Tomorrow is the day (Aug 2), when the assigned four members of the Apportionment and Redistricting Committee, representing the two party interests, will release their house of representatives maps. The maps are a response to the latest census data. The fifth member has been chosen by the state supreme court to be a neutral chairman, tasked with arbitrating the differences. Perhaps the formation of such a committee prevents gerrymandering of districts. Leaving redistricting solely to the legislature is akin to an NFL football game without a referee. The Montana constitution, maybe a document entering middle age, wisely understood the potential problem of political boundary cartography without a referee. We see that in Democratic New York and Maryland, Republican Texas and toss-up, North Carolina. There are guidelines that will challenge the chairman. For example, it is preferred that smaller cities like Whitefish, Havre and Livingston remain undivided. However there is also a potentially contradicting guideline that allows for the consideration of competitiveness in districts. I believe the idea behind this is to allow for not so straight boundary lines to be justified in creating a state landscape that yields legislative representation based on recent historic outcomes. Simply extrapolated, as might be the case in Montana, a 60% vote for Republicans in state wide elections should allow for 40 Democrats to be elected to the Montana legislature. A larger minority makes a difference in the composition of committees and the ability of factions (moderate Republicans and Democrats for example), to craft legislation.
The Montana Legislative web-site will lead you to the Redistricting and Apportionment Committee including upcoming meeting dates state wide and your opportunity either in person or on-line to provide comments on the maps. We are very fortunate for such a commission. Members of the 1972 constitution were wise in placing a firewall between the legislature and the lines to be drawn on a redistricting map.