MT Congressional Redistricting

[Skill and Chance]

There is a nonpartisan commission in the state constitution that draws all of the districts.  It explicitly includes congressional districts, so who controls the state government is irrelevant in MT.  The historical cultural/political divide in the state is East (R, plains, farmers) vs. West (D, mountains, mining).  It is thus highly likely the commission will draw an Eastern MT district and a Western MT district.  The historical Dem base in Western MT has moved right as expected, but there are growing resort and college towns in the west that have combined with just enough of the historical mining/union vote to keep the state competitive below the presidential level.  Both districts would be Trump districts, but an all Western MT district would be Trump by single digits and probably the single most likely 2X Trump district in the country for a Democrat to win for these historical reasons.

[Skill and Chance]

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?

[Skill and Chance]

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.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

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. 

[Skill and Chance]

Now that Republicans swept statewide races this year in MT, does anyone think they will move to change redistricting rules to enable them to make both districts strongly R-leaning in the event that the state regains its second congressional seat?

The commission process is in the state constitution.  They would need a 2/3rds majority, which they won't have, to even put an amendment on the ballot.

[Skill and Chance]

In practice, the commission means an East/West split is basically assured.  The Western CD will always have some Dem upset potential. 

[Skill and Chance]

The new tiebreaker independent on the 5 member redistricting commission (2R/2D/1I) is a very culturally left law professor who is on the board of the Montana Innocence Project.  In all likelihood this is going to be the Arizona 2011 of the 2021 cycle.

Let's see how Dem the Western MT seat can be made while staying within the commission's official rules.  Is a Biden seat possible?

 

[Skill and Chance]

BTW the commission is in the state constitution, so it would take a 2/3rds majority of both chambers to put an amendment on the ballot to modify/overrule it.  Republicans do not have 2/3rds in the state senate, so they are stuck with what the commission produces. 

[Skill and Chance]

This seems like the cleanest map, no county splits and almost all the Native American population is in MT-2 (for whatever that's worth).






https://davesredistricting.org/join/6ee8c186-bb8e-4fe5-9aba-21e276830b1b

Exluding the flathead area it's even geographically consistent,  keeping the Long Mountain to Custer NF areas with the mountainous west.

This isn't made to maximize Dem votes in the western district either.

Not bad: Trump +2.51 in 2020 (49.92-47.41).

Trying to find 2016 numbers.  Was it Trump+7 2016?  If so, this would likely be a Dem leaning district presidentially by 2028.

[Skill and Chance]

Yeah any fair map worth its salt has to have Kalispell in the Western district, it's a bad map otherwise.

If this is by a "good=respect CoI" definition, I agree completely. Not only that, it's easy to keep the entire west together except for Gallatin being in the east. No county splits, and one district is wholely contained within Western Montana.

Yes, Kalispell to the east is the telltale sign of a Mathismander 2.0. 

BTW that area is trending Dem anyway and Helena is trending GOP. 

[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?

[Skill and Chance]

Interesting.  Seems Dem commissioners (and a couple clearly left-leaning I's) keep blowing it by pushing too hard.

Gallatin and Glacier Counties did end up wholly in the western district and it's obviously much closer to competitive than what the legislature would have drawn.  Also Helena has been pretty R-leaning presidentially for a while now. 

Honestly seems like the door is being slammed shut for Dems anywhere they rely on ancestral rural support.  Maybe it will be different in the West, but I'm not sure it even matters what MT draws at this point?

[Skill and Chance]

Bullock only lost MT-01 by a point. I think it is definitely winnable for Democrats downballot, though probably not in 2022. Likely R for 2022.

How was MT-01 in 2016 and 2012 at the presidential level?  It has a lot of ancestral D mining areas moving right but it also has Bozeman and Missoula which are the 2 largest counties by population and pretty clearly moving left.  Ancestral R Flathead is the 3rd largest and it has basically been stable since the Bush era.

[Skill and Chance]

Bullock only lost MT-01 by a point. I think it is definitely winnable for Democrats downballot, though probably not in 2022. Likely R for 2022.

How was MT-01 in 2016 and 2012 at the presidential level?  It has a lot of ancestral D mining areas moving right but it also has Bozeman and Missoula which are the 2 largest counties by population and pretty clearly moving left.  Ancestral R Flathead is the 3rd largest and it has basically been stable since the Bush era.

Trump 2016 won MT-01 by 12 points.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/da5dab01-a99c-40bf-9fa0-17cd2d8a212e

Hmmm... so a pretty big Dem swing then, on par with what happened in GA statewide. Dems should seriously compete here, but it probably takes a 2026 or 2030 R president midterm to put them over the line.

[Skill and Chance]

Bullock only lost MT-01 by a point. I think it is definitely winnable for Democrats downballot, though probably not in 2022. Likely R for 2022.

How was MT-01 in 2016 and 2012 at the presidential level?  It has a lot of ancestral D mining areas moving right but it also has Bozeman and Missoula which are the 2 largest counties by population and pretty clearly moving left.  Ancestral R Flathead is the 3rd largest and it has basically been stable since the Bush era.

Trump 2016 won MT-01 by 12 points.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/da5dab01-a99c-40bf-9fa0-17cd2d8a212e

Hmmm... so a pretty big Dem swing then, on par with what happened in GA statewide. Dems should seriously compete here, but it probably takes a 2026 or 2030 R president midterm to put them over the line.

It's back to where it was in 2012 FYI.

Yes, but that shows there is still hope for the future.  This isn't a CO-03 situation where it was only close-ish because of fading ancestral strength.

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1598543160921280514?cxt=HHwWhMC-jaKila8sAAAA

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::e89899d3-fc18-4e5b-99a6-9e77d1ac9211

Montana legislative maps just came out, should remove the GOP supermajorities they just picked up. 57 Trump 43 Biden seats.

Wtf happened? Did the tiebreaker have to choose between a D and an R gerrymander? That seems like some very aggressive cracking of Missoula and Bozeman to squeeze out a bunch of D-leaning seats. Gives me vibes of the MI State House map on steroids.

Given downballot results in Western MT, Democrats could plausibly control a chamber after a wave.  Wow!

Continues the theme of Democrats generally getting better legislative maps and Republicans generally getting better congressional maps from officially neutral processes.

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1598543160921280514?cxt=HHwWhMC-jaKila8sAAAA

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::e89899d3-fc18-4e5b-99a6-9e77d1ac9211

Montana legislative maps just came out, should remove the GOP supermajorities they just picked up. 57 Trump 43 Biden seats.

Wtf happened? Did the tiebreaker have to choose between a D and an R gerrymander? That seems like some very aggressive cracking of Missoula and Bozeman to squeeze out a bunch of D-leaning seats. Gives me vibes of the MI State House map on steroids.

Given downballot results in Western MT, Democrats could plausibly control a chamber after a wave.  Wow!

Continues the theme of Democrats generally getting better legislative maps and Republicans generally getting better congressional maps from officially neutral processes.

But this feels like a pretty clear gerrymander; Dems are very purposefully unpacked. It wasn't like they just got lucky with key decisions in some key seats.

FWIW for the congressional maps, both parties presented drafts to the tiebreaker, she gave feedback which they could incorporate into a final map, and then she made a binding choice between the final maps.  For congress, she chose the Republican map because they were willing to give more ground by proposing a Trump +7 all-Western MT seat in line with state traditions instead of going for an ahistorical north/south split that would have made both districts equally R.  Democrats insisted on splitting more counties than necessary to keep Bozeman, Missoula, and Helena together in a seat Trump barely won. 

I presume the tiebreaker must have picked the Dem map for the legislature. 

It is worth noting that R's can unilaterally put constitutional amendments on the ballot with a 2/3rds majority.  I suppose they could try to abolish the commission and take mapping power back, but I highly doubt it would pass.  Since these are legislative maps, any SCOTUS ruling in the NC ISL case would be irrelevant.