The congressional maps below were submitted to the commission by the public. The list includes maps submitted before and after a soft deadline of September 15. Submissions have been consolidated to reduce similar or duplicate maps.
NOTES: Please click the "+" next to the Map ID for additional information.
"NA" in a population field means that information isn't available at this time.
"NA" in a population field means that information isn't available at this time.
| Congressional Map ID | Link to Map | D1 Population | D1 Deviation (in persons) | D1 Relative Deviation (%) | D2 Population | D2 Deviation (in persons) | D2 Deviation (%) | Explanation | Associated Map # from Sept. 15 Submissions | Links to GIS Files | Submitted After Sept. 15? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | https://davesredistricting.org/join/efa56266-688f-4f59-8777-c81881e3cb6e | Map Link | 542,114 | 1 | 0.00% | 542,111 | -2 | 0.00% | Here is my proposed map based on the 2020 census data. The districts are compact and only one county is split in order to maintain equal population. Additionally, the map is drawn to keep the vast majority of the Native American population united in a single district. Finally, district 2 would be somewhat competitive. I think this is a fair map that does a good job of adhering to the criteria laid out by the commission. | PM 1 | ||
| C2 | https://districtr.org/plan/37345 | Map Link | 543,153 | 1040 | 0.19% | 541,072 | -1041 | -0.19% | The East-West Map puts Helena (Lewis and Clark County) in the East because it is more difficult to travel west from that area because of the mountain passes (Rogers and McDonald) and it allows Helena to be in the same district as Jefferson County who has close ties with it economically. | PM 2 | ||
| C3 | https://districtr.org/plan/37342 | Map Link | 542,227 | 114 | 0.02% | 541,998 | -115 | -0.02% | See associated maps from Sept. 15 for explanations Also: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::292cf6b6-ab81-4975-b2d0-18a5d4c71a39 | PM 3, PM 221 | ||
| C4 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C4-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 542112 | -1 | 0% | 542113 | 0 | 0% | In the past, Montana’s two congressional districts were of course divided along a primarily North/South line. However, the commission should not rigorously adhere to this concept. Given the state’s population changes, no primarily North/South line can achieve the redistricting criteria listed by the Montana Legislature, especially the goal of keeping communities of interest together. For example, a North/South line would likely require splitting Gallatin and Park counties, two counties which cooperate closely economically and socially and should be included in the same district. A future MT-01 or “eastern” district should naturally be centered in Billings and include eastern Montana. Eastern Montana is a natural fit for a district with Billings both geographically and economically, given Billings’s status as a premier petroleum hub and agricultural center. Native Americans are Montana’s largest minority and a critical community of interest. Montana’s Indian Reservations should be kept in the same district so as to comply with the VRA and allow for greater representation of native peoples in Congress. As such, Flathead, Lake, and Glacier counties as well as their surroundings should be included in MT-01 with Eastern Montana. This would create a district close to the population target. MT-02 should be centered in Bozeman, Missoula, Helena, and Anaconda/Butte. These four population centers share a Western Montana heritage and all feature large universities, a tourism/timber/ranching/mining economy, and similar social characteristics. Creating districts of equal population will require splitting at least one county. Given this unfortunate necessity, Cascade should be the choice to be split. Montana law states that large counties should be split first, and Cascade is one of the largest in the state. It’s also a county that shares economic and social characteristics with both Eastern and Western Montana and has historically “bridged the gap” between the two. By keeping the city of Great Falls itself in MT-02 while adding parts of its outskirts to MT-01, a map with equal populations and minimal splitting of political subdivisions can be achieved. These suggestions would result in a map that looks something like the one I have attached | PM 4 | Block Equivalency File (csv) | |
| C5 | https://districtr.org/plan/38824 | Map Link | 541,553 | -560 | -0.10% | 542,672 | 559 | 0.10% | PM 5 | |||
| C6 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C6-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 541495 | -618 | -0.11% | 542730 | 617 | 0.11% | PM 6 | Block Equivalency File (csv) | ||
| C7 | https://districtr.org/plan/39399 | Map Link | 556,518 | 14405 | 2.66% | 527,707 | -14406 | -2.66% | In a hyper partisan era of politics, I'm relieved to know that Montana has an independent group tasked with dividing the state. As key components to creating new districts, your group must divide the population evenly, be compact, and comply with national voting laws. Additional consideration must be cast to ensure indian reservations are contiguous within the new districts, and that partisan lean is minimized. I think the cleanest way to do this is split at the county level, along an East/West divide. This proposal equally divides the metro areas, parses population evenly, minimizes legislative districts input to retain congressional autonomy, ensures tribal boundaries are respected, and aligns with regional economies/sentiments. | PM 7 | ||
| C8 | https://districtr.org/plan/38962 | Map Link | 542,203 | 90 | 0.02% | 542,022 | -91 | -0.02% | Please find my submission for Montana’s congressional map. This map accomplishes many of the goals of the commission: 1) It keeps every county but one (Sanders) together, and the one deviation is made to keep the Flathead Reservation in one District 2) It keeps each reservation in one district, and 5 of the 6 reservations (Flathead being the lone exception) are in one district. 3) It is very even in population, providing 542,203 individuals in one district, and 542,022 individuals in the other. 4) It is relatively compact, and deviations from compactness are made for reasonable purposes, such as population balance, keeping reservations in a single district, etc. 5) It keeps Missoula and Bozeman, the two “college towns” of Montana, in one district. 6) Additionally, in that same district, it has Great Falls, Helena, and Butte, keeping as many of Montana’s main population centers together as possible without splitting any cities. 7) I did not run a partisanship test of this map, however I presume it does not favor any one political party (if it does it is by happenstance, and is a result of attempting to achieve the commission’s other stated goals) | PM 8 | ||
| C9 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C9-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | Please see my proposal for districting in Montana based on the new Census data and reflecting a fair and equal population based on a north/south delineation. east/west alignments make no more sense in Montana if the population is to be truly balanced given the dramatic shift in growth in the western counties, hence the more favorable North and South Districts. | PM 9 | ||||||
| C10 | https://districtr.org/plan/38312 | Map Link | 647,530 | 105417 | 19.45% | 436,695 | -105418 | -19.45% | Split the state in 4 sections to include low populations and high population counties. This plan incorporates a low population section with a high population section for added diversification of population and both business and political thought. | PM 10 | ||
| C11 | https://districtr.org/plan/38317 | Map Link | 640,186 | 98073 | 18.09% | 444,039 | -98074 | -18.09% | PM 11 | |||
| C12 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C12-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 541,420 | -693 | -0.13% | 542,805 | 692 | 0.13% | This Congressional map of Montana of my creation on DRA focuses on keeping the southeastern portion of the state within one district, while keeping population deviation low a difference of just under 700 people, with the only county splitting being 5 precincts within Missoula County being apart of the new 2nd Congressional district while the rest of the county is in the 1st district. This map only splits Frenchtown from the previously mentioned splitting of Missoula County. This map focuses on keeping a compact and competitive 1st district. | PM 12 | Block Equivalency Files (Excel) | |
| C13 | https://districtr.org/plan/38138 | Map Link | 542,681 | 568 | 0.10% | 541,544 | -569 | -0.10% | This is my second North-South Map (North-South Map II) that breaks up the counties of Ravalli, Meager, Lewis and Clark, and Powell to maintain communities of interest, make the two districts more compact with the population deviation at a very low 0.1%. The Reservations remain intact. The voters and economic interests are diverse in both districts ensuring representation that cares about the various interests in Montana. The North district has Missoula, Kalispell, Helena, Great Falls, and Havre. The South district has Hamilton, Deer Lodge, Anaconda, Butte, Bozeman, and Billings. The one of the advantages of this map is it evenly divides the major cities in Montana so not one city would dominate the district. | PM 13 | ||
| C14 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C14-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 542,360 | 247 | 0.05% | 541,865 | -248 | -0.05% | Here is my map proposal for your consideration. It evenly splits the population into compact and contiguous districts and complies with the Voting Rights Act while near-perfectly maintaining county lines and city limits and reservation boundaries. Additionally, it has the ancillary benefit of putting all of Montana’s Indian country in a single district, thus ensuring that Indian country has a say in Montana’s politics. Finally, it recognizes that rapidly-developing urbanizing Montana has a different set of political interests than much of the rest of the state — and thus ensures that these communities of interest are appropriately represented in Congress. | PM 14 | Block Equivalency File (csv) | |
| C15 | https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/af33bc92-8835-44ac-ac1e-48ca6bd480a9 | Map Link | 541,476 | -637 | -0.12% | 542,749 | 636 | 0.12% | The plan that I have submitted has 2 fully contiguous districts that are compact, follow county lines, have extremely low population deviations, and keep communities of interest intact. District 1 includes the three most populated counties in Montana (Yellowstone, Missoula, and Gallatin) as well as the counties along that urban corridor. Urban interests in Montana have received short shrift under the representation of our at-large congressperson. This district is also potentially competitive although it has a definite Republican lean. DistrictBuilder rates the configuration with a PVI of R +13. District 2 includes the most rural parts of the state, representing an important agricultural community of interest as well as the reservations and tribal interests. Thank you for your consideration! | PM 15 | ||
| C16 | https://districtr.org/plan/39968 | Map Link | 524,596 | -17517 | -3.23% | 557,982 | 15869 | 2.93% | Please consider my humble submission. It follows a single contiguous line, maintains current county boundaries, and tribal boundaries, and it reasonably splits along party lines, when considering the MT electorate as a whole. Thank you for your consideration. | PM 16 | ||
| C17 | https://districtr.org/plan/39929 | Map Link | 542,113 | 0 | 0.00% | 542,112 | -1 | 0.00% | This is my second East-West Map (East-West Map II) that breaks up the counties of Flathead and Powell to create a perfect 0% deviation (one person total!) and still closely follows the traditional East-West boundary from the 1980-90 Congressional Map. | PM 17 | ||
| C18 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C18-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | Here is my map that describes my proposal for Montana’s two Congressional districts. I have attempted to create “east” and “west” districts. It would require splitting Broadwater County in a north-south direction to maintain equality. I’m not sure how this can be done, but it must be possible to maintain equality this way. Thanks for considering my proposal. | PM 18 | ||||||
| C19 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C19-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 541,436 | -677 | -0.12% | 542,112 | -1 | 0.00% | PM 19 | |||
| C20 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C20-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | PM 20 | |||||||
| C21 | https://districtr.org/plan/41714 | Map Link | 542,025 | -88 | -0.02% | 542,000 | -113 | -0.02% | My goal with these maps was to create a pair of districts using county lines that had strong community interests (one focused on farming and agriculture, so that representative would really have to care about our rural areas and the needs of farmers and ranchers and one focused on the two Universities, so that representative has to care about the needs of the populations the grow around and depend on the academic communities). That way, the representatives will have to care about what their constituents really need. Both maps also follow county lines and have a low population deviation, especially the map which includes Sweet Grass County. | PM 21 | ||
| C22 | https://districtr.org/plan/41720 | Map Link | 543,057 | 944 | 0.17% | 541,168 | -945 | -0.17% | See C21 | PM 22 | PM 244 | |
| C23 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::f78661c2-6494-48b7-ae53-7f6d40e9f89d | Map Link | 542,719 | 606 | 0.11% | 541,506 | -607 | -0.11% | Historical precedent in congressional lines seems an excellent place to start in any redistricting, and the map I've offered is only different by ~1.5 counties from the 1980 map. With shifting population sizes since Montana has had two districts, adjusting the borders of these two districts in the Flathead-Glacier region allows for quite close population sizes between districts while only splitting one county, and keeps the western district quite competitive. Additionally, I think this map reflects some of the social characteristics of Montana quite well, keeping all the major universities together in the western district and large swaths of agricultural communities together in the eastern district. | PM 23 | ||
| C24 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C24-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | PM 24 | |||||||
| C25 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C25-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | The new congressional district for Montana should allow all Montanans the opportunity to be represented by making the district competitive. Recently I visited my hometown of Conrad where I learned that increasingly people in north central Montana are being referred to Kalispell and Polson for health care. It is important for people in north central Montana to have political influence in the area that provides essential services for them. Of course, historically and today, many residents of North Central Montana own or visit vacation homes in the Kalispell region. The ties between these areas is growing stronger because of health care. | PM 25 | ||||||
| C26 | https://districtr.org/plan/43837 | Map Link | 541,998 | -115 | -0.02% | 540,562 | -1551 | -0.29% | This potential redistricting map is split very cleanly along county lines with both districts representing east and west with very equal population numbers, representing both conservative and liberal, as well as white and native, with the Missouri River making an intuitive break for the eastern half of the state. | PM 26 | ||
| C27 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C27-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 534,638 | -7475 | -1.38% | 549,587 | 7474 | 1.38% | Here is a map that fairly creates 2 congressional districts for the State of Montana. Please consider this when you create our new districts. | PM 27 | ||
| C28 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C28-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 536,346 | -5767 | -1.06% | 547,879 | 5766 | 1.06% | I am providing you a fair redistricting map. Please consider using this when making your decision for the new congressional districts. | PM 28 | ||
| C29 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::5ac0610e-b996-473f-83ac-f7ee6f9fa3a1 | Map Link | 542,093 | -20 | 0.00% | 542,132 | 19 | 0.00% | Please find my map for submission that has perfect population equality, while accounting for competitiveness in the 2020 presidential election. In addition, it keeps all Native American reservations intact entirely, with 4 in one district and 3 in the other. | PM 30 | ||
| C30 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::fda46ebc-5c79-4331-b624-8a4349b01d89 | Map Link | 542,015 | -98 | -0.02% | 542,210 | 97 | 0.02% | I drew this map for consideration of our new redistricting following the 2020 census results. This map follows county lines, making it simple to know which district you are in, it is very close to population neutral, and includes rural and agricultural counties in one district and more urban counties in the other. This map is a perfect candidate to ensure that all Montanans have a representative voice in congress and I hope the committee considers it. Attached is a csv file with the block assignment data and below I have a link to the map as well. | PM 31 | ||
| C31 | https://districtr.org/plan/44402 | Map Link | 542,031 | -82 | -0.02% | 542,194 | 81 | 0.01% | Montana has always honored a even-as-possible East-West split for it's representation. There is NO REASON to dishonor that history now. This link will provide my submission to uphold that tradition and provide AS-EVEN-AS-POSSIBLE split. | PM 32 | ||
| C32 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::6424b9b9-e03f-489a-b069-3c267a6ca82c | Map Link | 542,249 | 136 | 0.03% | 541,976 | -137 | -0.03% | See associated maps from Sept. 15 for explanations Also see: https://districtr.org/plan/46456 | PM 33, PM 34, PM 36, PM 40, PM 55, PM 69, PM 70, PM 72, PM 78, PM 79, PM 80, PM 85, PM 86, PM 90, PM 118, PM 123, PM 138, PM 142, PM 143, PM 145, PM 160, PM 162, PM 165, PM 172, PM 175, PM 178, PM 190, PM 195, PM 198, PM 200, PM 202, PM 206, PM 209, PM 210, PM 211, PM 212, PM 213, PM 217, PM 220, PM 223, PM 226 | ||
| C33 | https://districtr.org/plan/44549 | Map Link | 557,961 | 15848 | 2.92% | 526,264 | -15849 | -2.92% | I respectfully submit this map as a proposed redistricting option. With a nearly 50-50 divide of population and only 1 county being split evenly, this is a very fair and equitable proposal. Thank you for your consideration. | PM 35 | ||
| C34 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C34-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 542,314 | 201 | 0.04% | 541,911 | -202 | -0.04% | See associated maps from Sept. 15 for explanations. See also: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::3efbca84-4f62-4b5c-96a3-c67d43e7fc23 and https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::8a342c65-3f38-448d-8802-e16efab062b1 | PM 29, PM 37, PM 47, PM 48, PM 52, PM 53, PM 56, PM 59, PM 60, PM 68, PM 81, PM 87, PM 106, PM 107, PM 122, PM 125, PM 129, PM 132, PM 136, PM 139, PM 140, PM 144, PM 154, PM 158, PM 163, PM 167, PM 173, PM 174, PM 176, PM 177, PM 180, PM 182, PM 184, PM 185, PM 194, PM 196, PM 199, PM 228 | PM 241 | |
| C35 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::71d817b5-efb0-42f4-964c-42a8cb8d1c35 | Map Link | 541,922 | -191 | -0.04% | 542,303 | 190 | 0.04% | See associated maps from Sept. 15 for explanations | PM 38, PM 39, PM 41, PM 43, PM 49, PM 54, PM 57, PM 58, PM 61, PM 62, PM 63, PM 71, PM 82, PM 84, PM 91, PM 97, PM 100, PM 101, PM 110, PM 135, PM 137, PM 141, PM 146, PM 153, PM 157, PM 159, PM 161, PM 164, PM 166, PM 169, PM 170, PM 171, PM 179, PM 181, PM 191, PM 192, PM 193, PM 204, PM 207, PM 227, PM 230, PM 231 | PM 232, PM 236, PM 237 | |
| C36 | https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/515047c2-ab98-4477-9fa0-b4b268220eb1 | Map Link | 542,112 | -1 | 0.00% | 542,113 | 0 | 0.00% | Thank you for your service to Montana and willingness to consider my input on a map of Congressional districts. The attached map creates equal-sized districts along broadly a east-west meridian with some deviations to preserve the integrity of the Blackfeet and CSKT reservations. | PM 42 | ||
| C37 | https://districtr.org/plan/44680 | Map Link | 542,414 | 301 | 0.06% | 541,811 | -302 | -0.06% | Wherever possible, it seems appropriate that Congressional Districts should be drawn using county boundaries, and be generally shaped in a uniform block so they are easy to understand and accommodate easy access between representatives and those they represent. They should NOT include long skinny (gerry-mandered) protrusions or donut-holes. I think it would probably be best if the western residents of the state are formed into 1 district and the central and eastern residents are formed into the other district. This would balance the population in each district and probably better facilitate access between constituents and their representatives than any other design I can think of. See my draft map that achieves these goals and results in equal population balance. | PM 44 | ||
| C38 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C38-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | My two maps describe two similar schemes for new Montana congressional districts based on 2020 census numbers. I began with the eastern and western districts that older Montanans will remember and made adjustments to reflect current population numbers. The districts are drawn to be contiguous and relatively compact, while keeping individual counties whole. District populations are balanced within <1% of the total number for the state. I believe that an east/west partition best represents the shared interests within each district. | PM 45 | Files | |||||
| C39 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C39-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | See C38 | PM 46 | Files | |||||
| C40 | https://districtr.org/plan/44308 | Map Link | 542,551 | 438 | 0.08% | 541,674 | -439 | -0.08% | See associated maps from Sept. 15 for explanations | PM 50, PM 92, PM 98, PM 102, PM 115, PM 208, PM 224 | ||
| C41 | https://districtr.org/plan/45035 and https://districtr.org/plan/46625 and https://districtr.org/plan/47422 | Map Link | 542,001 | -112 | -0.02% | 542,224 | 111 | 0.02% | See associated maps from Sept. 15 for explanations | PM 51, PM 64, PM 66, PM 73, PM 74, PM 75, PM 83, PM 88, PM 89, PM 104, PM 112, PM 114, PM 116, PM 117, PM 119, PM 127, PM 147, PM 148, PM 149, PM 151, PM 186, PM 188, PM 189, PM 205, PM 225 | PM 234 | |
| C42 | https://districtr.org/plan/45215 | Map Link | 542,450 | 337 | 0.06% | 541,775 | -338 | -0.06% | PM 65 | |||
| C43 | https://districtr.org/plan/45241 | Map Link | 541,850 | -263 | -0.05% | 542,375 | 262 | 0.05% | I created this congressional map to follow the flathead reservation border. That one district has a lot of our urban areas and the other district as our agricultural areas. Both districts have one reservation so congress will have to listen to those. | PM 67 | ||
| C44 | https://districtr.org/plan/45763 | Map Link | 542,062 | -51 | -0.01% | 542,163 | 50 | 0.01% | See associated maps from Sept. 15 for explanations See also https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/e0a5c47f-4434-47ff-b0a9-01233ba3a87b | PM 76, PM 95, PM 96, PM 113, PM 128, PM 131, PM 168, PM 187, PM 218, PM 219, PM 229 | ||
| C45 | https://districtr.org/plan/45465 | Map Link | 541,921 | -192 | -0.04% | 542,304 | 191 | 0.04% | See associated maps from Sept. 15 for explanations | PM 77, PM 124 | ||
| C46 | https://districtr.org/plan/37397 | Map Link | 556,484 | 14371 | 2.65% | 527,741 | -14372 | -2.65% | SOUTHERN DISTRICT These cities and counties share alot in common with one another in terms of economy, industry, education, medicine and lifestyle. And giving them a shared representative, I believe, would be highly beneficial and ecourage more cooperation with each other and make it easier for the representative to be beneficial to as many people as possible. They all have some sort of impact with one another, in fact, most of the major cities in this district want to construct a passanger rail between them to mutually benefit one another. Butte-Silver Bow, Deer Lodge and Stillwater counties are together in this model, and that is important because those three counties have a shared interest in mining activities and enviromental impacts. Butte and Bozeman share interest in there large historic districts. Billings, Bozeman, and Missoula, being economic beacons of our state all have alot of the same interests in terms of jobs, buisness, and growth. Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Dillon, and Missoula all have a part of our university system and as such, share common educational interests. Both the Montana State prison and Montana Womens Prison as well as Warm Springs Mental Health facility are all together under this model. This model of the southern district also has the benefit of being relativaly equal in terms of political party, meaning no one party is gonna just get an easy win simply because of the letter before there name, which is very good for the people, because a canadidate will have to work hard and be competitive to earn the votes of there constituents. Butte and Missoula lean left but there voting power is equaled by Billings, which leans right, Bozeman is moderate being very close to the middle and the remainder of the counties follow a very simialr pattern, Deer Lodge county (Anaconda) leans left, while similarly sized Carbon County (Red Lodge) leans right and Park County (Livingston) is moderate. According to data taken from CBS 2020 Montana Governers election results, this district would have a republican vote of 159,358 and a democrat vote of 149,079 and a total population of 556,484. NORTHERN DISTRICT Like the southern district, most of these counties share common interests with each other, one big one, being agriculture, most of the states agriculture is located in this single district and that will help those farmers and ranchers get a rep that will go to bat for them. This district also has a great advantage of having all of Montanas Indian reservations under the same district, bringing them together will help lift there voices and better there chances of getting a rep who represents them, just to put it in perspective, under this model, Montana Indians would have a voice ratio of approximately Three Natives for every Twenty Six Non-Natives or roughly 1 in 8, (based on approximate 60,000 Native population on all rez's combined) However, if the Reservations were split with one half going to one district, the other half going to the opposite district, that ratio becomes Three Natives for every Fifty Two Non-Natives or roughly 1 in 16. This District also shares a common interest in power, most of the states dams, as well as many wind farms, and of course, Colstrip all fall in this district. Recreation and public lands is another big shared interest here as the Flathead, Kootenai, Lewis and clark, Custer, and Deer-Lodge National Forests all reside in this district, as well as the famed Glacier National Park. Most of the states water and rivers also run through this district. Helena, Great Falls, and Kalispell all share similar economies and lifestyles. Helena and Great Falls share interest in there historic districts. CONCLUSION This model leaves the northern district with a republican bias. I try to make the districts as even as possible in terms of political party affiliation because I believe that breeds competition which ultimately benefits the people, however, no matter what model I try, one of the disticts always comes out with a republican bias and that's due to 4 of the 7 major counties as well as almost all of the remaining counties leaning right, it is just seemingliy impossible to get it even while trying to get more important things like shared interests and economies even as well. A friend who helped criticise this asked, "if one district has a bias toward one party, why not make the other district biased towards the opposite party?", I beleive this is not a good idea, because instead of having one representative who has an easy path to victory, now we have two, and what good does that do the people, if both our reps know the can get voted with hardly trying, plus I do not believe in petty tit for tat politics, so when we can do it as even as we can on a district basis and not a party basis, we should, and while the northern district has a republican bias, the southern district remains closer to the middle. The northern district is quite larger than the southern district in sheer size, even though being similar in population, however, seeing as over the last 30 years, one rep had to cover the entire state, I don't see this as a big deal when weighed against the pros. Another slight downside, this model leaves the two districts with slightly awkward shapes. One big upside to this model, it keeps every county in tact, this model does not butcher a single county, this will greatly help reduce confusion as to which rep represents you, as all one would need to do is simply look up there county. All in all, I think the pros far outweigh the cons. Thank You for your time. | PM 94 | ||
| C47 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C47-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 542,094 | -19 | 0.00% | 542,131 | 18 | 0.00% | This map provides competitiveness that matches the state as a whole. It also provides, for each district, the best commonality of communication and transportation networks, social, cultural, historic, and economic interests and connections, and occupations and lifestyles. | PM 99 | Files | |
| C48 | https://districtr.org/plan/46187 | Map Link | 545,975 | 3862 | 0.71% | 538,250 | -3863 | -0.71% | A map where the eastern boundary states are Blaine, Chouteau, Cascade, Meagher, and Gallatin has the advantages of being within 1% (0.71%, the smallest deviation that I could find without splitting counties), has zero splitting of counties and cities, is contiguous, and maintains the historic division of Montana into East and West Districts divided by a North/South line. It is slightly less compact than proposals that split counties, however, I feel that county identity is important in Montana and a slightly less straight line that keeps counties intact is preferable. | PM 103 | ||
| C49 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::166512b8-28eb-4eea-b8a5-a4368d342171 | Map Link | 542,113 | 0 | 0.00% | 542,112 | -1 | 0.00% | After reading several articles about the redistricting of Montana, doing my own research on Dave's website, and hearing some of the discussion before and from the commission, I felt this map was worthy of consideration by your group for the new Congressional lines. If someone already suggested this please forgive my duplication and let me know if you need anything else. Best to you all in the redistricting process! | PM 105 | ||
| C50 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C50-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 543,247 | 1134 | 0.21% | 540,978 | -1135 | -0.21% | My goal for the submitted plan is to provide Congressional Districts for the voters of Montana as close as possible to the pre-1990 districts. Considering the partisan divide between Commission members, the Montana Legislature, and the Montana Supreme Court, my plan shall offer statistical simplicity, in case the final decision goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. My plan is based upon the historical boundary for Montana’s previous Congressional districts (District 1 in the west, District 2 in the East). The plan consists of removing four Counties and adding three new Counties to the old District 1, which results in the most compact, and equal population statistically possible using whole counties. The plan also meets the requirements of the Federal Voting Rights Act by distributing the Native American population as best as statistically possible between the two Congressional districts. I look forward to my plan becoming part of the public record, and anticipate a great amount of support from the public during the upcoming comment period. | PM 108 | ||
| C51 | https://districtr.org/plan/46234 | Map Link | 542,025 | -88 | -0.02% | 542,200 | 87 | 0.02% | See associated maps from Sept. 15 for explanations | PM 109, PM 201 | ||
| C52 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::1e21f2bc-94fa-41d0-ab2f-168155271fcc | Map Link | 542,113 | 0 | 0.00% | 542,112 | -1 | 0.00% | I drew this congressional plan that creates perfect population equality between the two districts. It keeps the Flathead Reservation whole, keeps most of our big cities and universities in one district, and ensures that rural Montana will have a strong voice in Washington. | PM 111 | ||
| C53 | https://districtr.org/plan/45542 | Map Link | 542,136 | 23 | 0.00% | 542,089 | -24 | 0.00% | The map was drawn based strictly on population, and contiguous counties and districts. Only Cascade county is divided. NO tribal groups are divided. It complies with all Montana statutes and constitutional requirements. And the population deviation is 0% with a net difference of 47: District 1 542,136 District 2 542,089 Now that Montana has two Congressional seats, it is critical that the division of the state into two congressional districts be done to ensure fair representation of ALL Montanans. | PM 120 | ||
| C54 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C54-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | Provided are two maps for the Congressional districts that we would like the Commission to consider. Each is within the 1% deviation and divides the State into two equal parts, by population and meets the Commission’s other criteria. | PM 121 | ||||||
| C55 | https://districtr.org/plan/46988 | Map Link | 542,992 | 879 | 0.16% | 541,233 | -880 | -0.16% | I have my submission for the Montana Districting & Appointment Commision for the proposed new congressional districts after the state gains an extra seat in the US House of Representatives. I have followed the guidelines and regulations while creating what I see as a fair and representative split of Montana. In Montana's 1st district (chosen as first only because it has the capital), I've balanced closely county lines, transportation, town limits and geographical boundaries while still creating a very competitive district that balances the many beautiful places of Montana like the rapidly growing and cultural center of Billings with hard-working cattle farmers of Beaverhead county. The winner of this district would truly have to appeal to a broad-tent of Montanan voters. I don't want to diminish from Montana's 2nd district, which would contain the green prairie lands of the east, the many great reservations of Montana, like the Crow and Fort Belknap, and the stunning Rockies. While this district would admittedly be less competitive (unfortunately to have one competitive district, one cannot be competitive) the representative would still have to cater to a diverse range of Montanans from north, south, east and west Montana. | PM 183 | ||
| C56 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::810765a8-c916-4f2b-bf7e-9f911b28d69e | Map Link | 543,057 | 944 | 0.17% | 541,168 | -945 | -0.17% | I served in the Montana Senate from 1978-1998, including three terms as Majority Leader and one term as President of the Senate. In addition, I was the elected Missoula County Attorney from 1998-2014. As such, I think I have a pretty good appreciation for the geographic, economic, cultural and political diversity of our state. It is in this context that I make these comments regarding the creation of Congressional districts. To begin with, I support the application of standards which will keep Montana in compliance with the U.S. and Montana Constitutions and the federal Voting Rights Act. In addition, I think it is possible to create two districts, with various counties that are kept individually whole. Finally, I think the Commission should endeavor to create two districts that are fair and competitive for both the Republican and Democratic parties. These proposed districts are largely similar but the first proposal (Option A) includes Jefferson County with a group of other counties located to its north, west and south and the second proposal (Option B) moves Jefferson County to District #2 and shifts Carbon County to District #1. Both proposals take into account the substantial population growth that has occurred in Western Montana since the last census shifting Flathead, Lake, Lincoln, Glacier and Broadwater Counties to District #2 and Cascade County to District #1 (to maintain overall population balance). Both proposals have the added benefit of including all seven of Montana’s Native American reservations in one district, #2. Missoula and Gallatin Counties which have also grown substantially are grouped together in District #1 because they have a very important common interest in the future of the University of Montana and Montana State University. Option B (which has Carbon County grouped with Southwestern Montana) has the advantage of keeping all of Montana’s counties which border Yellowstone National Park (a significant federal and unique economic partner to our state) together in District #1, thereby providing considerable benefits to that area. In addition, because one of Carbon County’s principle economic drivers, the Red Lodge Mountain ski area, is grouped with Gallatin County ski areas (Big Sky, Bridger Bowl and the Yellowstone Club), there is a recognition of a significant common economic interest to those counties. On the other hand, Option A (which has Jefferson County grouped with Southwestern Montana) is slightly more contiguous and more similar to the 1980 version of Congressional districts. Both these maps keep counties whole while also maintaining a very low population deviation of 0.35% or 1889 people (Option A) and 0.25% or 1335 people (Option B) between the two districts. Both these maps combine several of the larger cities in Montana creating representation for both urban and rural Montana in Congress. Both these maps have one competitive district, with four of the Democrats winning the district on the elections listed in Dave's Redistricting and four Republicans winning the district. That means District #1 should be highly competitive and neither map unfairly favors one party with two safe seats. Both maps map balance population growth in the state, with growing Gallatin County, which grew by 29,447 people this decade, with the growing Flathead and Yellowstone counties, which together grew by 30,188 last decade. No doubt some will find fault with my proposals but they accomplish the goals the Commission is charged with bringing about. Nothing is perfect and I look forward to responding to the comments of others. Thank you for considering these proposals. | PM 133 | ||
| C57 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::51cf4b03-3dd0-419f-91d5-602e4e3acbb5 | Map Link | 541,445 | -668 | -0.12% | 542,780 | 667 | 0.12% | See C56 | PM 134 | ||
| C58 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C58-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | I am submitted this map for consideration in your analysis. Historically the State has been a east/west divide and I encourage you to keep that in mind. I also encourage you to make the districts with as close as possible. “Equal” population regardless of political leaning. | PM 150 | ||||||
| C59 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C59-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | See associated maps from Sept. 15 for explanations | PM 152, PM 156 | ||||||
| C60 | https://districtr.org/plan/46685 | Map Link | 541,442 | -671 | -0.12% | 529,356 | -12757 | -2.35% | PM 155 | |||
| C61 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C61-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | Please find attached my proposed map for two North-South Congressional Districts. If you have already determined an East-West split, then what's the point? I have also attached a spreadsheet summarizing the populations of each split. My split is almost 50/50 in population. I cannot see where race or minorities will be a problem. Each district is compact. Each district is contiguous. 1. Both districts are a mix of large and small towns as well as political leanings. 2. The dividing line is a natural east-west line for many of the counties at 46 degrees, 30 minutes, North Latitude. This presents a problem for Lewis & Clark county and Powell counties. Both are north-south trending and bisected by the natural east-west line. Helena is at located at the southern extremity of Lewis & Clark County. The population of Powell County roughly a tenth of Lewis & Clark County because of Helena. We could split both counties, as depicted, or assign Lewis and Clark County to North or South District, and Powell County to the other District. 3. Trying to balance all the communities of interests will become an exercise in frustration. Let the cards fall where they may. Hopefully our two representatives will work in concert to further the interests of Montana, not one district or the other. That is why I prefer a north-south split. Both districts are a mix of mountain and prairie, and both representatives can focus on the production of natural resources which Montana is famous for and speak with a united front on any Federal hampering of this goal. 4. The introduction of "competitiveness" into this process is nonsense in my view. We're supposed to be working united against a common foe, the ever-growing Federal Government interceding into Montana's business at every opportunity, not caterwauling about one party gaining a possible edge over the other. That's silly. | PM 203 | ||||||
| C62 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C62-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | This map takes the most historic and geographic split which follows the Continental Divide. The population deviation is +/-200 and only splits Gallatin County. We feel this map is the closest to the historical division of the State we had for the 80 years we had two seats. The maps were drawn with the established criteria of the commission for political competitiveness, for both parties and both seats. We felt using the 2018 US Senate race would best represent the most recent competitive race outside of the unusual election formats from 2020. Our estimates show this split would result in a 51.66% to 45.64% advantage for the Democrats in the Western region and a 48.86% to 48.06% advantage for the Democrats in the Eastern district, making the Eastern district extremely competitive. According to the Census numbers, the West is growing more rapidly than the East and Bozeman is growing faster than anywhere. This configuration would probably keep similar populations in each district in the more distant future as we would approach the 2030 census. | PM 214 | ||||||
| C63 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C63-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | This second map (see above) is another East-West divide and splits only Silverbow County with a population deviation of 27. Our estimates show this split would result in a 51.79% to 45.53% advantage for the Democrats in the Western region and a 48.82% to 48.10% advantage for the Democrats in the Eastern district, making the Eastern district slightly more competitive than the last one. | PM 215 | ||||||
| C64 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C64-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | The last map (see above) is based upon the controversial inclusion of competitiveness in the criteria. While this splits a few more counties and results in a population variance of just over 100, it uses political data to create the MOST equally competitive districts for both districts. Again our calculations on this would have the Western district from the 2018 Senate Race be 50.52% to 46.43% democrat favor while the East would be a very similar 50.16% to 47.10% democrat favor, making both districts as competitive as possible. | PM 216 | ||||||
| C65 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::bd65fa0e-0eb1-4fb1-81fd-b1da20c5ea29 | Map Link | 542,140 | 27 | 0.00% | 542,085 | -28 | -0.01% | I looked at using the criteria of "competitive" While I still don't see how looking at political data in anyway doesn't somehow begin to have the commission draw plans that unduly favor a political party. I made an equally competitive map which has nearly equal number of Republicans in each side and nearly equal number of Democrats on each side. As you can see, there needed to be gerrymandering involved to get that, but to make the most competitive map without unduly favoring one political party in either district, this is the map. | PM 222 | ||
| C66 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C66-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | PM 235 | |||||||
| C67 | https://districtr.org/plan/49176 | Map Link | 541,734 | -379 | -0.07% | 542,491 | 378 | 0.07% | This is my third East-West Map (East-West Map III) that has the Blackfeet and Flathead reservations in the West while placing Park County in the East to achieve a low deviation of 0.07%. The justification for the slight deviation from 0% is getting the Blackfeet and Flathead reservations in the same district and the mountain pass between Livingston and Bozeman making travel difficult in the winter months. Park County being placed in the East makes the West District more compact in area as well. This map allows both Bozeman and Kalispell to remain in the West so the gerrymandering accusations are negated on both sides. | PM 238 | ||
| C68 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C68-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 542,605 | 492 | 0.09% | 541,620 | -493 | -0.09% | As a Stats class my students liked this one as the populations are really close. It also appears that the land masses are close. This map also allocated the Republican and Democratic votes close to the state distribution of about 43% to 57%. | PM 239 | ||
| C69 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C69-consolidated-oct5-2021.pdf | PDF Map | 541,029 | -1084 | -0.20% | 543,196 | 1083 | 0.20% | The Stats class thought this map, picked along county lines, divided the state more evenly along agricultural interests. | PM 240 | ||
| C70 | https://leg.mt.gov/content/Districting/2020/Maps/Congressional/Public-Map-Submissions/Consolidated-Congressional-Oct5-Hearing/C70-1-consolidated-october-2021.pdf | PDF Map | NA | NA | Here at MSU in our geometry class for teachers, we just did a project that involved creating new districts for the state of Montana. I highly encourage you to review the link attached, which provides the district lines, all math involved including populations, party splits, and wasted votes. We maintained our lines along county lines to keep things simple. Thank you in advance for your time. | Data sheet 1 Data sheet 2 | PM 242 | |||||
| C71 | https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/366f2052-fd7e-4190-bd54-55bf51874fd4 | Map Link | 539,475 | 2,638 | -0.49% | 544750 | 2,637 | 0.49% | I believe you will find the county splitting kept to a minimum (2 counties) and the population estimates almost equal. This suggestion differs from the official maps proposed in that the geographic areas are more equal so one representative would not have an advantage over the other in terms of compact districts. This suggestion also incorporates tribal lands into both districts, and both districts include some of the largest cities in the State. Thank you for your consideration. | PM 243 | ||
| C72 | https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/719f6f37-26b4-4610-86f7-6311a92aebd8 | Map Link | 542,112 | -1 | 0% | 542,113 | 0 | 0% | This third map (MT New Day III) as an attempt to make the Bozeman portion larger allowing for Bridger Canyon to be in the Western district with Bozeman. Pondera County, including Conrad and Valier, is in the East district with the exception of the Blackfeet Reservation and the far western portion of the county allowing for more compactness. This map still has Flathead County placed in the Western district. The RVI is only +5 R for the Western district. The population difference is perfect in the Eastern district and a +1 person in the Western district for a 0% | PM 245 | ||
| C73 | https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/68eaaa09-cd5f-4fc9-a633-5b0d0a676aec | Map Link | 542,113 | 0 | 0% | 542,112 | -1 | 0% | This modified CP12 or C67 map allows Conrad, Valier, and Dupuyer to be in the Eastern district. The northern portion of Lewis and Clark County is placed in the Western district to have both representatives address the needs of the county, including Helena. This map has two counties broken up instead of one, but only has a one person or 0% deviation. | PM 246 | ||
| C74 | https://districtr.org/plan/73567 | Map Link | 541,973 | -140 | -0.03% | 542,252 | 139 | 0.03% | Given the stalemate that we find ourselves having to settle on one of the two final maps, I think that there needs to be a new map put forth. Since each map (CP 10 and CP11) move towards splitting fast growing counties in the state, I believe the two sides need to retain the continuity of those two split counties (Flathead and Gallatin). Given the charter of the committee to uphold geographic compactness, minimize county splitting, work towards competitiveness (non-gerrymandering) and ensure tribal boundaries are respected, below is a proposed map that retains the fastest growing counties that were previously split, evenly divides tribal boundaries within the two districts, does not factor in previous election results, and only splits one county (Choteau). This map satisfies the charter of the commission and would demonstrate bipartisanship negotiation in a time of toxic partisanship. | PM 247 | ||
| C75 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::51cf4b03-3dd0-419f-91d5-602e4e3acbb5 | Map Link | 542,660 | 547 | 0.10% | 541,565 | -548 | -0.10% | This map has only one split county, Flathead. It has a population disparity of .2%. It puts both the CSKT and Blackfeet Reservations in one district, No. 1. It keeps the entirety of Gallatin, Lewis and Clark and Park Counties in the west, District 1, thereby responding appropriately to public testimony opposing either the splitting of such counties or the movement of those counties to the Eastern district. With respect to the split of Flathead County, it is very similar to the split proposed in CP 11. Finally, and most importantly, this map creates a competitive district in the west and, at the same time responding to the comments of the Chairwoman of the CSKT, it includes two reservation communities in a competitive district. | PM 248 | ||
| C76 | https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::4c90637b-5a66-4385-8188-840548b970f3 | Map Link | 541,735 | -378 | -0.07% | 542,490 | 377 | 0.07% | Within this plan, the more moderate areas and democratic cities are represented and there is a solid red eastern and northern district. With this plan, Cascade county is the only county that is split; the population is almost exactly equal, and it can easily be made to be exact. The only splitting of a community would be the split of Great Falls along the Missouri River. In this plan, according to Dave's Redistricting, the 1st district is 48.9% Republican and 48.7% Democratic. This is an extremely competitive seat. The 2nd district is a solid red district. This competitive district is also more compact than either of the maps in consideration. The goal of this map is to use the newly designated 2nd Montana Representative to create a district that is competitive to fairly represent the cities and moderate areas of the western part of the state. | PM 249 |
Below are congressional district maps submitted by the public that were received before 5 p.m. on September 15, 2021.
