Redistricting in Montana

in  Montana

* Fiscal
* Budgets
* Montana state budget and finances
* Tax policy in Montana
* Finance
* Financial regulation in Montana
* Pensions
* Public pensions in Montana
* Pension health in Montana
* Civil liberties
* Affirmative action in Montana
* Campaign finance requirements in Montana
* Campaign finance requirements for Montana ballot measures
* Nonprofit regulation in Montana
* Education
* Charter schools in Montana
* Higher education in Montana
* Public education in Montana
* School choice in Montana
* Elections
* Ballot access
* Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Montana
* Ballot access requirements for political parties in Montana
* Political parties in Montana
* Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Montana
* Redistricting in Montana
* Voting in Montana
* Energy and Environment
* Energy policy in Montana
* Fracking in Montana
* Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Montana
* Endangered species in Montana
* Environmental policy in Montana
* Healthcare
* Healthcare policy in Montana
* Medicaid spending in Montana
* Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Montana
* Immigration
* Immigration in Montana

* * *

* * *

Redistricting after the 2020 census

Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit

* * *

The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting before 2026 elections
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

## Contents

* 1 Background
* 1.1 Federal requirements for congressional redistricting
* 1.2 Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting
* 1.3 State-based requirements
* 1.4 Methods
* 1.5 Gerrymandering
* 1.6 Recent court decisions
* 1.7 Race and ethnicity
* 2 State process
* 2.1 How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting
* 3 District maps
* 3.1 Congressional districts
* 3.2 State legislative maps
* 4 Redistricting by cycle
* 4.1 Redistricting after the 2020 census
* 4.2 Enacted congressional district maps
* 4.2.1 Reactions
* 4.2.2 2020 presidential results
* 4.3 Enacted state legislative district maps
* 4.3.1 State Senate map
* 4.3.2 State House map
* 4.4 Redistricting after the 2010 census
* 4.4.1 Willems v. Montana
* 5 State legislation and ballot measures
* 5.1 Redistricting legislation
* 5.2 Redistricting ballot measures
* 6 Political impacts of redistricting
* 6.1 Competitiveness
* 6.1.1 State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle
* 7 Recent news
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
* 10 Footnotes

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Montana's two United States Representative and 150 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4]

Montana was apportioned 2 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, 1 more than it received after the 2010 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

* Following the 2020 United States Census, Montana was apportioned two congressional districts, one more than the number it had after the 2010 census.

* Montana's House of Representatives is made up of 100 districts; Montana's State Senate is made up of 50 districts.

* In Montana, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by a non-politician commission.

On November 12, 2021, the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission (MDAC) enacted a new congressional map following the 2020 redistricting cycle. The commissioners voted 3-2 to approve the map and to transmit it to the Montana Secretary of State. Both Republican commissioners and Maylinn Smith, the nonpartisan tiebreaker, voted in favor of the map, and the two Democratic commissioners voted against the map.[5] Montana was apportioned two U.S. House seats following the 2020 census. The state previously had one at-large congressional district. This map took effect for Montana's 2022 congressional elections. Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

Montana enacted new legislative district boundaries after the 2020 census on February 22, 2023, when the Montana Districting & Apportionment Commission (MDAC) submitted its final plan to the secretary of state. The commission had voted 3-2 to approve the final plan on February 11, 2023. The two Democratic-appointed commissioners and the commission's chairperson—that the state supreme court appointed—voted to approve the plan. The two Republican-appointed commissioners voted against it. These districts took effect for the 2024 elections.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels.
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Montana
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Montana
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Montana's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

## Background[edit]

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

### Federal requirements for congressional redistricting[edit]

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[6][7]

“  | The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[8] | ”

|
|

—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[9][10][11]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[11]

### Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting[edit]

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[11]

### State-based requirements[edit]

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[11][12]
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[11][12]
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[11][12]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[11][12]

### Methods[edit]

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[13]

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

### Gerrymandering[edit]

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[1][14]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[15]

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[16][17]

### Recent court decisions[edit]

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

#### Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)[edit]

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[18] Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.[19] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[20]

#### Moore v. Harper (2023)[edit]

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.[21] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.[22]

#### Merrill v. Milligan (2023)[edit]

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[23]

#### Gill v. Whitford (2018)[edit]

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[24]

#### Cooper v. Harris (2017)[edit]

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[25][26][27]

#### Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)[edit]

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[28][29][30][31]

#### Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)[edit]

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[32][33][34]

#### Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)[edit]

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[35][36][37][38]

### Race and ethnicity[edit]

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

“  | No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[8] | ”

|
|

—Voting Rights Act of 1965[39]

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Montana was home to zero congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]

## State process[edit]

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

Montana uses a non-politician commission for congressional and state legislative redistricting. This commission comprises five members. The majority and minority leaders of each chamber of the state legislature select one member a piece. These four members then select a fifth to serve as the commission's chair. If the first four commissioners are unable to agree on an appointment, the Montana Supreme Court may select the fifth member.[40]

The Montana Constitution requires that no commissioner be a public official. State statutes require that two of the first four commissioners "must be selected from certain counties (roughly, in the Montana Rockies to the west) and two must be selected from the rest of the state (to the east)."[40]

The state's Districting and Apportionment Commission must complete congressional redistricting within 90 days of receiving federal census data. It must prepare a legislative redistricting plan "by the 10th legislative day of the first regular session after the federal census results are available. The Legislature then has 30 days to make recommendations to the commission. Within 30 days of receiving the Legislature's recommendations, the commission must file the redistricting plan with the Secretary of State, and it becomes law. Although the commission may modify the plan to accommodate the Legislature's recommendations, it is not required to do so."[41]

The state constitution requires that districts be both contiguous and compact.[40]

“  | The ... commission has stated that it may gauge compactness by looking to a district's general appearance, and the degree to which it fosters "functional compactness" through "travel and transportation, communication, and geography." The commission has similarly determined that it will, in drawing legislative districts, consider the boundary lines of political subdivisions (counties, cities, towns, school districts, Indian reservations, neighborhood commissions, and others); follow geographic boundaries; and consider keeping intact communities of interest (based on "Indian reservations, urban[, suburban, or rural] interests, . . . neighborhoods, trade areas, geographic location, communication and transportation networks, media markets, social, cultural and economic interests, or occupations and lifestyles").[8] | ”

|
|

—All About Redistricting

### How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting[edit]

See also: How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Montana, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.

## District maps[edit]

### Congressional districts[edit]

See also: United States congressional delegations from Montana

Montana has two congressional districts. The table below lists Montana's current U.S. Representatives.

Office | Name | Party | Date assumed office | Date term ends

|
|
|
|

U.S. House Montana District 1 | Ryan K. Zinke | Republican  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Montana District 2 | Troy Downing | Republican  | January 3, 2025 | January 3, 2027

### State legislative maps[edit]

See also: Montana State Senate and Montana House of Representatives

To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.”

## Redistricting by cycle[edit]

### Redistricting after the 2020 census[edit]

See also: Redistricting in Montana after the 2020 census

Montana was apportioned two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net gain of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[42]

### Enacted congressional district maps[edit]

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On November 12, 2021, the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission (MDAC) enacted a new congressional map following the 2020 redistricting cycle. The commissioners voted 3-2 to approve the map and to transmit it to the Montana Secretary of State. Both Republican commissioners and Maylinn Smith, the nonpartisan tiebreaker, voted in favor of the map, and the two Democratic commissioners voted against the map.[43] Montana was apportioned two U.S. House seats following the 2020 census. The state previously had one at-large congressional district. This map took effect for Montana's 2022 congressional elections.

A version of the congressional map enacted by the commission had previously been approved on November 4, 2021. The map that received final approval on November 12, 2021, made a minor change in Pondera County, allocating a smaller portion of it to the Western district.[44]

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

### Montana Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

### Montana Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

#### Reactions[edit]

Following the approval of the congressional map, Democratic Commissioner Kendra Miller said: "Neither district on this plan is seriously competitive. The two districts together don't adequately represent the overall makeup of our state. And for that reason, this plan has been drawn to unduly favor one political party."[44] Maylinn Smith, the nonpartisan chair of the commission, said: "In making my decision, I looked at what I thought was fair for all Montana. I had two maps that the information provided to me indicated that for the congressional seat, which is the seat this map is addressing, that the election results for the last five elections were the same. [...] I'm saying these maps are not going to make a difference in the election results. That's as competitive as I can get it under the maps that I'm given."[44] Republican Commissioner Jeff Essmann said: "In terms of the Western district, you know, as it's drawn, this is not, whether it is represented in the future by a Democrat or Republican, it will never be considered a safe seat in the 10 years going forward that would permit any candidate to not listen to the voters of that district."[44]

#### 2020 presidential results[edit]

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[45] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[46]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Montana

District  | 2022 district | Political predecessor district
Joe Biden | Donald Trump | Joe Biden | Donald Trump
Montana's 1st | 45.3% | 52.2% | \
 | \

Montana's 2nd | 35.3% | 62.2% | 40.6% | 56.9%

### Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Montana enacted new legislative district boundaries after the 2020 census on February 22, 2023, when the Montana Districting & Apportionment Commission (MDAC) submitted its final plan to the secretary of state. The commission had voted 3-2 to approve the final plan on February 11, 2023. The two Democratic-appointed commissioners and the commission's chairperson—that the state supreme court appointed—voted to approve the plan. The two Republican-appointed commissioners voted against it. These districts took effect for the 2024 elections.

The MDAC voted 3-2 to submit its final legislative district boundary proposal to the legislature on December 21, 2022. The commission's nonpartisan chairperson, Maylinn Smith, and two Democratic-appointed commissioners voted to approve the map, and the two Republican-appointed commissioners voted against it.[47] The legislature provided recommendations on the plan via a joint House-Senate resolution on February 2, 2023. The MDAC incorporated some, but not all, of the legislature's proposed amendments into the final plan.

Montana was the last state to enact legislative redistricting plans after the 2020 census. The state constitution requires that the redistricting commission submit legislative maps to the legislature so they can provide non-binding recommendations before they are enacted. Montana's legislature only meets in odd-numbered years and adjourned in April 2021, before U.S. Census data was delivered to the states on August 12, 2021.[48]

Shaylee Ragar of Montana Public Radio wrote that "According to data compiled by Democrats on the commission, the map could give Republicans a 20-seat advantage in the House and an 8-seat advantage in the Senate. It projects Democrats picking up a few seats currently held by Republicans."[49] Arren Kimbel-Sannit wrote in the Montana Free Press that, "In sum, the new maps could cost Republicans several seats while still leaving them a sizable majority that at least suggests the GOP’s dominance in recent elections."[50]

Click here to read the Montana Districting & Apportionment Commission's final report on the enacted legislative redistricting plan, including population and demographic figures by county and district.

#### State Senate map[edit]

Below are the state Senate maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

### Montana State Senate Districts
until January 5, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

### Montana State Senate Districts
starting January 6, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

#### State House map[edit]

Below are the state House maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

### Montana State House Districts
until January 5, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

### Montana State House Districts
starting January 6, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

### Redistricting after the 2010 census[edit]

See also: Redistricting in Montana after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Montana did not add to its single congressional district, making congressional redistricting unnecessary. On August 17, 2012, the redistricting commission released a tentative state legislative district proposal. The commission submitted its final recommendations to the state legislature on January 8, 2013. After considering responses from the legislature, the commission produced its final redistricting plan on February 12, 2013.[40]

#### Willems v. Montana[edit]

On March 14, 2013, a suit was filed in state court challenging "the way in which a district was designated a 'holdover' district for state Senate representation in a staggered election system; the challenge [was] based on the decision that the district [would] next elect a state Senator in 2016, rather than 2014." On December 6, 2013, the court rejected this challenge and ruled in favor of the state. The decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision.[40]

## State legislation and ballot measures[edit]

### Redistricting legislation[edit]

See state election laws

The table below includes bills related to redistricting introduced during (or carried over to) the current session of the Montana state legislature. The following information is included for each bill:

* State
* Bill number
* Official bill name or caption
* Most recent action date
* Legislative status
* Sponsor party
* Topics dealt with by the bill

Bills are organized by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page on Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.

### Redistricting ballot measures[edit]

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Montana ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Montana.

1. Montana Apportionment of the Legislature, Amendment 2 (1966)
2. Montana Redistricting After Final Census, C-14 (1984)

## Political impacts of redistricting[edit]

### Competitiveness[edit]

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[51]

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[52]

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[53]

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[54]

#### State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle[edit]

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

Montana was not included in this study.

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Montana. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Redistricting in Montana - Google News

## See also[edit]

* United States census, 2020
* Redistricting in Montana after the 2010 census
* Redistricting
* State-by-state redistricting procedures
* Majority-minority districts
* State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
* Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
* Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

## External links[edit]

* All About Redistricting
* Dave's Redistricting
* FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
* National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
* FairVote, "Redistricting"

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
5. ↑ Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission, "Meetings," accessed November 12, 2021
6. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
7. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
9. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
10. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
13. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
14. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
15. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
16. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
17. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
18. ↑ United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
19. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
20. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
21. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
22. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
23. ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
24. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
25. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
26. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
27. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
28. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
29. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
30. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
31. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
32. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
33. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
34. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
35. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
36. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
37. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
38. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
39. ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.4 All About Redistricting, "Montana," accessed April 29, 2015
41. ↑ Montana State Legislature, "Districting and Apportionment Commission," accessed October 6, 2021
42. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
43. ↑ Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission, "Meetings," accessed November 12, 2021
44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 44.3 Billings Gazette, "Commission settles on Montana Congressional district map on 3-2 vote," November 9, 2021
45. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
46. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
47. ↑ Daily Montanan, "Redistricting Commission votes to send map to the legislature for recommendations," December 21, 2022
48. ↑ Montana State Legislature, "Constitution of Montana -- Article V -- THE LEGISLATURE," accessed June 2, 2022
49. ↑ Montana Public Radio, "Redistricting commission adopts final legislative maps," February 13, 2023
50. ↑ Montana Free Press, "Explaining the why and the where of Montana’s new legislative districts," February 13, 2023
51. ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
52. ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
53. ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
54. ↑ Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Why Do Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin State Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021

v • e

Election policy

Election legislation|

Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker • Ballotpedia's The Ballot Bulletin • Election legislation tracking: list of sub-topics • Absentee/mail-in voting • Early voting • Election dates and deadlines • Election Day voting • Ranked-choice voting • Redistricting • Voter registration

* * *

Election administration|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • Washington, D.C. • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Voting policy|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Electoral systems policy|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Primary elections policy|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Redistricting policy|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Recount laws|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Ballot access for
political candidates|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Ballot access for
presidential candidates|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Ballot access for
political parties|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Electoral systems|

Single-winner system • Multi-winner system • Block voting system • Plurality voting system • Majority voting system • Top-two primary • Blanket primary • Open primary • Closed primary • Semi-closed primary • Top-four primary • Ranked-choice voting (RCV) • STAR voting • Approval voting • Fusion voting

* * *

v • e

Ballotpedia

About|

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Policy: Michael Leland • Jon Dunn • Amy Handlin • Jimmy McAllister • Annelise Reinwald • Emma Soukup • Mina Vogel
Content Strategy: Josh Altic
Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content|

Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox

v • e

State of Montana
Helena (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy