual interests together and is relatively compact. This division into districts doesn't unduly favor only one party, so that many people feel that they are not represented at all. I prefer this map over Map 12. Thank you for a very difficult job.
Karen L Hinman
Yes to this map. It does a good job of establishing a fair district that can represent a number of communities of mutual interest, both rural & urban/suburban.
While I don't like that 3 counties are split up and I am not sure if it is competitive enough, it does seem to split up districts into areas that contain people of similar interest.
This map is out to lunch! Splits a bunch of counties and is not very compact and contiguous. Why do this? Looks like a lawsuit to me. A 1/2 to 1% difference in population in favor of the east is certain to be made up very quickly so why split counties? Not a good map! thank you.
Kathy J Whitman
Please do not chose this unfair map that favors one party over the other.
Kathy J Whitman
Please do not chose this unfair map that favors one party over the other.
While I favor CP 11 the most, CP 13 is the next best alternative, especially because it puts two Tribal Nations in one district ensuring that the representative will have to listen to Native voices - holding that representative accountable for that official to be as responsive as in the second district. It also creates competitive districts.
Nicole J Schubert
This one is closer than some of the other previous options but Map 12 is better because it takes the four big counties and puts two in each district without splitting them. Gallatin has a weird split here it looks like. Thank you for your time and considering all our voices. I definitely like 12 because of the split.
I like this map, as it creates two competitive districts and keeps the reservations in tact.
I strongly support Map 13 and Map 11. They provide the most balanced representation for the state, without political bias.
Map 13 does not meet the redistricting criteria detailed in Montana law 5-1-115, whereas Map 12 does. Three counties are divided in Map 13 vs 1 county in Map 12, and Map 12 is much more compact than the sprawling Map 13. The code does not list “competitive” as a criteria, so that should not factor into any decisions. Do not choose this map. Thank you.
I strongly support this map as it appropriately creates a competitive district, which is in-line with the Commission's mission.
Sheila Ann Shapiro
I really liked Map 11, but evidently that fell by the wayside. I think Map 13 is a good compromise and allows the reservations to stay intact as well as the Flathead County. It would have been ideal to keep Gallatin intact as well, but we can work with that. This map allows more equitable division amongst the parties while not favoring the ranking party as perhaps the previous maps have done, except 11. Very nice job. Appears to be the best of the last 2 choices.
That this map divides one of the fastest growing areas in the country in literally half is a giant red flag. If the goal is to divide and suppress an important area of the state, then this is the map. Otherwise Gallatin County, especially the valley area, should remain whole.
I believe in compromise, but I truly hate dividing Bozeman from its suburbs. This is not reasonable representation. It is not as bad as some of the other maps that divide Bozeman, but it is not the best choice.
Ronald James Nason
I oppose this map (CP13) because it splits up three counties. Therefore I am more inclined to support (CP12).
I support CP13 as a reasonable alternative. It is fair to both parties and generally keeps counties with common interests together.
Linda G Semones
Map 13 is a good compromise map. It splits Gallatin County, which it would be preferable not to do. But this is part of the compromise, and would be acceptable should this map be chosen as it would also keep the Flathead whole and place 2 reservations in the western district. This is a good compromise.
This map splits Gallatin county and separates the cities of Bozeman and Livingston, two communities that have long-standing economic and cultural ties. This map also does not create a competitive district.
CP13 not quite as competitive as CP11 but so much better than any of the Republican alternatives. Montana needs a competitive alternative. Thank You for your efforts.
I support either CP-11 or CP-13 as they provide for fair and balanced representation.
CP13 appears to be a product of political gerrymandering. Splitting communities and Counties weakens their voice and undermines their ability to unite for the good of the whole. Though not the best, CP12 is a better choice.
I do not support map CP13. It splits 3 counties for political favor. One of the Commissions goal was to not split counties. This map also places Missoula, Bozeman and Helena in the same district; these growing cities should not be placed in the same district.
Maps should not favor one political party over another. This Map is unfair and is not in the best intrest for Montanas. I vote for CP12
These districts do not seem competitive and it splits 3 different counties which doesn't seem like a good idea. I especially don't like Gallatin county split. It also doesn't make sense that Helena would be in the eastern district.
While I favor CP 11 the most, CP 13 is the next best alternative, especially because it puts two Tribal Nations in one district ensuring that the representative will have to listen to Native voices. It also creates competitive districts.
Doesn't meet the criteria like CP12 does
Map CP13 should be rejected - it splits way too many counties, and is not in the best interest of Montanans.
This splits too many counties. Not a good map!
Steve and Beth Hinebauch
We do not like this map. It splits too many counties. It looks like somebody is just shopping for votes.
I do not like this map. It is gerrymandered as can be seen because Map CP13 splits three counties, for no justifiable reason. Please reject it.
Nobody likes this map. That must mean its an okay compromise. Since it seems I've got to choose between this one and CP12, I'll choose this one. It doesn't give in entirely to the tyranny of the majority.
Debbie M Churchill
Map CP13 should be rejected because it splits three counties, with no legitimate reason.
Steven E. Galloway
This is unconstitutional in design. It splits 3 counties, the city Helena cut out and only makes one competitive district. For all the effort of this commission and our constituents, we have not risen to the occasion! Lets get sensible about this and quit with the gamesmanship! Do not approve this MAP!
This map is a perfect example of creating only one competitive District in Montana. All democrat dominate cities are in this map Whitefish, Butte, Bozeman, Missoula, Helena and Livingston. To cut out Helena saying its a "city of interest" is forgetting all the people that live in Jefferson City, Boulder, East Helena, Clancy, Elliston, Avon and Townsend that work in Helena. This map is a constitutional nightmare and should not be this commission's final choice.
I do not support CP-13. This map is worse than the last proposal in some ways and splits even more counties. There are countless ways to avoid that and should be first and foremost in the minds of the commissioners that communities must not be split. There were other submissions before this which did a better job with this. CP12 is the best option at this point.
K. Bradley Lotton
This map splits 3 counties while the rest split only 1. Our capital shouldn't be split off from the community of like interest East Helena. Map 1 seemed to have the most support just judging by the comments yet it is no longer under consideration. Why?
CP-13 is not my favorite of the maps the commission is reviewing but I feel we could live with it because it maintains Flathead County in the western district. The disadvantages the Flathead County will incur if split are far greater than that of other counties due to the isolated northwestern location of Flathead Valley. As someone who travels for work across the state, the Flathead, as opposed to Gallatin, Missoula, and Silver Bow Counties, is far removed because it is off the I-90 in the NW corner of the state. Practically speaking, it will already be challenging for a representative of the Western District to serve and visit the Flathead let alone one from the Eastern District who would additionally be separated by a full mountain range. Though I understand the reasons no community of interest/county would wish to be split, splitting the Flathead puts it at a comparatively large disadvantage and it is therefore not a reasonable option. Economically speaking, the Flathead shares far less industrial commonality with the east than other areas under consideration for splitting. We are primarily a tourism and manufacturing center unlike the east, which is agricultural and mining. Nothing is going to be perfect but aligning the mining/oil communities that are in Butte, Helena, Billings, and Colstrip makes more sense to me from an economic perspective and a representative's ability to work on their behalf.
Sorry i forgot! Way to go Tammy T! But tell us how you Really Feel !!! If i wasn't such a "hunt and peck" typist, i would have done a comment JUST LIKE YOUR"S. Save our Republic MT !!
Wow, so this is map # lucky 13 for the GERRYMANDERING attempts of the "progressive" minority to carve out a "stacked" district by shoehorning all the Republicans possible - And Then Some More !- into an eastern district. What a blatant display of "Rules are for thee, but not for me" power politics, i guess it's OK to split multiple counties when it benefits the "progressives", but a "White Privilege" horror show if/ when it goes the other way. This monstrosity will be awfully hard to defend, even with 1 of your "living Constitution" judges presiding. Save yourselves the humiliation of losing in front of any jurist that has an ounce of respect for MT.'s constitution and adopt CP12.
I still like Map #1 -- what is it with all these ridiculous options?? You should quit adding new maps. It did not need to be this confusing. You were spot on with Map #1 and I believe most Montanans have voiced this to you. This map #13 violates Montana Code 5-1-115 and federal voters act. You continue with the gerrymandering with this one. You had it correct the first time. Just stop with adding more and more maps. Why don't you listen to us and reintroduce Map #1? Guess that would be too easy and less confusing for everyone. What a sham!
This map splits 3 counties while Map 12 only splits 1 county. It also does not seem to follow the guidelines given by the Chair as well at Map 12.
Anne L Christensen
I like the idea of including more tribal lands in District 1. However, I dislike splitting up Gallatin county and Lewis and Clark county. Please consider putting more of Flathead county in District 2 and including all of Gallatin county and Lewis and Clark county in District 1.
This map violates Montana Code 5-1-115 thus violating the federal Voters Act It splits 3 counties unnecessarily and continues with gerrymandering.
Map 13 basically split a community urban vs rural that does not need to happen. 12 is a better map, keeping counties and communities in tack.
I strongly oppose the concept of splitting the Helena Valley at basically the edge of town; it divides a community of interest. This map will put me into the eastern district and completely disenfranchise me from my own local community where I live and work. If the county must be split, the split should be the ridgeline of the North Hills, thus putting most people who work in Helena into the same district. If there are population balance issues, put more of the Flathead into the east, that would not divide a community.
I think this is the best map yet. A competitive western district, avoiding diluting the votes of rural Montanans in the east with urban areas that have more of a western sensibility, keeping important communities of interest together.
CP13 is not preferred. It splits Gallatin County and puts Park County in the western district, neither of which seems wholly appropriate. CP12 is the more balanced and should be the preferred of the finalists. It more closely matches the natural geographical boundaries of the Continental Divide, and the cultural differences of eastern and western Montana. We should try to follow John Wesley Powell's recommendation that our political boundaries should be more aligned with watershed boundaries. CP12 does not split Gallatin County and places it in the western district, which can easily be considered appropriate. CP12 also does not split the Blackfeet Reservation and places it in the western district, which again can be considered appropriate. CP11 is obviously gerry-mandered to create a "competitive" district. Flathead County/Kalispell is not part of eastern Montana, but CP11 puts it there to create a non-competitive eastern district and a competitive western district. Further, regarding "competitiveness", there is no constitutionally or practically valid rationale that any congressional district be "competitive". They should be representative of the people and the landform.
Please do not split up Bozeman from Belgrade and Manhattan. They are communities of similar interest. Please do not split more than 1 county. Splitting counties will make it harder on counties during elections.
It is very important for Lewis and Clark and Jefferson Counties to be included together on one side. The communities are similar considering the out reaches of Helena go into Jefferson County. CP 11 is better. Additionally, the communities in these two counties are more closely similar to communities west of the divide.
Whitni H Ciofalo
Here would be my day to day with this map: I would wake up in District 2 (Bozeman address just south of Huffine and east of Gooch Hill), go to my office in District 1 in Bozeman, come back to District 2 to change, head out to ride my horse in District 2 just north of Gallatin Gateway, and then head out to feed my retired horse who is also in Gallatin Gateway but in District 1. How does splitting up the Gallatin Valley community make any sense to the Commission? This is gerrymandering.
It seems that Map 11 or 13 best represent the populations of citizens within Montana based on economics, educational, and infrastructure concerns.
It's the fairest option yet.
I dislike map CP13 because does not meet the committee goal of minimize dividing cities, towns, and counties between two districts because it divides Gallatin, Pondera, and Lewis and Clark Counties.
I prefer map 11, this map spilts Gallatin county and members of our community that consider themselves part of Bozeman. I live 3 miles outside the boundary, but work and sent my children to school in Bozeman- we should be represented in the Western district, we have much more in common with communities in the Western district. I also object to the last minute insertion of new maps, if you aren't following this carefully the public has no time to respond.
The only reason I can imagine for why this map has been proposed is that the Democratic members of the commission, chastened by the outcry over their attempt to arbitrarily split Flathead County for partisan purposes, decided to try splitting Gallatin and Lewis & Clark Counties along even more arbitrary lines. Montana created the bipartisan commission to ensure that districts were drawn on the basis of legally recognized, apolitical principles like shared community interests and compactness. There is no way to explain, based on such principles, why Bozeman and Helena should be in different districts than their adjacent suburbs, or separated from the highway corridors connecting them with each other and with Butte. It is time for Democrats to accept that it is impossible to put all of Lake County, Missoula, Butte/Anaconda, Helena, and Bozeman in the western district without having an uneven population split or dividing counties along inevitably partisan lines that break up communities with shared interests and close commercial ties. As the state capital in the foothills of the Rockies, where the interests of all parts of the state come together, Helena is the community it makes more sense to put in the eastern district.
Lucy J Morell-Gengler
I still prefer CP11 but I appreciate the effort in this map to keep Helena with the western district - I do not like CP12.
Mark R Smith
I see my initial comments were green, but make no mistake, I am against this map because of my prior comments... RED = NO
Mark R Smith
Actually splitting Gallatin county? I can't help but see this map as a poor attempt. The disregard for first nation commonality in the previous map 11, and now splitting Gallatin county: this map 13 simply reveals how democrat commission members view people as pawns, and can so easily abandon the constitutional mandates for redistricting. It seems to me that every person who supported map 11 and protested splitting Gallatin of map 10 should join me on this map 13 with big red "NO" circle.
Jere L Kolstad
It seems like the Commission is looking to diversify rather than consolidate populations. I, in particular, disagree with not putting all the Reservations in one district. You marginalize the Indian population by making them a small proportion in each district. The tribes will be a force in one District. I also disagree with not keeping the conservative population in one District. Kalispell is much more like Glasgow than the liberal block in the SE corner of the state. How does a Representative avoid demonstrations outside their house and offices day after day if you put Kalispell and Missoula together. My view isn't based on who wins the Districts. At the moment, I find both parties to be doing a terrible job of governing at the national level. What I want is to put like-minded people together, give them the power to influence their Representative, and get away from the chaos that we have at the national level as soon as possible. Map 9 is by far the best at getting us back to our Representatives behaving like the late Senator Mansfield - whom I consider our State's greatest statesman. He did the right thing, not the political thing. We need to seek harmony in this redistricting! I appreciate the Commission taking on this "mission impossible". Thank you all.
And, what a disappointment. This could have been a great learning experience for the state. But, if you read comments, it’s all based on FEELINGS, how people FEEL about the MAPS, if they LIKE the map or not. Does it work better for them to get their way? Montana may not be a democratic Leftist state, but, what can be done so they a BETTER CHANCE to WIN, to DETERMINE THE OUTCOME before anyone has even CAST A VOTE. Does everyone get a Participation Trophy? The LEGAL aspects, established POLICY, it doesn’t matter when FEELINGS are at stake. A JOKE.
So, NOW we're OK to divide Gallatin County? And again, today, the reservations matter? I can't keep up! I WAS A DEMOCRAT FOR OVER A DECADE, but YOU LOST ME LAST YEAR WHEN I REALIZED THIS WAS NO LONGER a PARTY for REAL HUMAN BEINGS. MY DEPARTURE is just one of MANY, and only the BEGINNING of MORE. LOOK AT YOURSELVES: HATING the POLICE who RISK their LIVES DAILY-THREATS of POLICE DEFUNDED and GUNS GRABBED, TORCHING CITIES-then LOOTING the WALMART and AUTOZONES, NORMALIZING the (*GASP*) CAPITALIST ABORTION BUSINESS, DEPRIVING *OUR CHILDREN* OF OXYGEN-WHAT THEY'RE *ALLOWED* TO BREATH is CONTAMINATED by a MASK that REMOVES THEIR SMILES and STIFLES THEIR LAUGHTER, YOU FORCE MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION lest the HEALTHY PERSON with an IMMUNE SYSTEM LOSES their LIVELIHOOD, you STAGE RACE RIOTS, PLANT BRICK PALLETS, YOU LABEL CONCERNED and ANGRY PARENTS as DOMESTIC TERRORISTS while YOU *actually IMPORT* UN-VETTED people from a TERRORIST COUNTRY and WELCOME MILLIONS of *UN-TESTED* and *UN-VACCINATED* illegals this YEAR-GIVE *THEM* IVERMECTIN-BUS and FLY them into MIDDLE AMERICA for the MIDDLE CLASS TO PAY FOR, your ATTEMPT after ATTEMPT to FEDERALIZE ELECTIONS-trying desperately to seize from individual STATES their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS because you know YOU WILL NEVER WIN IN AN HONEST ELECTION, YOU'RE LEGALIZING DRUGS to KEEP PEOPLE DAMAGED, YOU'RE DAMAGING OUR ENERGY CAPABILITIES to KEEP PEOPLE DEPENDENT, YOU GIVE FREE this and FREE that to KEEP PEOPLE NEEDY-WANTING, the PLANNED INFLATION we haven't even SEEN YET, a PRESIDENT who won't ANSWER QUESTIONS unless they're PRE-APPROVED from a PRE-SELECTED REPORTER, an ADMINISTRATION that DELIBERATELY LEAVES AMERICAN CIVILIANS, ALLIES, and TROOPS-yes, TROOPS-BEHIND for a BARBARIC PEOPLE to HAVE, a vice president who bailed ANTIFA and BLM RIOTERS out of jail so they could RETURN TO THE STREETS AS QUICKLY as POSSIBLE, the TAXES IMPOSED TO TAKE a SON'S INHERITED FAMILY FARM, RENT MORATORIUMS IMPOSED TO TAKE an OWNER'S PROPERTY, PLANS to SPY on our BANK ACCOUNTS if we SPEND $600, PLANS to OVERTAKE CHILDCARE PROGRAMS and CREATE a CRADLE-TO-COLLEGE *FREE* SYSTEM, an *FDA APPROVED* COVID VACCINE that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST-ASK YOUR PHARMACIST for "COMIRNATY" the "FDA-APPROVED" VAXX-it's NOT REAL, YOU KEEP BLACK PEOPLE on the MENTAL PLANTATION-easier TO CONTROL, YOU KEEP WHITE PEOPLE as OPPRESSORS-easier to CONTROL, your PEOPLE POSE as WHITE SUPREMACISTS in VIRGINIA to hinder the Gubernatorial GOP candidate-ABSOLUTELY SICK, NORMALIZING the REPLACEMENT of "I WANT TO BE FREE" with "I WANT TO BE TAKEN CARE OF"-"I'M ENTITLED TO FREE THIS and FREE that," YOU SILENCE and DELETE PEOPLE who ATTEMPT to SHARE the TRUTH, and the UTTER HYPOCRISY toward January 6: LOOK AT DC in JANUARY 2017, SEPTEMBER and NOVEMBER 2018, APRIL 2021, JUNE 2021, OCTOBER 2021-I COULD go ON, RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA, a DEM CONGRESSMAN and the SPY WHO SHAGGED HIM-NO REPERCUSSIONS, WORSHIPING a "doctor" WHILE OVERLOOKING G-O-F RESEARCH-COVID ORIGINS-THE PUPPIES, CERTIFYING ELECTIONS-January 6, 2017-Jim McGovern-Jamie Raskin-Pramila Jayapal-Barbara Lee-Sheila Jackson-Raul Grijalva-Maxine Waters-DEMOCRATS OBJECTED TO the CERTIFICATION of MORE STATES IN 2017 THAN REPUBLICANS in 2020, but who is LABELED THE TRAITORS? WHO OBJECTS IN 2001 and 2005-DEMOCRATS-BUT THE LEFTIST MEDIA DOESN’T REMIND THE CONTROLLED MASSES. And our troops. 13. A KILL BOX. In AFGHANISTAN. NOTHING. HOME IN A BOX. THE LIES. THE FRAUD. THE CHEATING. THE CORRUPTION. *THE ELECTION*-even here, in our beautiful STATE, you just have to LOOK CLOSELY, Now, THIS. I really wanted to think MORE of the THOSE WHOM WE HAVE ELECTED TO SERVE AS "US" at THE TABLE, to FOLLOW THE LAW, to HONOR THEIR OATH. You've turned this PROCESS into the FRAUDULENT DISPLAY of activity we've come to EXPECT. This REDISTRICTING, it's a SHAM.
I like map 13 the best of the newest proposals. I like that it gives each district at least two reservations. I like that it puts the counties that surround both Glacier and Yellowstone in the same district (minus Carbon) as these counties share SO MANY of the same issues surrounding forest, wildlife, and tourism management. These counties along with the others included in the proposed District 1 share similar economies based on tourism, education, forest products, and ranching, while proposed District 2 is centered on farming and fossil fuels. Bozeman, Butte, Helena, Livingston, and Whitefish should all be together as they have so many shared lifestyle characteristics. The same goes for Billings, Lewistown, Miles City, Great Falls, and Glasgow. Im not a fan of splitting counties, but the split of Gallatin in this proposal is much more sensical than in previous proposals. THIS IS THE BEST PROPOSAL THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH! Thanks!
Map 13 seems like the best choice. One person in population, 2 Indian reservations, keeping most areas of common interest together, (Helena and outlying areas where people live, and Helena where they work etc.) It should make people work for the votes in the district. Make it more competitive. Thank you for continuing to work this very sticky problem.
While this new map includes two reservations in the Western district, which is good, it also literally splits my home in Bozeman and Bridger Canyon in two, which is not so good. I'm not sure how competitive this one is, but I think Map #11 does the best job of all the maps at keeping counties, reservations and communities of interest together (including Gallatin and Park Counties), and also providing for a competitive Western district. No doubt that's why Map #11 has so many favorable comments from those who are looking for fair representation and to dial down the political divisiveness corroding so much of our nation. Montanans are better than that. Let's lead by example and stick with the redistricting plan that best represents our common ground, common interests and common sense. I think map #11 should be our keeper. Thanks for all your hard work on this!
Judith C Goodman
This appears to be the most favorable map of those proposed. Equal population is very important. This is the least partisan plan that I have seen
Gary J Goodman
I like map 13 the best. Equal population, it establishes 2 competitive districts, the national parks and are in the same district so too are the Flathead and Blackfoot Reservations allowing them a chance for significant input.
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 and/or MP 13 as a Consensus Map of 10/11. 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.
Map 13 looks straightforward to the eye and is evenly divided by population and keeps the primary interests of each half intact. The rural and farming interests of the Eastern district are going to be represented in this map without a doubt. I like that both the Flathead and Blackfeet Reservations are together and Both Glacier and Yellowstone NP are together. This map follows the historical precedent of the 1980’s congressional map keeping intact as many historical communities of interest as possible.
Whatever map "wins", I ask that end result is fair to both political parties.
David William Carlson
I really like Map 13. Let's go with that. David.
I am not crazy about Gallatin County being split but this is a much better split of our county than in Map #10 but I do suggest that all of Bozeman be in the Western district. A town should not be split up. This map is competitive which is a very important consideration. We need at least one competitive district since MT is a purple state after all.
Map 13 would not be ideal but is definitely more competitive than many of the other maps. Competitive voting with the right for all voters to have their vote heard and not buried under the predominant political parties should be a major consideration. The other new map 12 is gerrymandered toward the Republican party in both districts and defeats the purpose of voting and thus free speech. One Party government leads to extremist laws and an attack on all of our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One Party government leads to not only suppressing votes but further ignoring voter concerns and dictatorial not democratic rule. My first choice is map 8, 2nd choice map 11, and 3rd choice map 13. Please select one of these maps and keep Park and Gallatin County in the western district.
James E. Amonette
My support is based on the Cook PVI score, which is lowest for this map.
Jeff D Griffin
I believe this map is the most fair and competitive
Go back to CP-1. This map has a strange attempt to include Bozeman in the West when it should clearly be in the east.
Sharon S Patton-Griffin
This map keeps most counties together and puts at least 2 tribes in each district. The hearing today and having 2 new maps dropped on us makes this process a farce. Which map won the first vote?
This map addresses the major points the commission sets out: equal population, competitive, maintaining reservation boundaries. It avoids partisanship and will encourage consensus-building and respect for disparate concerns. I appreciate the process the commission has taken to reach its goals, one of transparent iteration, listening to feedback, and improvement. It makes sense that the last maps would offer solutions to earlier mapping concerns because they responded to the comments of constituents.
Map 13 is not competitive and is so far skewed Republican that Democratic would never be able to gain that district. Doesn't Montana have enough Republican representation? If Bozeman can be carved out, so can Kalispell. If Gallatin County can be split, so can Flathead. Considering +/- 1 population is a poor criteria to be weighted so heavily as compared to competitiveness. Population changes by the day. Both Flathead and Gallatin, Kalispell and Bozeman are among the fastest growing areas in the State. Map 11 is the more competitive of those remaining. Western Native Voices advocates for Map 11. While it would be better for the Blackfeet Reservation to be included in the western district along with the CSKT, a fair, open and competitive Democracy is the higher value to consider as a defining criteria.
I dislike Lewis & Clark Co. assigned to the eastern district, and the fact that several counties are split between districts
Wanda J Walker
I think competitive districts are the democratic principles of the US. I like Map 13 as it is the closest as it comes to fair. People should chose their politicians, not the other way around.
Leonard Benjamin Duberstein
Hello! and thanks for your persistent work to arrive at Map 13 which I support. I am pleased to see Flathead County back in the west where it belongs. Although our fastest growing region of Gallatin County gets chopped up, I can see the benefit of having two Congressional Reps attentive to their needs. A little competition for district 1 is a good thing, keeps people on their toes.
Divides Gallatin County
I support this plan, it's certainly has some flaws, but it it good points as well. This plan is population equal, and it does not favor any political party because it establishes a truly competitive district. Because this plan includes the Flathead and Blackfeet reservations in a competitive district, it will insure that any candidate will need to take the needs and issues of Native voters seriously in order to win an election. This plan seems to be a major move toward consensus, which is something we desperately need in our state in order accomplish anything.
Jeannine M Cozzens
As long as the redistricting is competitive and population is equal, then I consider it a good choice. I see nothing wrong with splitting counties and/or cities.
This map maybe splits a few too many counties but does really well in keeping Bozeman and Helena in the western district while balancing Indian reservations well and creating a competitive district. All in all, a good map.
I FULLY support this map. It makes the districts competitive and fair and ensures there is no partisan gerrymandering taking place.
I support Map #13 as it leaves Cascade County intact, leaves tribal communities intact, balances populations evenly, and creates a competitive district winnable by either party for the foreseeable future. Map #11 is also a good choice from my perspective.
Bizarre splits of Gallatin and Lewis and Clark Counties, apparently for political purposes. This is a bad, gerrymandered map. Do better.
CP 13 is the best redistricting option: This plan is population equal, with only a one person difference between the two districts. This plan includes the Flathead and Blackfeet Reservations in a competitive district, meaning that any candidate who runs for the seat on either side of the aisle must win over Native voters in order to win. This plan does not unduly favor any political party because it establishes a truly competitive district. This plan keeps Flathead County whole, and is a major move toward consensus, which has taken a lot of give and take on both sides. This plan follows the historical precedent of the 1980's congressional map, keeping intact as many historical communities of interest as possible while achieving perfect population equality that acknowledges where Montanans live today. This plan recognizes the importance of county lines, city limits, and communities of interest. It splits no cities or towns and achieves population equality by acknowledging community of interest concerns in Lewis & Clark and Gallatin Counties. The tourism economies centered around Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks are both included in the western district, keeping a bipartisanly recognized community of interest intact. The Canadian interface has representation in both districts, which addresses a concern raised by citizens along the border. Both districts include sections of the Empire Builder Amtrak line, meaning both Representatives will have to advocate for funding for the train line. This plan ensures District 2 has strong rural voices. Of the major cities in Montana, only Great Falls and Billings are in District 2, ensuring one seat where rural voices will be a majority. This plan keeps the union towns of Helena, Anaconda, Deer Lodge, and Butte in the same district.
Well, at least one district will be competitive and the population is split evenly. Nobody gets everything they want, it's called compromise and fairness. This is the best compromise for all sides.
This map is horrible; it is very gerrymandered. Please consider my original map, #18, which places Flathead in the Wast, Lewis and Clark in the East, splits Broadwater, and places Gallatin in the West. It only splits one county with a population of 6774.
This map is population equal and competitive (Cook PVI Score of R+4.59).
I consider myself to be a Helena resident, but live right on the dividing line in rural Lewis and Clark County. Looks like I’ll be in the eastern district. Splitting Lewis and Clark and Gallatin Counties, while unfortunate, may be necessary to meet other Commission requirements, like keeping the populations equal. I taught for years on the Blackfeet Reservation, so I support that Map 13 includes this Nation in the Western District. My paramount concern, however, is that at least one district be competitive. I consider Map 13 the best compromise, in spite of the division of my personal community of interest. Montanans, let’s all look at the big picture here and move forward with Map 13.
They saved the best for last! I supported Map 11, but I can see that Map 13 is more contiguous, provides for significant representation by tribal nations in BOTH districts, and better preserves Flathead communities. As a Helena resident, I wish Lewis and Clark and Gallatin Counties could be intact. However, rural areas of both counties may be better served by a Representative from the eastern district. Given the constraint to keep populations equal, no one map can make every Montanan happy (thanks for trying!). Most importantly, Map 13 provides one district where BOTH parties have a fighting chance to persuade voters. Without favoring one party over another, Map 13 promotes dialogue and compromise, just as this districting process has done. Map 13 is the best consensus choice.
This is the map that best serves MT
Support CP 13! Logical division of state gives both districts continuity, doesn't split towns, strong rural voice, Native communities in both, border interests in both. Finally got it right.
Mary Jo O'Rourke
I support Option 13
The City of Helena has strong economic ties with Jefferson County and this map unfortunately has them in separate districts.
Gallatin County is broken up with this map. Kalispell belongs in western Montana because of its economic importance in the region. I would recommend only using the 2016 Montana Gubernatorial, with the 2018 and 2020 Montana U.S. Senate race results to determine the competitiveness of the proposed districts since they had the strongest Democratic candidates. The southern part of Cascade County has economic ties with Lewis and Clark County and travel to the west of Helena is more difficult because of McDonald Pass, especially in the winter months. There are gates on I-90 near Livingston because of frequent poor road conditions to Bozeman during the winter months.
I prefer District Plan 13
Robert and Catherine Billie
I had supported CP 11 before, but feel CP 13 is better as it puts two reservations in the western district, and the western district is competitive with this plan - very important. Thanks for your work on keeping after this to come up with something viable.
Bozeman should be in the Eastern part. The fastest growing cities should not be clustered and in the same congressional district.
Map 13 looks like a reasonable compromise while at the same time satisfying all the pertinent criteria.
The changes to map eleven look to be a good move. There are now two Reservations in district 1 representing four tribal Nations . District one in map 11 has the potential to be competitive. The redistricting commission has worked diligently on this process to insure fair elections.
Map 13 is the best of the four candidate maps, although it still favors the Republican Party to too great a degree. Democrats make up a sizeable 40% of Montana voters and there should be one district that is a true tossup. Only when we have truly competitive districts will we find that Congressional candidates actually listen to all the voters and not just the most extreme elements in their own party.
I had supported CP 11 before, but feel CP 13 is better as it puts two reservations in the western district, and the western district is competitive with this plan - very important. Thanks for your work on keeping after this to come up with something viable.
There is plenty not to like about this map, esp. how it cuts up L&C and Gallatin County. But if this is what it takes for Montana to have one district where the all the candidates have to listen to the needs of all the residents, so be it. It'll be a lot better than what we have now with a representative who doesn't care about anyone who isn't a conservative.
I simply find this map in complete violation of the criteria established for redistricting. It is an obvious intent to split Gallatin County up into both districts, to weaken its voice disenfranchising communities of similar concerns and wishes and desires. I make an earnest plea that this map is not considered.
I like either Map 13 or Map 11. Either one is more fair than Map 10, which I totally oppose. My preference is Map 13 since it includes 2 reservations and keeps Flathead County whole. I don't envy your decision as the arguments for keeping Gallatin County whole are also reasonable. In reality, none of the maps is perfect. Thank you for your hard work and willingness to take on this challenging task.
Splitting Bozeman from its suburbs is a non-starter and violates the redistricting rules. If keeping the Blackfeet and Flathead reservations in District 1 is important, put Flathead County (except for the small portion in the Flathead Reservation) in District 2.
I previously supported map 11 but with the 2 new options, I support map 13 as even more favorable to keeping the districts competitive and keeping Flathead county in one district.
It looks like it makes sense geographically. Glad it puts CSKT and Blackfeet into a competitive district so our representatives will need to pay attention to tribal voices. Thanks to the folks who put this together.
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.
Elizabeth A Story
I previously supported Map 11 and still feel it is a good choice, however I think Map 13 best provides the best representation for the most people with common interests. It results in a stronger voice for the entire population of the District
Yvonne M Rudman
We need to go back to the drawing board one more time. Keep Gallatin County as one cohesive entity in District 1 and I believe we'd have an acceptable solution. If this is not doable, I favor Map 11 over this map.
Although Map 13 meets some of the criteria well, it fails due to its split of Gallatin County, including a line drawn through the northern part of Bozeman. It does not recognize county lines in Gallatin County, city limits in Bozeman, or communities of interest in Gallatin County. I favor Map 11 over this map.
This looks the best of all the maps I have seen. It looks fair and balanced.
Derek Douglas Ivester
I support map #13. I am a manufacturing business owner in Bozeman and feel this map seems very reasonable. It is crucial to keep these two reservations together in order to consider Native voices. Although this map splits Gallatin through the connected communities of Bozeman and Belgrade, it does include Park and Livingston. This keeps National Park gateway communities together which makes sense. Thank you all for listening and making continued adjustments, Derek Ivester, Bozeman
In the previous maps, I supported number 11 because it had the most competitive western district. This map, number 13, maintains that competitive while including Glacier County and the Blackfeet Reservation. This is an improvement as the two reservations will allow for more indigenous representation. Thank you, again, for the hard work.
This seems eminently fair; nothing appears to be broken into pieces in odd shapes. This will help ensure that partisan leanings will not interfere with the fair election of our government officials.
Janet L Childress
NO. Just NO. As a resident of Lewis and Clark County, I ask what are you thinking? L&C county belongs historically with the western district. We have NOTHING in common with the eastern district. We have a great deal in common with Butte and the rest of the western district. Map 11 is just fine.
This map is a fair, balanced proposal. It is geographically defined and areas share like interests and constituencies.
Janis Lynn Strout
I am a recently retired adjunct professor of 1st year students teaching critical thinking and communication skills at MSU-Bozeman and also am President of the non-partisan Montana Chapter of the National Organization for Women. I support Map 11 as the best of the remaining options that meets the criteria mentioned earlier. Map 11 is the best option for Montana voters and the representation we deserve. It will keep the integrity of Bozeman's larger cities as well as towns, Indian Reservations as well as incorporate the ecosystems and economic priorities. Most importantly keep the communities of interest intact. This way the representation votes elect can be strong representatives for these interests I do not support Map 10 or any other that splits major cities and counties nor any Map that would favor the Republican Party or vice versa. I want communities of interest - such as Colleges and Universities - and smaller political borders such as Cities to be intact. Map 10 is not acceptable for these reasons. Thank you for your hard work on this important process of our Democracy as well as your consideration.
Brian R Globerman
I was in favor of Map 11 but believe this is a good compromise. Equitable distribution of population and demographics, and a competitive district to ensure candidates of both major parties campaign toward winning the general election, rather than a more partisan primary.
Golly it looks so good, BUT it abuses Gallatin County - the fasted growing area of the state must be cohesive. Make the necessary geographic compromises in a less vital area and you would have the best map yet.
I was in favor of CP11 but understand the compromise made to get to this one, CP13. Good demographic split, even populations and a competitive district to ensure candidate engagement. Not perfect, but nothing's going to be. Get 'er done!
I had supported option 11 but I believe option 13 is equally if not better. It is within 1 person of an equal population, it has two reservations in this district and appears to be as fair as possible. Thank You again for your time.
This map still splits Gallatin County - ridiculous and against the rules. We are the fastest growing county and as mentioned before splitting our residents causes tons of problems for voters and is not fair. Stick with Map 11. You don't have to have 0% population, just within 1,000.
Please do NOT approve this map. It not only cuts Gallatin County in two, it cleaves Bozeman in two. It literally separates residents on either side of the same street - an example being Story Mill Road in Bozeman - and places them in separate Congressional districts. It would entirely disenfranchise voters on one side of Story Mill Road from the rest of the community. Please reject this map. Thank you.
This map seems to fit the commission's criteria the best, and it's the only map that would be in line with the Voting Rights Act. There should be at least two tribal nations in each district, and it's important to me that the chosen map is competitive. Candidates running for elected office should have to earn our vote by listening to the communities in their district and running a campaign (and leading) based on issues that matter to us.
CP 13 seems to draw an equitable line. I like that it's population equal, and seems to be competitive in a fair manner among counties as well as with tribal communities. I also like that it doesn't split any cities up.
A, Ruth Towe
This plan makes sense and has equal population, keeps economic, community and cultural interests together, does not favor any political party. Best plan yet.
As a native Montanan who has lived both East and West of the divide, including the Hi-Line, this map makes the most sense to me. It groups voters with common issues that will require national representation as Montana changes in years to come.
Best compromise yet. Go for it.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Do you wish to be contacted?