Legislative district 74 looks like the only one that MIGHT reflect its voters and citizens, but I have no geographic guidelines as to where it is located. I object to it because I assume it follows the same false conclusions that the other false redistricting maps have followed. The Chairman of this commission needs to show fairness and vote to reject all of these maps in Missoula so the citizens of Missoula are properly represented. Please listen to comments about other maps.

This Mount Jumbo area that I assume is in the Rattlesnake is small in comparison to other huge districts because the Democrats know that many liberals live there. The Democrat Party announced they were drawing the new legislative districts to get their candidates elected, regardless of the criteria set by the Redistricting Commission. These maps do not follow their own guidelines. No to this map.

Legislative District 76 starts near the Rose Park area of downtown Missoula and looks like it goes past Clinton. This is a district as it is drawn that doesn't have similar cha

This is another large legislative district that goes from rural to urban and does not reflect the general personality of the district by stretching across so much land. This map does not meet the criterial set by the redistricting commission when it began this process. I am counting on the Chairman to show balance by rejecting these maps.

Another Missoula legislative district that includes a vast amount of territory that does not follow the requirements of the redistricting instructions to be inclusive of all citizens and to reflect the character of the district. I know the Democrat Party is trying to make sure only Democrats are elected but that philosophy does not reflect the nature of the voters that is split up to 50/50 moderate to conservative and moderate to liberal. Reject this outrageous district map, Ms. Chairman and show that you are truly a fair-minded person.

This area that includes Orchard Homes once again is strung out over a wide territory to include city-core voters that lean liberal to make it impossible for conservative-leaning candidates to have any chance. For this district to stretch across such a wide land mass does not meet the criteria of the redistricting instructions.

The horseshoe design of this district goes from the Blue Mountain area around another legislative district to include more liberal voting blocks closer to the Bitterroot River. This is an oddly shaped district simply to elect Democrats, which is not the purpose of redistricting. It is supposed to reflect the results of the most recent census.

The Ranch Club Golf Course area and other subdivisions and housing in this section of Missoula again is very strung out encompass Democrat voters and does not reflect a more manageable district. The district should be close to itself. The chairman of redistricting prides herself in being balanced, so I think this is time to show balance and reject these very partisan districts.

Another Missoula leglislative district on this redistricting map that funnels into the university area and ignores the logical configuration of the area. I have heard Democrat Party leaders say they designed all the Missoula legislative districts to insure that no Republican or conservative independent would EVER be elected. That is not correct and right.

This location is one of several in the Missoula area that shows no respect for the actual geographic area of Missoula. The legislative district flows back to the university area, which always votes solid Democrat. Almost half the voters of Missoula are not ultra-liberal but this map was drawn for this district to exclude voters that are moderate to conservative. The entire drawing of the map for the Missoula legislative districts was done to benefit the Democrat Party and the Democrat leaders publicly announced that as a fact. The chairman of the redistricting committee should show balance and have these maps properly reflect the population in Missoula, not provide the best outcome for the Democrat Party.

12-15-2022 Obviously you didn't listen to the comments make 12-10. Significant numbers discussed concerns for the dist. 100 travel issues and diminished representation in the southern section of the district. At least you could have addressed the reasoning for accepting CSKT input. Thank you

This map is hot garbage. It is unacceptable. The districts on this map are set up to optimize for the optional goal of "competitiveness" at the expense of the non-optional criteria of compactness, shared communities of interest, etc. Several of the districts are clearly gerrymandered to optimize partisan advantage (see district 100, Bozeman, and Missoula areas, etc). Further, this looks like the population variations nearly invariably favor a certain party - by having their "safe" districts having fewer people, and the other parties "safe" districts having more people. Shame on the Commission for moving this map forward.

I have done additional research regarding the growth of Gallatin County to try and better understand this travesty of a gerrymandered mess. The argument that the "rural divide" between the "urban" center of Bozeman and the "rural" areas has eroded through growth is a red herring. While the "rural" growth of the area IMMEDIATELY surrounding Bozeman is likely urban sprawl, there are wide swaths of Gallatin County where the rural area is distinct and where other communities and municipalities have differing interests and their own unique characteristics. Bozeman proper is comprised, primarily of Census Tracts 5.05 (Pop. 6750); 11.02 (Pop. 5049); 11.01 (Pop. 5,335); 10.01 (Pop. 3608); 10.02 (Pop. 5,113); Tract 8 (Pop. 2328); Tract 9 (Pop. 4176); 7.03 (Pop. 2126); 7.04 (Pop. 4338); 7.01 (Pop. 3399); Tract 6 (Pop. 2860); 5.06 (Pop. 6713); 5.07 (Pop. 4537) and then surrounded by "rural urban sprawl" into Tract 5.02 (Pop. 8247 - comprising Four Corners and South of Bozeman) and Tract 5.04 (Pop. 2690). This "urban+ sprawl" is equal to about 67,269 citizens, this would allow the creation of essentially 6 districts that would be filled citizens that have common interests all centered on the city of Bozeman. However, the proposed districts show 10 different districts that ALL run into Bozeman City limits. Essentially expanding the "urban sprawl" of Bozeman to include, primarily, areas around Belgrade and all of rural Park County. You cannot tell me that rural Park County is an extension of Bozeman and that the Shields Valley is "not readily distinguishable from urban areas." If we look at Belgrade, it is primarily made up of Census Tracts 1.04 (Pop. 4057) and Tract 1.05 (Pop. 4925) and then includes the surrounding exurban areas (where Belgrade school districts encompass, and the residents consider themselves residents of Belgrade) including Tract 2.01 (Pop. 6119) and includes the larger parts of Tracts 2.02 (Pop. 5898) and Tract 1.01 (Pop. 6362). This is a total population of 27,361. Even if you broke some of the developments between Bozeman and Belgrade and put them into a Bozeman District, there are AT LEAST 2 districts that should be assigned solely to Belgrade. Belgrade is distinct community with the 8th largest school district and 8th largest municipal population. It is growing and its growth, while related to Bozeman, has its own unique challenges. You can CLEARLY divide between where AT LEAST Belgrade City (and the areas west) exist and where Bozeman begins. To do anything BUT allow Belgrade to have its own districts would be to contort reason in the face of partisanship. We deserve better as Montana and this Commission can do better than act so blatantly partisan.

District 100 lacks compliance with the stated criteria of the commission. Travel is unreasonable, transportation is arduous, communication from the northern legislators is unheard of and the geography actually splits the district. An obvious overreach and gerrymandering for partisan results.

District 100 is the most gerrymandered district in western montana. This does not remotely reflect the intent of the constitution and I do not remotely feel I am being represented.

I continue to be disappointed in the dissection of Lake County. My district runs from St Ignatius to Browning. We have never seen the representative for our district as he resides in Browning. There is nothing representing community in this redistricting plan.

The appearances here do not comply with the required critera, this appears to be solely based on competitive districts. It was my understanding 'competitive' was not required but was discretionary. If Democrats are only considering competitive districts why are there no proposed competitive districts in Missoula? Democrats are intentionally gerrymandering Montana by the district maps to win seats, as was done did ten years ago. I urge the committee to Please consider revised proposals from Missoula County Republicans for house districts that better meets the commissions criteria. They maintain seats for current incumbents, reduce spreading house districts across multiple counties, maintains a minority/majority seat proposed by commission Democrats, consolidate city limits in fewer house districts (to minimize splitting), and better group communities of interest. This consideration would best comply with the criteria requirements, and would offer the most fair options for both parties for Montana's future. Thank you.

This map fails greatly on the criteria on compactness in many proposed districts. Here are just a few of the extremely obvious one: #2–stretching long, skinny east to west piece. #100–stretching from St. Ignatius all the way north to part of Browning. (So this representative through about 5 other districts just to get from one end to the other.) #74 has a piece of Missoula all the way north past Condon. #42 goes from the Cooke City north to almost Ringling, but has this strange piece out. (This falls like the other district pointed out above that the representative would have to travel through multiple districts, at least when Yellowstone is closed, to get from Cooke City to the rest of the district.) #19 goes all the way from the SE corner of the state up North to Fort Peck, with a strange u shape at the top. This map likely used the Competitiveness Metric adopted by the commission on June 3. This metric directly violates MCA 5-1-115 (3)(d).

Again, I am astounded at the partisan in these districts. District 43 encompasses all of Livingston, which it should, allows that growing city to secure representation for its unique issues, which do not always align with the rest of rural Park County. However, in creating District 42, you have incorporated rural Park County (inclusive of Paradise Valley, and Shields Valley) into what is essentially a Bozeman district. Why? East Bozeman and the environs do not have the same interests and agriculturally centered Shields Valley? You created District 45 which encompasses the south environs of Bozeman . . . yet extent it into Bozeman pass towards Livingston? Why note revise District 45 and District 42 so that District 45 covers the Bozeman area and the more rural areas outside of lumped in with District 42 to create a rural district inclusive of Shields Valley, Paradise Valley, the ranches along the Bozeman Pass, etc. Instead, these districts look like pure partisanship to expand the democrat voters from within Bozeman city to represent the rural interests of Park County. Please stop with the gerrymandering.

Reviewing this extreme gerrymander, I have never been more ashamed of my home state of Montana. Districts 47, 48, 49, and 51 are pure partisan gerrymanders that not only create new Democrat districts, but do not allow a growing city (Belgrade) to receive proper representation. Belgrade is the 8th largest city in the state and one of the fastest growing. If the area outside of city limits is included, we are looking at a community of between 20-25k people. The city and environs consistently votes Republican, in marked difference to its large neighbor Bozeman. Belgrade is a bedroom community to Bozeman, but has its own growing economy and unique challenges related to population growth, the airport, expanding school districts, etc. This is a city that deserves to elect two (2) representatives, potentially three, that represent its interests. Instead, you break Belgrade and environs into 5 different districts: (47) - which runs into the heart of Bozeman to guarantee enough democrat voters to move the district to a Democrat win; (48) taking the southside and running it into the heart of Bozeman to secure enough Democrat voters to secure a Democrat win; (49) combining the south environs with West Bozeman to secure enough democrat votes to again make a new Democrat District; (51) taking the north environs outside of Belgrade and running them into the heart of Bozeman to secure enough Democrat votes to flip the District; and then lumping into District 53 all of Amsterdam and Churchill and the west Belgrade environs (where a major elementary school feeding into Belgrade proper is located) into a strong conservative district. Why would you do this? Did you think you were serving the interests of the community of Belgrade by breaking the 8th largest city into 4-5 districts which are each small enough that we may typically expect a citizen of Bozeman to represent them? This appears to have been done purely for partisan reasons and you should be ashamed. I don't care if Belgrade votes Republican of Democrat, but let them have their own representation without being forced to share it with Bozeman. Belgrade is a distinct and unique community and should have two - three of its own representatives that are not associated with Bozeman. The issues affecting Bozeman voters are not the same as Belgrade voters. Belgrade is not just "the rural area" outside of Bozeman anymore, it is the 8th largest city in the State. I would advise that District 48, and 47, at the least, be redrawn to represent PURELY Belgrade City and environs. Then allow District 51 and 49 represent Bozeman and its environs.

Please see my comments related to District 96, 97, and 98. This appears a gerrymander created to increase the potential for a Democrat leaning district. You have broken Whitefish in half and then broken Columbia Falls in half. District 98 further removes the traditional environs surrounding Columbia Falls to create a "downtown Columbia Falls / downtown Whitefish" district. Avoid partisan gerrymanders, please. While Whitefish should have its own district, so too should Columbia Falls. To the extent the populations are "too large" to include the surrounding environs, then put those environs together. If a city must be broken, then leave Whitefish intact and break Columbia Falls to accommodate and eastern district that includes Hungry Horse, Coram, West Glacier, Essex (all which are economically tied together) with half of Columbia Falls, and a west district tying the other half of Columbia Falls with La Salle. This would align more closely with the school districts as well as opposed to trying to create three districts by breaking Whitefish into two, Columbia Falls into three, and lumping the conservative voting areas of Hungry Horse, Coram, and La Salle into one district. Stop the gerrymander.

Like other districts in this proposal, District 97/98 were clearly created for partisan reasons. You have broken Whitefish into two separate district as opposed to allowing the city, and surrounding communities, be represented primarily within one district. This was either done to dilute the predominantly liberal Whitefish votes between two districts, or to spread them in an effort to create two Democrat leaning districts. The result is that you have District 97 with a large portion of Whitefish representing the interests of West Glacier and Essex, which are more closely aligned with the interests of Columbia Falls. Create one District primarily for Whitefish and one district primarily for Columbia Falls and surrounding environs.

Earlier this year, a Maryland judge struck down a newly drawn Maryland congressional map, ruling that it was an “extreme gerrymander.” The map had constitutional failings, did not adhere to requirements focusing on compactness, and did not keep similar communities together. This proposed map for Montana is very similar to that Maryland map. The Missoula and Bozeman areas resemble fingers, rather than using the compactness of squares or circles. This map does not keep communities and neighborhoods of interest together, particularly in Bozeman and Missoula. Legislators in Gallatin County and Missoula County would be forced into unnecessary travel to meet with constituents. Acceptance of this specific map will set the state of Montana in a position that could be ripe for a lawsuit.

This map gives the impression that Democrats need to find ways to get elected and may be being deceptive in this redistricting recommendation. I hope it isn't accepted. Thank you.