MT Congressional Redistricting

[Oryxslayer]

Wrong subforum. Mods moved it.

[Oryxslayer]

First things first, as noted above, Montana has a commission. This means that in the event Montana gets two districts, the most natural COIs will be respected: one in the Mountain west, and one in the eastern Plains.



This is probably a good delineation map to start with. The problem is that the West has ~50K more people in it when compared to the East. This number itself is in a bit of flux - DRA uses 2016 numbers, and the oil price-tag has dropped since that date, causing there to be less growth in the East. This would give the West a larger percentage of the state's population, meaning more population would have to be transferred east. Whatever the case though, the west will have to drop some counties from it's COI to fill up the eastern seat.

There are three possible options: drop Helena, drop Bozeman, or drop Kalispell. All three are above the 50K deviation, meaning other counties will need to be transferred between east and west once one is cut. It is also crucial to remember road and highway connections in the West - dropping a county or two may cut off a whole bunch more. The following maps took this into account, and I also tried to get the lowest possible deviation between east and west.



Here is a version that drops Central Helena. This is the most limiting of the potential cuts for several reasons. Helena has the lowest pop of the three counties, meaning that there is now less wiggle room when grabbing counties from the east to refill the district. Helenas central location also means that road connections are now tight. Powell is the only other county from the West which can potentially join Helena in the East, meaning that numbers once again are tight.



Here is the version which drops Bozeman. This version of the map really wants to grab Great Falls. The north of the state has limited population, making re-balancing the districts difficult. Great Falls however has too many people. This means the only option available for a northern oriented district is to push deep into the rural Northeast. This version would also have to adjust their end lines to comply with the cross-county native reservations in Hill.



Here is the version that drops Kalispell. This version by far has the easiest time refilling the West after dropping below the threshold with the county's transfer. The south of the state has the most population, and it varies significantly on a county-to-county level. The big problem for this version is how the removal of Kalispell affects the visual form of the Western seat the most, important when it comes to public perceptions.

Partisan-wise, there is very little deviation between all three seats. There is significant east-west partisanship. Since Montana is peculiar locally, the Dems would likely start with the advantage in the west. Tester '18 wins all versions of the west by double digits despite winning by 3%, and Williams wins the west by an average 4% despite losing by 5% statewide. However, the seat would still be competitive.

[Oryxslayer]

This is my take on a map. Democrats on the commission if they are smart should push for a map like this. I know that Montana technically has a nonpartisan commission, but from what I have heard, its possible for the commission to be manipulated, and if so, its the Democrats who are in a position to do so.
Its not that bad from a COI perspective either, as it splits no counties, and it keeps most of the medium sized cities in the state whole (Montana has no big cities so medium sized cities are the biggest in the state).

This is a good time to mention that if Bozeman is in the western district, one should try and ensure that Jefferson and Broadwater are also in the same seat. This is because of I90, and how it's essentially the only main road going west to Butte.

[Oryxslayer]

The rumor I heard is they will carve out Kalispell to make a bluer Western district but we'll see.

Honestly, given trends and growth patterns, carving out Kalispell and ensuring that the rest of Flathead Co. is in the second district is probably the only way you can create two non-competitive districts (only way Rs might flip MT-01 is in a R wave year, and even then it would be close).

That said, I’m pretty sure the commission will try their best to stick to the boundary lines of the counties/towns, so that would make Oryxslayer's maps more likely than mine or yours. We’ll just have to see, I guess.

Question: Do you think the Western MT district will trend right or left over time?

In the 2018 Senate election, western MT had a D trend while eastern MT had a big R trend, for what it's worth.

Missoula, Bozeman and Helena are clearly places that are going to become more Democratic with time. Butte will probably move the other direction, though.

It seems like a mix of Colorado and West Virginia.  2018 was the 1st time it really looked like the Colorado part dominated the West Virginia part.

A better comparison might be North Dakota, West Texas, or Alberta, but everyone gets the picture.

[Oryxslayer]

I guess it was missing from the Master thread, so I won't fault you for creating a second thread. Though I will suggest you delete this short thread and continue your discussion there.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=368001.0

[Oryxslayer]

How feasible is it to have the Western District contain both Park and Cascade counties, presumably after dumping Flathead County? For example, could a couple of the rural Republican counties south of Helena and Great Falls he carved out into the eastern district to even out the population closely enough? Open to any suggestions here.

Although Glacier County does provide a substantial vote margin for Democrats despite its relatively small population, it's just not worth it to Democrats keeping it in the Western District as that also means keeping Flathead, which is the major Republican vote sink in Western Montana.

Here are the (present) facts:

-Using the natural 'fall line' between east and west that goes from Flathead to Gallatin leaves the eastern district ~61K pop short under 2018 data.
-Any of the three major 'cities' can be taken to correct for the deviation. In this scenario, we take Flathead and now the western district needs to balance out the pop between the seats.
-Cascade is only 10K less than Flathead. Adding it and Glacier would in effect bring us back to where we started, since the two are approximately equal to Glacier. We are once again left with an overpopulated western seat.
-Since this is looking like a Dem seat, we will start removing GOP rurals to correct for the pop. Lincoln, Sanders, and Mineral are connected by road to Flathead, and then to the rest of the east - removing them brings us to a 26K imbalance. Removing Jefferson and Broadwater in the south brings us to 8K imbalance. Those two are connected to the east by road, though removing them from the west makes the road situation a bit more complicated.
-We have now carved out everything that can be done at the county level. The remaining 8K needs to come from a cut into Cascade or Lake. What we are left with is a district that voted Trump by 6% but supported the statewide Dems by over 15%. A clear map that benefits the democrats.

[Oryxslayer]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

[Oryxslayer]

This is not the place to discuss the positives and negatives of representative systems - every system has both. This is Montana. Also:

That's interesting.  That would be within +/- 10% population variation between the 2 CDs.  Could the commission just draw that map and defend it to the courts on COI grounds.  SCOTUS allowed a +/- 1% variation on the WV 2011 map and are trending away from strict numerical rules in redistricting cases anyway.  

Nah OMOV is fairly absolute. When states abuse their MOE's it gets people even more angry than gerrymandering - see NY legislature. This is why we gerrymander rather than do the UK thing where seats are 'surprisingly' disproportionate in their voter totals. I assume when you say "strict numbers" you mean VAP and minority districts, which are an entirely separate and eternally adjusting issue.

[Oryxslayer]

Would y'all say a county split is inevitable this time around?

Depends. There are ways to keep counties whole by first trading counties from the west to the east, and then taking in a few smaller counties from the east and topping off the west. However, if the mappers decide to treat the traditional east-west divide as unshakable, then a county cut is necessary for the east to reach pop equity.

[Oryxslayer]

Bumping the thread to note that the MT redistricting site is now live, and they note that discussions this year will focus on CDs with 2021 focusing on legislative lines. There also should eventually be a submission link, but right now you can only send text responses, not any plans.

https://mtredistricting.gov/

[Oryxslayer]

Both seats will be Republican if the independent redistricting commission is truly nonpartisan
(Though full disclosure - without hindsight, before the new district numbers came out for 2021-2031, I was pretty sure MT was going to stay at one at-large seat, not gain a second one, so I would've then gone with option 3.)

Yes, it seems Republicans on this board think that every redistricting decision everywhere should always favor Republicans.

It's almost like this weird per-conceived notion that redistricting is intended to be a benefit for Republicans exclusively.   It's really kinda strange.

TBF to make a D seat in MT, you kinda have to do a bit. I think a fair map is a lean R seat and safe R seat as that’s how most clean maps default.

Yep, as noted by the previous map, even a obvious Dem-favoring seat is still only Trump+2, you gotta get a bit creative to find a Biden seat. Of course the likely east-west split produces a T+8/9 and a T+Infinite seat, which is good enough and still competitive under senate or gubernatorial numbers. Any parallel seat plan with two districts going across the state is an obvious GOP gerry, and any plan like the above map with a all-urban seat is an unexpected gift to Democrats.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/PoliticsReid/status/1445748016103575552?s=20

Quite a few "best case scenario" maps for the Dems here, none are overly aggressive for the Rs.