Election forecasts you can inspect.Tested models, shown with their sources and their uncertainty.

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Montana Senate

Montana Senate District 11

2026 forecast · Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

11% chance of a Democratic win · Steven Galloway (R), Valynda Holland (D)

Montana Senate District 11: Forecast (lines redrawn; start rebuilt from 2024 votes)Montana Senate 10: chance of a Democratic win 7%Montana Senate 12: chance of a Democratic win 21%Montana Senate 13: not up in 2026 (held by republican); 2024 president R+24Montana Senate District 11: Forecast (lines redrawn; start rebuilt from 2024 votes)1311
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 11 is likely Republican. Of its 3 neighbouring districts, 3 favour Republicans.

StatusForecast (lines redrawn; start rebuilt from 2024 votes)
Chance of a Democratic win11%
Likely margin (80% range)R+28 to D+1, middle R+13
CandidatesSteven Galloway (R), Valynda Holland (D)
Candidate list fromnews guide
Current memberDaniel Emrich
Linesredrawn since the last election; Census figures below are on the earlier lines

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtMontana
Median household income$66,382$69,922
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)23%35%
Median age4140
White (not Hispanic)87%84%
Black0%0%
Hispanic4%4%
Asian2%1%
Born abroad2%2%
Jobs in manufacturing4%5%
Jobs in farming or mining4%6%

Initial version. This model was tested on every state legislative election from 1994 to 2024 before publication, forecasting each as if it had not happened. It beat the simple rule “the party that holds the seat keeps it”, and its chamber seat counts were off by 2.9 seats on average (target: under 3). Districts with no two-party race last time are read from their own presidential vote, a change tested in advance that cut their average error from 17 to 13 points. It missed one of its five accuracy targets: in 2024, the calmest year on record, its ranges were wider than they needed to be (92% of results fell inside its 80% ranges; target: at most 88%). Treat the ranges as cautious. The full test record and code.