The legislative district maps below were submitted to the commission by the public.
H = House, S = Senate
| Public Map Number | Link To Map | PDF of Map | Public Explanation | Scope | Population Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM-H1 | The purpose of the created maps (PM-H1 and PM-S1) are to keep counties together as much as possible while staying within a reasonable population deviation and keeping native reservations together as much as possible as done similarly within past State Legislative maps. All of the data and precinct assignments for each district are contained within the files above. Due to population deviation rules, many precincts did have to be split along with some towns and cities as necessary, but my goal was to keep that to a minimum. | Statewide | Unadjusted | ||
| PM-S1 | See above | Statewide | Unadjusted | ||
| PM-H2 | Link | The goal of these plans (PM-H2 and PM-S2) was to create a proportional map that respects county, municipal, and reservation boundaries as much as possible while also adhering to the population deviation requirement of 1% or less. These two plans both meet the deviation standards and the state Senate plan in fact has 49/50 districts with a 0% deviation, with a very small amount of population left over for the remaining district. Again, proportionality was a key factor in these maps as well, and I do believe they are rather successful at achieving that. Using the 2020 Presidential Election and 2018 Senate Election as examples, both President Trump and Senator Tester won a majority of districts on the two maps, respectively. This would be expected as both won a majority of the popular vote in their elections. Finally, I made a strong attempt to keep district numbering the same as last decade to keep things familiar and simple. This was mostly possible, however due to population changes over time, some districts did have to change more than others, and sometimes greatly, so this may not always be perfect. | Statewide | Adjusted | |
| PM-S2 | Link | See above | Statewide | Adjusted | |
| PM-H3 | Link | Statewide | Adjusted | ||
| PM-H4 | Link | Statewide | Adjusted | ||
| PM-H5 | Link | Statewide | Adjusted | ||
| PM-H6 | Link | Minimize the splitting of localities: Madison County lacks the population sufficient to create one house district. As such, it must draw population from another county. Best practices describe that, all things being equal, a map should minimize the splitting of a city or a town. Big Sky is a unique locality which is split in half. One-half of the township is in Madison County and the other half in Gallatin County. Accordingly, the small population of Big Sky is represented by 2 counties including 6 county commissioners, 2 state representatives, and 2 state senators. This results in an untenable situation in which there is a lack of continuity in representation and effectiveness of advocacy. The submitted map allocates the core population of Big Sky into one Madison County legislative district. This feature not only allows Madison County to achieve the population required for a house district, but satisfies the very valuable and difficult to achieve criteria of not spliting legislative advocacy for Big Sky. Contiguous: This map satisfies the requirement of legislative districts being contiguous. Compact: By definition, rural and frontier communities have less population dentistry and therefore will be less compact. Considering that the outlying communities of Bozeman are still rural, this map satisfies the compactness criteria. Areas of Interest: This map satisfies the criteria of keep areas of interest together. For example, the university area is bundled together and agricultural communities are bundled into 2 main districts. Standing Legislators: To the extent it’s a factor, this map of Gallatin and Madison keeps standing legislators in the districts they currently represent. | Statewide | Adjusted | |
| PM-H7 | Link | Regional | Unadjusted | ||
| PM-H8 | Link | This map maximizes the house districts within the county boundary to be within 1% of the 10827 people even distribution. It is also based on community of interest and some districts are competitive as demonstrated by the partisan change depending on the data from various races. | Regional | ||
| PM-H9 | Link | This map is intended to create competitive districts while maintaining communities of interest in the Great Falls area. | Regional | ||
| PM-H10 | Link | This map is intended to create competitive districts while maintaining communities of interest in the Great Falls area. | Regional | ||
| PM-H11 | Link | This map is intended to create competitive districts while maintaining communities of interest in the Great Falls area. | Regional | ||
| PM-H12 | Link | This map is intended to create competitive districts while emphasizing compactness. | Regional | ||
| PM-H13 | Link | Here is another link to a Great Falls map. It is intended to create compact, competitive districts. | Regional | Unadjusted | |
| PM-H14 | Link | Please see Cascade County districts in this map link as it is much more consistent with current districts. | Statewide | Adjusted | |
| PM-H15 | Link | The purpose of this map is to better align communities of interest in Cascade County. | Regional | Adjusted | |
| PM-H16 | Link | I would like to propose the following map which only changes the new 90, 91 & 99 districts. While this is not the only place which desperately needs correcting it is one of the most glaring. There is no way you can justify putting the Rattlesnake in Northeast Missoula with Ronan while bypassing Frenchtown and Western Missoula. This completely disregards Mandatory Criteria of Functional Compactness and Contiguous. It also totally disregards the goal of Communities of interest. My map puts the Rattlesnake back in with Missoula while picking up some of the Frenchtown area to be mapped with Ronan. If it is the goal of the Commission to follow the mandatory criteria and balance the goals, you will make this change. If it is only to look out for the Democrats you will leave the map as is. I would also still like to object to being packed into a greatly overpopulated R district in Ravalli while many D districts are severely undercounted. It is a US and Montana Constitutional Right for equal representation. The overall map has R districts overpopulated by around 1650. Over half of that number is overpopulated from Ravalli County. I would also like a full accounting of the back room meetings. Montana has great public sunshine meeting laws so that the citizens can see the sausage getting made. The last few meetings have been less than transparent and I believe a totally different map and outcome would have come from disclosing ex-parte discussions between the Chair and the Commissioners. Back room deals were not supposed to be the way Government runs in Montana. | |||
| PM-H17 | In the attached map you will find: 1. It only splits Bozeman between 6 districts (The current Tentative Map 3 splits Bozeman between 8 districts). 2. Eliminates one district being split by a county line. 3. Districts identified in SJ8 not currently compact because they are drawn as narrow and elongated, are made compact in this map proposal. 4. District 57 which includes most of rural Park County in this map is drawn to include rural portions of Gallatin County (South East of Bozeman) rather than the city of Bozeman, leaving this rural ranching farming community intact. This map also makes HD57 more compact and contiguous than the current tentative Map 3. 5. This map creates a northern rural district north of Belgrade and remains north of interstate 90 so that it does not creep into the city of Bozeman. Therefore, keeping communities of interest intact and this particular district more compact. 6. This map also keeps Manhattan and Three Forks together in the same district as how they are currently represented. 7. Retains Belgrade as its own distinct intact district exactly as the amendment adopted by the commission lays out in the current tentative map 3 | Regional |
