MT Congressional Redistricting

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Two things.
One, MT Dems do well downballot (except in 2020, which was practically unprecedented and is probably best treated as a fluke until proven otherwise) and even a Trump+5 district is probably Tossup in neutral conditions. Trump+2 is probably verging on Lean D.

Two, I made maps for both chambers of the state legislature.
MT state house
MT state senate

[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.

[Tintrlvr]

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.

Not really true at all. Montana's political geography strongly suggests one safe R seat and one competitive seat. After all, the competitive seat in Montana very naturally falls out of drawing maps along geographic and cultural lines, and breaking up the competitive seat actually requires splitting across areas with geographic and cultural similarities. This contrasts strongly with the states you've mentioned, some of which may be less partisan than Montana, where the political geography makes it quite tough to create a competitive seat because there is no geographically and culturally cohesive area that supports the minority party big enough to form a district, and the minority party's supporters are instead spread relatively evenly or in small, isolated nodes across the state. In those states, it isn't reasonable to draw a district that is not geographically and culturally cohesive simply to achieve a competitive district.

[Nyvin]

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.

Bottom Right!  Let's Goooooooo!!

[If my soul was made of stone]

I'd be fine with them taking any of those proposals that don't have (the entirety of) Flathead County in the western seat. Taking in the Whitefish area on the way to pick up Glacier County is fine, but the raw vote margins coming out of Kalispell and its environs would doom any chances of genuine competitiveness for the seat. Ideally it shouldn't have Cascade County either, both in terms of partisanship and geography/COI concerns, but that would be far less heinous.

[Meatball Ron]

Not really true at all. Montana's political geography strongly suggests one safe R seat and one competitive seat. After all, the competitive seat in Montana very naturally falls out of drawing maps along geographic and cultural lines, and breaking up the competitive seat actually requires splitting across areas with geographic and cultural similarities. This contrasts strongly with the states you've mentioned, some of which may be less partisan than Montana, where the political geography makes it quite tough to create a competitive seat because there is no geographically and culturally cohesive area that supports the minority party big enough to form a district, and the minority party's supporters are instead spread relatively evenly or in small, isolated nodes across the state. In those states, it isn't reasonable to draw a district that is not geographically and culturally cohesive simply to achieve a competitive district.

Excellent explanation of why the comparison between MT and RI/MA makes no sense and has got to stop.

Seems like the most "natural" breakdown in MT is probably Safe R / Lean R, rather than Safe R / Toss-Up, but it's still pretty clear that one of the two seats should be competitive.

[Donerail]

These are all sh**t. The legislature can, should, must and will enact this map that I have devised, known as "the donut"



CD1 (circle district): Biden+6, 10% Native VAP
CD2 (HOLE district): Trump+39

Advantages:
-CD1 united by interstate commercial interests
-Produces at least one competitive district
-Pleasing, spherical shape
-Keeps Trump voters in the hole

[Minnesota Mike]

The maps are on the commission website.

https://mtredistricting.gov/congressional-maps-proposed-by-the-commission/

[Tintrlvr]

The maps are on the commission website.

https://mtredistricting.gov/congressional-maps-proposed-by-the-commission/

Rooting for proposal 2 or proposal 6, I suppose.

[Pollster]

Two seems like the cleanest/most compact here, no?

[Non Swing Voter]

These are all sh**t. The legislature can, should, must and will enact this map that I have devised, known as "the donut"



CD1 (circle district): Biden+6, 10% Native VAP
CD2 (HOLE district): Trump+39

Advantages:
-CD1 united by interstate commercial interests
-Produces at least one competitive district
-Pleasing, spherical shape
-Keeps Trump voters in the hole

hmm...

[Sol]

7 seems like the best choice imo. Keeps together the mountain communities--and communities should always be prioritized over competitiveness.

[politicallefty]

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

Haha, your map is proposal #2 on the commission's site.

My main problem is most of the main West/East divides seem intent on splitting Gallatin County (and putting Bozeman in the eastern district). All of the proposals seem intent on keeping Lewis and Clark intact and in the western district. One variation of #7 I'm surprised to not see is putting Lewis and Clark in the eastern district and putting all of Gallatin in the western district. The difference is a district that voted for Trump by over 13% versus 7-9% (the latter margin depends on where you put Glacier County). Assuming new maps can be introduced, that could be a potential compromise map between the two sides.

Going based on the numbers on the commission's site, I'd have to say my top three are #2, #7, and #9 (in no particular order).

[Adam Griffin]

Surprised we didn't see at least one true "north versus south" map from GOP opportunists here. It'd basically guarantee each district roughly mimicked the state as a whole electorally (In the last 4 top-ticket contests, the southern CD was a tight 1.1 to 1.8 points more Democratic than the northern CD), with there being virtually 0% chance a House Democrat could ever win either of them.

(splits L&C's population roughly in half; no other splits)

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b6022655-ba3f-468c-be5a-01575b1b73b6

[lfromnj]

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

Haha, your map is proposal #2 on the commission's site.

My main problem is most of the main West/East divides seem intent on splitting Gallatin County (and putting Bozeman in the eastern district). All of the proposals seem intent on keeping Lewis and Clark intact and in the western district. One variation of #7 I'm surprised to not see is putting Lewis and Clark in the eastern district and putting all of Gallatin in the western district. The difference is a district that voted for Trump by over 13% versus 7-9% (the latter margin depends on where you put Glacier County). Assuming new maps can be introduced, that could be a potential compromise map between the two sides.

Going based on the numbers on the commission's site, I'd have to say my top three are #2, #7, and #9 (in no particular order).

Kept swingy Park instead of deep blue Glacier.

[Crumpets]

The middle map of Reid Wilson's Tweet is pretty much what I would expect for a fair map. Divide down the continental divide and put as much of the I-90 corridor through Bozeman as necessary into the western district to get the population accurate. I don't know what the partisan breakdown of the districts is, but I imagine it'd be a lean R district in the west and a safe R district in the east. Plus it anticipates mid-decade Cascadian secession if there's a pro-Trump coup.

[politicallefty]

Kept swingy Park instead of deep blue Glacier.

That's a very acceptable map. Once you get the counties in green established (minus Park County), you have three main options. Yours is one, although I'm not terribly fond of a 4-digit deviation. A more Republican district goes into Jefferson County and splits Broadwater County is Trump+8.6%. The more Democratic version takes all of Glacier County and part of Pondera County to create a Trump+6.9% district. I think any of the three are very strong compromise maps .

[Torie]

I drew the map below which nobody else on the planet seemed to replicate. I guess that means I am uniquely perspicacious or uniquely obtuse.

The Dem court appointed 5th commission person seems intent on not being hackish and hopes not to be the tie breaking vote. If so (this person is not Mathis 2), making the western CD as competitive as possible should not be given much weight, because that is well, partisan. So I start with something that looks pretty to the eyes, and minimizes county chops, and the size of the one chop, and where it seems logical to put it. Some of the maps look butt ugly (some of the Dem ones). I would suggest the idea for the Dems is to make a case for something that looks appealing and has some good justification other than competitiveness, that makes it more desirable on neutral redistricting principles than say this map or other more Pub friendly versions.

[lfromnj]

Kept swingy Park instead of deep blue Glacier.

That's a very acceptable map. Once you get the counties in green established (minus Park County), you have three main options. Yours is one, although I'm not terribly fond of a 4-digit deviation. A more Republican district goes into Jefferson County and splits Broadwater County is Trump+8.6%. The more Democratic version takes all of Glacier County and part of Pondera County to create a Trump+6.9% district. I think any of the three are very strong compromise maps .

Both would be bad from a COI perspective. Glacier is a really far drive from even Whitehead(like nearly 2 hours). Jefferson is partly in the Helena region anyway and finally Park seems similar to Livingston. Overall if you were going for the Helena split from the West of the 3 major splits the most logical extra county to add would still be Park and if this commission was actually bipartisan it makes the most sense as its middle of the ground in partisanship as well.

I guess Torie's map works as well though.

[politicallefty]

I drew the map below which nobody else on the planet seemed to replicate. I guess that means I am uniquely perspicacious or uniquely obtuse.

If there's one obvious aspect of the commission maps, it's that Republicans absolutely do not want the entirety of Gallatin County (namely Bozeman) in the western district. The main intention of most of the Democratic maps seems to be to keep all of the reservations together in the eastern district. That alone makes it easier to make the western district more competitive.

This is a map I mentioned above that puts the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in the western district (along with the Flathead Reservation):

[Torie]

I drew the map below which nobody else on the planet seemed to replicate. I guess that means I am uniquely perspicacious or uniquely obtuse.

If there's one obvious aspect of the commission maps, it's that Republicans absolutely do not want the entirety of Gallatin County (namely Bozeman) in the western district. The main intention of most of the Democratic maps seems to be to keep all of the reservations together in the eastern district. That alone makes it easier to make the western district more competitive.

This is a map I mentioned above that puts the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in the western district (along with the Flathead Reservation):

I think while I am in "love" with my map, and want to bond with it, as a narcissist, yours is a worthy suitor, and may be the way out of the box for the 5th Commissioner vote, without being boxed into the hack category, so I think that is a good platform for the Dems to hang their hat on. If the 5th vote were an ethical Pub type, rather than an ethical Dem type, I would hawk my map, which moves the ball to another PVI Pub point.

One thing that kind of amuses me, is that the political coalitions are so unstable, and so based on the  moment on cult of personalities rather than something more substantive, that "fleeing" to what hews to neutral redistricting principles, might be the best option in a host of states for both parties. But long term thinking is not what politicians, most of them, want, in either party. They live for the moment to extend their half life in the public square, or what they perceive as the lucrative off ramp. Family first.

And the saddest thing of all, is that as a business plan for those for whom acting out of conscience, and sense of duty, it is in a neighborhood adjacent to  what I characterize as "pond scum," in the food chain. It's  a fail for those few who go there, at least at the margins.

[lfromnj]

I drew the map below which nobody else on the planet seemed to replicate. I guess that means I am uniquely perspicacious or uniquely obtuse.

If there's one obvious aspect of the commission maps, it's that Republicans absolutely do not want the entirety of Gallatin County (namely Bozeman) in the western district. The main intention of most of the Democratic maps seems to be to keep all of the reservations together in the eastern district. That alone makes it easier to make the western district more competitive.

This is a map I mentioned above that puts the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in the western district (along with the Flathead Reservation):

I think while I am in "love" with my map, and want to bond with it, as a narcissist, yours is a worthy suitor, and may be the way out of the box for the 5th Commissioner vote, without being boxed into the hack category, so I think that is a good platform for the Dems to hang their hat on. If the 5th vote were an ethical Pub type, rather than an ethical Dem type, I would hawk my map, which moves the ball to another PVI Pub point.

One thing that kind of amuses me, is that the political coalitions are so unstable, and so based on the  moment on cult of personalities rather than something more substantive, that "fleeing" to what hews to neutral redistricting principles, might be the best option in a host of states for both parties. But long term thinking is not what politicians, most of them, want, in either party. They live for the moment to extend their half life in the public square, or what they perceive as the lucrative off ramp. Family first.

And the saddest thing of all, is that as a business plan for those for whom acting out of conscience, and sense of duty, it is in a neighborhood adjacent to  what I characterize as "pond scum," in the food chain. It's  a fail for those few who go there, at least at the margins.

Do you have any statements that the independent isn't Mattis 2.0? I am pretty sure Mattis made similar statements in the name of bipartisanship as well.

[Torie]

I drew the map below which nobody else on the planet seemed to replicate. I guess that means I am uniquely perspicacious or uniquely obtuse.

If there's one obvious aspect of the commission maps, it's that Republicans absolutely do not want the entirety of Gallatin County (namely Bozeman) in the western district. The main intention of most of the Democratic maps seems to be to keep all of the reservations together in the eastern district. That alone makes it easier to make the western district more competitive.

This is a map I mentioned above that puts the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in the western district (along with the Flathead Reservation):

I think while I am in "love" with my map, and want to bond with it, as a narcissist, yours is a worthy suitor, and may be the way out of the box for the 5th Commissioner vote, without being boxed into the hack category, so I think that is a good platform for the Dems to hang their hat on. If the 5th vote were an ethical Pub type, rather than an ethical Dem type, I would hawk my map, which moves the ball to another PVI Pub point.

One thing that kind of amuses me, is that the political coalitions are so unstable, and so based on the  moment on cult of personalities rather than something more substantive, that "fleeing" to what hews to neutral redistricting principles, might be the best option in a host of states for both parties. But long term thinking is not what politicians, most of them, want, in either party. They live for the moment to extend their half life in the public square, or what they perceive as the lucrative off ramp. Family first.

And the saddest thing of all, is that as a business plan for those for whom acting out of conscience, and sense of duty, it is in a neighborhood adjacent to  what I characterize as "pond scum," in the food chain. It's  a fail for those few who go there, at least at the margins.

Do you have any statements that the independent isn't Mattis 2.0? I am pretty sure Mattis made similar statements in the name of bipartisanship as well.

What I said the independent said is what the independent said. I will dig up the quote if you want. I believe the person somehow that she really wants to work hard to effect a compromise. The thing with Mattis is that she kept saying competitive districts were job one, when the law said it was at the bottom of the food chain. At that point I "knew" she was a disingenuous Dem bot. And a quite pathetic one. And thus the rage.

[Nyvin]

I drew the map below which nobody else on the planet seemed to replicate. I guess that means I am uniquely perspicacious or uniquely obtuse.

The Dem court appointed 5th commission person seems intent on not being hackish and hopes not to be the tie breaking vote. If so (this person is not Mathis 2), making the western CD as competitive as possible should not be given much weight, because that is well, partisan. So I start with something that looks pretty to the eyes, and minimizes county chops, and the size of the one chop, and where it seems logical to put it. Some of the maps look butt ugly (some of the Dem ones). I would suggest the idea for the Dems is to make a case for something that looks appealing and has some good justification other than competitiveness, that makes it more desirable on neutral redistricting principles than say this map or other more Pub friendly versions.

Wouldn't this be accomplished by proposal two?   It keeps the native american reservations together, no county splits, is relatively compact, and looks pretty good.

The only real reason I've seen not to do it is it creates a competitive district, but if that's the only reason to "not" draw it, then what they're really doing is drawing a map to favor Republicans, and that, in turn, is partisan.

[Torie]

I drew the map below which nobody else on the planet seemed to replicate. I guess that means I am uniquely perspicacious or uniquely obtuse.

The Dem court appointed 5th commission person seems intent on not being hackish and hopes not to be the tie breaking vote. If so (this person is not Mathis 2), making the western CD as competitive as possible should not be given much weight, because that is well, partisan. So I start with something that looks pretty to the eyes, and minimizes county chops, and the size of the one chop, and where it seems logical to put it. Some of the maps look butt ugly (some of the Dem ones). I would suggest the idea for the Dems is to make a case for something that looks appealing and has some good justification other than competitiveness, that makes it more desirable on neutral redistricting principles than say this map or other more Pub friendly versions.

Wouldn't this be accomplished by proposal two?   It keeps the native american reservations together, no county splits, is relatively compact, and looks pretty good.

The only real reason I've seen not to do it is it creates a competitive district, but if that's the only reason to "not" draw it, then what they're really doing is drawing a map to favor Republicans, and that, in turn, is partisan.

That is the best line of argument for the Dems to make, and for the Pubs in reverse, i.e., to hawk their respective maps on non partisan grounds, and trash the other side's map also on non partisan grounds. Maybe if both sides' maps are about equally as good, you then go for something also good, that has a compromise on the partisan numbers. Maybe that actually happens if the 5th vote says she is in equipoise between the two maps, and will flip a coin if the two sides cannot compromise on something else. That is actually an appropriate way for her to handle it, I think, if the underlying merits of the maps are about the same.