The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission finalized new state legislative district lines Saturday on a 3-2 vote, with commission chair Maylinn Smith breaking a tie in favor of the panel’s Democrats.
The newly established House and Senate districts, which will be implemented in the 2024 election cycle until 2032, have been crafted after a lengthy work session over the weekend. These districts were shaped through substantial public input, including feedback from the Legislature, as well as intense negotiations between the commission’s members representing different political parties.
However, during the final vote on Saturday to decide on the commission’s plan, the negotiations once again reached a stalemate, a common occurrence. Smith, who has consistently advocated for a consensus among the commission’s two Democrats and two Republicans, decided to support the Democrats. As a result, the commission will submit the maps to the Montana Secretary of State, unless there are any unforeseen technical alterations at the last minute.
On Monday, Smith expressed his belief that extending the situation further seemed pointless. He also mentioned that he saw no potential for reaching a consensus in the future.
The Districting and Apportionment Commission meets every 10 years following the census to draw new U.S. House and state legislative maps. The maps produced this weekend derive in large part from a tentative Democratic-supported plan passed on a split vote late last year, though with several amendments to reflect bipartisan recommendations from the state Legislature.
The House plan divides Montana’s roughly one million people into 100 roughly population-equal districts, around 60 of which, in an average election year, favor Republicans to varying degrees, with the remainder favoring Democrats. The 50 Senate districts, which each comprise two adjacent House districts, would yield proportionally similar outcomes in that theoretical political environment. A handful of potentially competitive districts would exist in each chamber.
Following the 2010 census, the Legislature is presently split according to district lines. The Republican party holds a significant majority in both chambers, with 68 seats in the House and 34 seats in the Senate, constituting a two-thirds supermajority. Although the new maps may potentially result in Republicans losing a few seats, they will still maintain a substantial majority, further highlighting their prevailing influence in recent elections.
The final vote Saturday followed a flurry of amendments from both sides, in addition to the changes recommended by the Legislature. Several came from what Democratic commissioner Kendra Miller dubbed a “Republican wishlist” that would give the GOP more seats. The most significant of these was a redraw of a pair of north-reaching Missoula House districts to create more separation between rural and urban communities in the region. The change would switch a Democratic district to a Republican-leaning district.
According to Republican commissioner Dan Stusek, it would have led to a more compact representation and a better reflection of communities of interest.
Smith sided with Stusek and fellow Republican Jeff Essmann to support the amendment, while Miller and commissioner Denise Juneau expressed their opposition. However, rather than fostering unity among the commissioners, the amendment only exacerbated the existing deadlock.
Miller and Juneau refused to back the map containing the Missoula amendment, while Essmann and Stusek, conversely, declined to endorse the map without additional concessions.
On Monday, Stusek expressed that he feels empowered to represent the Republican leadership and the Republican Party on this commission. Although he had hoped to back the map, he recognized that it would require multiple modifications to achieve a fair and bipartisan outcome that he could support.
Smith found herself in a challenging predicament as she lacked the necessary votes to progress any map, which was further complicated by imminent deadlines. Consequently, the Democrats put forth a proposal to reverse the Missoula amendment. With no viable alternatives in sight, Smith made the decision to align herself with the Democrats and support the reversal, followed by her vote in favor of the ultimate map.
On Monday, she stated, “Considering that the Republicans and Democrats were unwilling to vote for the map, even after the change, it was evident that there was no possibility of proceeding with it.”
Stusek and Essmann, the Republican commissioners, have expressed their disapproval of the plan throughout its development process. They believe that Miller and Juneau, the opposing party members, placed too much importance on achieving a political outcome, which involves aligning the Legislature with the voting percentages of the two major parties. This prioritization, according to Stusek and Essmann, overshadowed fundamental criteria outlined in the Montana Constitution, such as compactness and contiguity. The criticism has been particularly strong in areas like Missoula, Bozeman, and Helena, where Republicans have accused Democrats of strategically merging conservative rural regions with liberal urban cores to weaken the influence of the GOP vote.
On Saturday, Essmann pointed out a significant constitutional defect in this map, which lies in its unequal treatment of suburban and rural voters based on the city they reside in.
Miller argued that the map is statistically compact, takes political subdivisions into account, represents the political values of Montanans, and can be legally justified. She highlighted the importance of considering political data in official discussions, as redistricting criteria and decisions inevitably have political consequences. In Montana, where Democrats are typically concentrated in urban regions, prioritizing district compactness alone would result in an unjust advantage for Republicans.
“They’re not partisan-neutral; there are no neutral redistricting criteria,” she emphasized. “These districts are inherently political and thus have political impacts. It’s absurd to believe that there could be a non-partisan approach to drawing political boundaries.”
On Monday, Smith highlighted that despite the areas of disagreement, the commissioners were able to find common ground on significant portions of the state’s divisions.
She expressed, “Had I not believed that the map was fair for Montana, fulfilled the mandatory criteria, aligned with our objectives, and had a track record that supported it, I would not have voted for it.”
Moreover, she criticized the notion that the map disproportionately harms Republicans as “dishonest.” According to her, the November 2022 election, which resulted in a GOP supermajority, utilized outdated maps that exhibited significant population discrepancies among districts that were supposed to be equally divided.
Smith expressed gratitude for the Republicans’ perspective on the map, acknowledging their belief that it puts them at a disadvantage. However, he emphasized that the Republicans were undeniably the majority and, according to the matrix we devised, they continue to hold the majority.
The vote on Saturday does not guarantee the implementation of the new map as it is. The leadership of the State Republican Party has considered legal action, claiming that the map lacks proper compactness. Essmann, on Saturday, took it a step further by arguing that voters from suburban and rural areas were unfairly treated based on their political affiliations.
It is probable that the responsibility to file a lawsuit would lie with either the state party or a particular central committee. However, attempts to contact Don Kaltschmidt, the Montana GOP chair, for a statement on Monday were unsuccessful.
Several bill drafts in this session suggest amending the constitutional language related to the commission. Although there is limited information, potential ideas discussed in the Legislature include implementing an algorithm in the apportionment process and allowing final legislative approval of new maps. However, any alteration to the Constitution would necessitate voter consent.
On Monday, Stusek expressed his desire to be a staunch defender of the commission and its actions. However, he admitted that he is unable to fulfill this role and did not explicitly endorse any changes to the commission.
Smith expressed her desire for the endeavors to fundamentally modify the commission’s process to be unsuccessful.
Despite my aversion to repeating this process in the future, I am an ardent admirer of the Montana Constitution. It is a meticulously crafted and progressive document that effectively safeguards a multitude of acknowledged interests in the state. Notably, Montana stands as one of the pioneering states to embrace an independent redistricting commission, a crucial factor in ensuring the possibility of fair and equitable maps.
