MT Congressional Redistricting

[TML]

The idea that putting Gallatin County in the east is just as egregious as excluding NW Montana is nonsense, and any non-hackish observer will confirm this irrespective of their partisan affiliation. I would personally prefer the 'Great Falls/Helena east, Flathead and Gallatin west' compromise (with some adjustments to equalize population if necessary), but it’s honestly remarkable how Democrats always succeed at stacking these commissions with the most partisan hacks (and Joe Lamson is really a class of his own in this regard).

I’m also not aware of any requirement that districts need to be "as competitive as possible" (weird way of phrasing "compact," but I digress...).

If they really do opt for that D sink, I hope the GOP can pull off something similar in NH.

The GOP is already making plans to draw out Pappas per scoops from multiple outlets, including POLITICO and the CW has been that they'd do that, really since they gained the trifecta given that Ann Kuster's strength means they probably won't win both seats in the foreseeable future, so locking in a 1-1 would really help them.

Also not every commission has D hacks, AZ is probably going to be R leaning, and NJ was R leaning in 2012 (though will probably be D leaning this time due to both Governor Murphy and the anticipated Democratic takeover of the state Supreme Court).

Also I don't that map is really a D sink it was Trump+8, while Tester and Bullock did better, 2020 indicated that MT's ticket splitting tradition might be coming to an end. It'd probably be a tossup seat.

Also I drew the GOP proposal here: https://davesredistricting.org/join/343a5e9c-df80-4d07-b2fe-3d260a80f3d3

Western district is Trump+17, Bullock+7, Tester+6

The configuration that puts the northern Rockies into MT-02 along with the Plains will indeed make MT-01 a swing district, and as I mentioned earlier in this thread, it was a split decision in 2020, with four Democratic (Senate, House, Governor, and Superintendent of Public Instruction) and four Republican (President, Attorney General, State Auditor, and Secretary of State) statewide candidates winning it (and the key county is Lewis & Clark - in 2020, whichever candidate won L&C also won this set of counties overall). Thus, it can also be said that L&C is one place where ticket-splitting is still very much alive and well.

[S019]

The idea that putting Gallatin County in the east is just as egregious as excluding NW Montana is nonsense, and any non-hackish observer will confirm this irrespective of their partisan affiliation. I would personally prefer the 'Great Falls/Helena east, Flathead and Gallatin west' compromise (with some adjustments to equalize population if necessary), but it’s honestly remarkable how Democrats always succeed at stacking these commissions with the most partisan hacks (and Joe Lamson is really a class of his own in this regard).

I’m also not aware of any requirement that districts need to be "as competitive as possible" (weird way of phrasing "compact," but I digress...).

If they really do opt for that D sink, I hope the GOP can pull off something similar in NH.

The GOP is already making plans to draw out Pappas per scoops from multiple outlets, including POLITICO and the CW has been that they'd do that, really since they gained the trifecta given that Ann Kuster's strength means they probably won't win both seats in the foreseeable future, so locking in a 1-1 would really help them.

Also not every commission has D hacks, AZ is probably going to be R leaning, and NJ was R leaning in 2012 (though will probably be D leaning this time due to both Governor Murphy and the anticipated Democratic takeover of the state Supreme Court).

Also I don't that map is really a D sink it was Trump+8, while Tester and Bullock did better, 2020 indicated that MT's ticket splitting tradition might be coming to an end. It'd probably be a tossup seat.

Also I drew the GOP proposal here: https://davesredistricting.org/join/343a5e9c-df80-4d07-b2fe-3d260a80f3d3

Western district is Trump+17, Bullock+7, Tester+6

The configuration that puts the northern Rockies into MT-02 along with the Plains will indeed make MT-01 a swing district, and as I mentioned earlier in this thread, it was a split decision in 2020, with four Democratic (Senate, House, Governor, and Superintendent of Public Instruction) and four Republican (President, Attorney General, State Auditor, and Secretary of State) statewide candidates winning it (and the key county is Lewis & Clark - in 2020, whichever candidate won L&C also won this set of counties overall). Thus, it can also be said that L&C is one place where ticket-splitting is still very much alive and well.

What were the Senate, Governor, House, and President margins?

[TML]

The idea that putting Gallatin County in the east is just as egregious as excluding NW Montana is nonsense, and any non-hackish observer will confirm this irrespective of their partisan affiliation. I would personally prefer the 'Great Falls/Helena east, Flathead and Gallatin west' compromise (with some adjustments to equalize population if necessary), but it’s honestly remarkable how Democrats always succeed at stacking these commissions with the most partisan hacks (and Joe Lamson is really a class of his own in this regard).

I’m also not aware of any requirement that districts need to be "as competitive as possible" (weird way of phrasing "compact," but I digress...).

If they really do opt for that D sink, I hope the GOP can pull off something similar in NH.

The GOP is already making plans to draw out Pappas per scoops from multiple outlets, including POLITICO and the CW has been that they'd do that, really since they gained the trifecta given that Ann Kuster's strength means they probably won't win both seats in the foreseeable future, so locking in a 1-1 would really help them.

Also not every commission has D hacks, AZ is probably going to be R leaning, and NJ was R leaning in 2012 (though will probably be D leaning this time due to both Governor Murphy and the anticipated Democratic takeover of the state Supreme Court).

Also I don't that map is really a D sink it was Trump+8, while Tester and Bullock did better, 2020 indicated that MT's ticket splitting tradition might be coming to an end. It'd probably be a tossup seat.

Also I drew the GOP proposal here: https://davesredistricting.org/join/343a5e9c-df80-4d07-b2fe-3d260a80f3d3

Western district is Trump+17, Bullock+7, Tester+6

The configuration that puts the northern Rockies into MT-02 along with the Plains will indeed make MT-01 a swing district, and as I mentioned earlier in this thread, it was a split decision in 2020, with four Democratic (Senate, House, Governor, and Superintendent of Public Instruction) and four Republican (President, Attorney General, State Auditor, and Secretary of State) statewide candidates winning it (and the key county is Lewis & Clark - in 2020, whichever candidate won L&C also won this set of counties overall). Thus, it can also be said that L&C is one place where ticket-splitting is still very much alive and well.

What were the Senate, Governor, House, and President margins?

President: R+2.51
Senate: D+3.8
House: D+0.7
Governor: D+0.84
Secretary of State: R+5.78
Attorney General: R+2.66
State Auditor: R+2.2
Superintendent of Public Instruction: D+4.34

For Lewis and Clark County:

President: R+3.94
Senate: D+3.3
House: D+0.01
Governor: D+2.48
Secretary of State: R+7.87
Attorney General: R+1.56
State Auditor: R+2.06
Superintendent of Public Instruction: D+6.52

[patzer]

https://www.ktvh.com/news/montana-politics/commission-parties-gear-up-for-battle-over-mts-congressional-districts?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Everyone obviously so far agrees on East vs West split. Democrats want to create a district that is competitive and they proposed the Cascade Falls West but Kalispell East map. The GOP prefers excluding Bozeman .
We all know how this is going to end anyway.

That article says "and there is no big Democrat out there, sitting there, that could jump into the race at the last minute and have a massive impact"- but I can't help but wonder if Steve Bullock would have a run at the seat if it looks in reach?

[TML]

https://www.ktvh.com/news/montana-politics/commission-parties-gear-up-for-battle-over-mts-congressional-districts?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Everyone obviously so far agrees on East vs West split. Democrats want to create a district that is competitive and they proposed the Cascade Falls West but Kalispell East map. The GOP prefers excluding Bozeman .
We all know how this is going to end anyway.

That article says "and there is no big Democrat out there, sitting there, that could jump into the race at the last minute and have a massive impact"- but I can't help but wonder if Steve Bullock would have a run at the seat if it looks in reach?

So far, Bullock has indicated an unwillingness to run for this seat when contacted by media outlets this year. As I indicated earlier, however, I think the most likely scenario where he might change his mind (like he did with running for Senate in 2020) is if his hometown of Helena is drawn into the more Democratic-friendly district (which is the case in some, but not all, maps being circulated around the internet).

[TML]

Update: With the release of granular 2020 Census data, it just became much more difficult to draw a map which both splits 0 counties and keeps the population difference between the two districts under 1000. Based on my previous map, I had to swap Powell County for Judith Basin County in order to get a population difference of 375 between the two districts. Thus, the counties in MT-01 under this configuration would be as follows:

Beaverhead
Broadwater
Cascade
Deer Lodge
Gallatin
Granite
Silver Bow
Jefferson
Judith Basin
Lewis and Clark
Madison
Meagher
Missoula
Park
Ravalli

Now, I know the main sticking point with this configuration involves Powell in MT-02 being surrounded by MT-01 counties on all but one side (which makes it look rather unpleasant), but under this configuration, MT-01 would still be a highly competitive district, with Lewis & Clark County still being the bellwether for the entire district based on 2020 results.

[walleye26]

Update: With the release of granular 2020 Census data, it just became much more difficult to draw a map which both splits 0 counties and keeps the population difference between the two districts under 1000. Based on my previous map, I had to swap Powell County for Judith Basin County in order to get a population difference of 375 between the two districts. Thus, the counties in MT-01 under this configuration would be as follows:

Beaverhead
Broadwater
Cascade
Deer Lodge
Gallatin
Granite
Silver Bow
Jefferson
Judith Basin
Lewis and Clark
Madison
Meagher
Missoula
Park
Ravalli

Now, I know the main sticking point with this configuration involves Powell in MT-02 being surrounded by MT-01 counties on all but one side (which makes it look rather unpleasant), but under this configuration, MT-01 would still be a highly competitive district, with Lewis & Clark County still being the bellwether for the entire district based on 2020 results.

Is this roughly Trump +7?

[TML]

Update: With the release of granular 2020 Census data, it just became much more difficult to draw a map which both splits 0 counties and keeps the population difference between the two districts under 1000. Based on my previous map, I had to swap Powell County for Judith Basin County in order to get a population difference of 375 between the two districts. Thus, the counties in MT-01 under this configuration would be as follows:

Beaverhead
Broadwater
Cascade
Deer Lodge
Gallatin
Granite
Silver Bow
Jefferson
Judith Basin
Lewis and Clark
Madison
Meagher
Missoula
Park
Ravalli

Now, I know the main sticking point with this configuration involves Powell in MT-02 being surrounded by MT-01 counties on all but one side (which makes it look rather unpleasant), but under this configuration, MT-01 would still be a highly competitive district, with Lewis & Clark County still being the bellwether for the entire district based on 2020 results.

Is this roughly Trump +7?

Actually, in 2020 this configuration would have produced the following results:

President: R+2.3
US Senate: D+4
US House: R+0.46
Governor: D+1

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

My proposal:

[Tintrlvr]

Update: With the release of granular 2020 Census data, it just became much more difficult to draw a map which both splits 0 counties and keeps the population difference between the two districts under 1000. Based on my previous map, I had to swap Powell County for Judith Basin County in order to get a population difference of 375 between the two districts. Thus, the counties in MT-01 under this configuration would be as follows:

Beaverhead
Broadwater
Cascade
Deer Lodge
Gallatin
Granite
Silver Bow
Jefferson
Judith Basin
Lewis and Clark
Madison
Meagher
Missoula
Park
Ravalli

Now, I know the main sticking point with this configuration involves Powell in MT-02 being surrounded by MT-01 counties on all but one side (which makes it look rather unpleasant), but under this configuration, MT-01 would still be a highly competitive district, with Lewis & Clark County still being the bellwether for the entire district based on 2020 results.

While the deviation is not quite as low, the same map +Mineral and Powell and -Judith Basin, Meagher and Broadwater keeps deviation under 2,000, which I think is still acceptable.

I do think the Republicans are kind of screwed by the fact that their proposed maps all need county splits, but the Democrats can do a reasonable map without a county split.

[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/

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

How many state legislative seats will shift from Eastern Montana to Western Montana?

[Nyvin]

Still pretty easy to draw a map with no county splits that looks nice -




https://davesredistricting.org/join/2b9579a9-1252-41a1-965a-b689a4d832bc

Almost all Native American reservations in MT-2 (yes, excluding that one precinct in Missoula) and only 88 deviation total, no county splits.

Maybe the commission will copy this one too :-D

[Skill and Chance]

Still pretty easy to draw a map with no county splits that looks nice -




https://davesredistricting.org/join/2b9579a9-1252-41a1-965a-b689a4d832bc

Almost all Native American reservations in MT-2 (yes, excluding that one precinct in Missoula) and only 88 deviation total, no county splits.

Maybe the commission will copy this one too :-D

Did Biden win the blue district?

[Nyvin]

Still pretty easy to draw a map with no county splits that looks nice -




https://davesredistricting.org/join/2b9579a9-1252-41a1-965a-b689a4d832bc

Almost all Native American reservations in MT-2 (yes, excluding that one precinct in Missoula) and only 88 deviation total, no county splits.

Maybe the commission will copy this one too :-D

Did Biden win the blue district?

Trump+2 in 2020.

[Schiff for Senate]

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.)

[Nyvin]

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.

[ProgressiveModerate]

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.

[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.

[TML]

Both seats will be Republican if the independent redistricting commission is truly nonpartisan

At the presidential level, yes. Downballot, however, one of the districts could be D-leaning (for example, a district containing all four Democratic strongholds - Bozeman, Butte, Helena, and Missoula - would have been slightly D-leaning downballot in 2020, with Democratic candidates for Senate, Governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and possibly House all winning such a configuration).

[MT Treasurer]

Republicans don’t think every redistricting decision everywhere should favor the GOP (that’s a hackish/ridiculous straw man), they just take issue with the heart of the GOP base (Flathead County/NW Montana) being packed into MT-02 to create a D-leaning seat in the western part of the state. That’s all.

[Schiff for Senate]

Republicans don’t think every redistricting decision everywhere should favor the GOP (that’s a hackish/ridiculous straw man), they just take issue with the heart of the GOP base (Flathead County/NW Montana) being packed into MT-02 to create a D-leaning seat in the western part of the state. That’s all.

I rarely agree with MT Treasurer and am not a hardcore, pro-Trump or wildly partisan Republican, but he's right. In Montana the Independent Redistricting Commission would need to deliberately need to take into account political leanings (which would, by definiton, become gerrymandering, at least in this case) to actually carve out a competitive district. I'd argue that without a gerrymander, both MT districts should generally be at least R+5. Beyond that, yes, MT01 (or the western district, whichever number it's given) can be only Likely R, but if it's less than R+5 it would have to be a concerted, deliberate effort on packing all of Montana's large/liberal cities into one district and keeping all GOP strongholds in the other.

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

I'm by most definitions a RINO who's heavily opposed to the gerrymandering the GOP has done in places like TX. But in a state like Montana it's common sense for two Democratic districts, just as it's common sense for two Democratic districts in a state like Rhode Island. How would you react if a Republican insinuated it was 'fair' for their to be one reddish district in Rhode Island, and then blasted you as a hyperpartisan hack when you said that RI should, based on its political geography, have two blue districts? It's the same logic. Now, if the GOP tried to gerrymander KS or NE to make the districts containing Omaha and Kansas City redder, I'd certainly oppose that, because it seems reasonable / makes sense, given those state's political geographies, for their to be one blue district in both states. In Montana that's not the case; one would have to literally pack all of MT's blue regions into a single district and remove all really red areas in order to get a competitive district, which is anethma to the very nature of an independent redistricting commission. Next you'll be saying their ought to be one competitive district in Idaho.

[TML]

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.

I'm by most definitions a RINO who's heavily opposed to the gerrymandering the GOP has done in places like TX. But in a state like Montana it's common sense for two Democratic districts, just as it's common sense for two Democratic districts in a state like Rhode Island. How would you react if a Republican insinuated it was 'fair' for their to be one reddish district in Rhode Island, and then blasted you as a hyperpartisan hack when you said that RI should, based on its political geography, have two blue districts? It's the same logic. Now, if the GOP tried to gerrymander KS or NE to make the districts containing Omaha and Kansas City redder, I'd certainly oppose that, because it seems reasonable / makes sense, given those state's political geographies, for their to be one blue district in both states. In Montana that's not the case; one would have to literally pack all of MT's blue regions into a single district and remove all really red areas in order to get a competitive district, which is anethma to the very nature of an independent redistricting commission. Next you'll be saying their ought to be one competitive district in Idaho.

In the case of Idaho, current political conditions make it impossible to create any districts which are even remotely unfavorable toward Republicans. Perhaps we can have this discussion if and when the state gets a third district (in which case a competitive district centered around Boise could be created). On the other hand, current political conditions make it possible to create a blue-violet district in RI and a red-violet district in MT while keeping district shapes relatively compact in both of these instances.

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

I'm by most definitions a RINO who's heavily opposed to the gerrymandering the GOP has done in places like TX. But in a state like Montana it's common sense for two Democratic districts, just as it's common sense for two Democratic districts in a state like Rhode Island. How would you react if a Republican insinuated it was 'fair' for their to be one reddish district in Rhode Island, and then blasted you as a hyperpartisan hack when you said that RI should, based on its political geography, have two blue districts? It's the same logic. Now, if the GOP tried to gerrymander KS or NE to make the districts containing Omaha and Kansas City redder, I'd certainly oppose that, because it seems reasonable / makes sense, given those state's political geographies, for their to be one blue district in both states. In Montana that's not the case; one would have to literally pack all of MT's blue regions into a single district and remove all really red areas in order to get a competitive district, which is anethma to the very nature of an independent redistricting commission. Next you'll be saying their ought to be one competitive district in Idaho.

In the case of Idaho, current political conditions make it impossible to create any districts which are even remotely unfavorable toward Republicans. Perhaps we can have this discussion if and when the state gets a third district (in which case a competitive district centered around Boise could be created).

Agreed, but I'm citing it as one example (another being MT) where it's reasonable to expect an all-Republican congressional delegation and exclusively Republican House districts. The same goes for Democrats in a number of states, such as Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where it makes sense to only have blue districts given those states' political geographies. Stating that Montana is a state where the GOP ought to have 2 safe seats isn't me being partisan, but common sense, given Montana's political geography. Now if I were saying that Nebraska or Kansas should only have red seats, that would be unreasonable/untenable/gerrymandering.