On Tuesday, voters in Crook County passed measure 7-86, which asked voters if they support negotiations to move the Oregon/Idaho border to include Crook County in Idaho.  The measure is passing with 53% of the vote, and makes Crook County the 13th county in eastern Oregon to pass a Greater Idaho measure.

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    5 months ago

    These people want to abandon everything that makes their lives great for… (checks notes) The rights to control women, marry children, and to burn crosses on their ethnic neighbors lawn.

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Mostly (and this is probably true for over 60% of Republicans), it’s about defunding half of the government programs they rely on but don’t realize it, sold to them through the euphemism of “tax cuts”.

      I think the right to control women is next on the list, but even then we see that even republican public opinion on abortions is stricter than the left’s, but would actually prefer less extreme laws than what has been passed.

      As much of a meme as it is, most rural religious folk aren’t militant about marrying children and burning crosses. We hear about every instance of child marriage cause it sucks so much, and people have been openly, violently racist despite the law for centuries, all it takes is a town full of like-minded people.

  • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    So I am from WA and have been aware of this plan for a while.

    This is one phase, and the next phase is to try to do this with as many Eastern WA counties as possible.

    And to anyone wondering why this is happening, ya’ll obviously are not from around the PNW.

    Basically, Seattle, Tacoma and Portland are bastion of liberals and actual leftists. Bellevue is as well, but its only for corpos these days.

    Nearly everywhere else west of the cascades is just barely more blue than red, and there are tons of smaller towns with Republican controlled county legislatures and town/city governments.

    On the East of the Cascades, in the desert, basically, Republicans are generally in charge of everything that isn’t a Reservation.

    Its a bit more complex than this, but it is pretty much ‘big cities’ are blue, mid and small cities and everything else is red.

    While I am against this succeeding, I do not think this is as cut and dry, obviously unconstitutional as some other posters here are making it seem.

    It is not creating a new state. It is counties voting to leave one state and join another. To the best of my knowledge, this is completely unprecedented in the history of the US.

    They’ve got a whole detailed plan for how to attempt to get this actually done. And they have a lot of judges, and now a popular mandate.

    I honestly do not know how this will play out as it will likely hinge on various judiciaries and possibly executive (Governor) moves.

    Yes, the state legislatures have to sign off on it and thats a big hurdle to jump, but it may actually be doable if enough political pressure is applied… especially if Trump wins.

    It could possibly make it to the Circuit Courts and then the Supreme Court.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I describe it like this… the places where people actually live are blue.

      The places where there are more square miles than people are red.

    • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      5 months ago

      While true, this is true in basically every area in the USA. If you have a tractor supply store near your house, you’re in redneck territory. If you have a Lululemon, you’re in blue territory.

    • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      There is a legal way to do this:

      New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

      — Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1

      Nebraska and South Dakota have a compact that’s been approved by Congress that has land swap between the states based on where the river is when particular assessments happen. So land leaving one state and going to another state isn’t unheard of. If you go look at NE and SD’s border in the southeast corner of SD, you’ll see the river and the border is pretty tight. Now compare that to states that have no such compact like Arkansas and Tennessee. River and the border are all kinds of messed up.

      The thing is, both Idaho’s and Oregon’s State assembly will have to vote on it as you indicated. It’s not up to the citizens to dictate when a state’s border can be redrawn. Once Idaho and Oregon have a compact, they will need to send it to DC for Congress to vote on it. If it passes both the House and the Senate, the new compact can be enforced and the new borders drawn.

      From what I’ve heard Oregon will not even begin to entertain this notion.

      But yes, this is completely legal in the Constitution and we’ve done it before too. And we even have had the case where we took one state and split it into two happen before as well. Virginia and West Virginia. So we’ve used this part of the Constitution enough to know exactly how it needs to go down.

      Is it going to go down? IDK. California said they were going to split up into 3, 4, 5 different States, not holding my breath on that one either. Would be pretty neat to redraw Idaho though. Never liked it’s weird long edge on the west side. Now it’ll look like someone giving the middle finger or something.

      • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Living in oregon I see value in letting them enter the “find out” portion of their fucking around. This portion of the state better aligns with idaho, and they’re a thorn in the side of the legislature… they walked out of session to block any laws they didn’t want to vote for, and when a law blocked these people running again, their districts elected their family members. This lets oregon be oregon and rural oregon be idaho… free of weed, abortion, and with a minimum wage of $7.25/hr.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Can we merge Idaho with the rest of the Midwest? It’d be pretty fucking sweet to have less GOP senators.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        They wouldn’t want that if course.

        However, of they do this, then they would likely make an argument for reallocating electors…

        • Xbeam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          It would reallocate electors as well as congressional seats. Those are both based on population and are already realloated every 10 years.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Ah didn’t bother to look it up, thanks for the clarification.

            Though the congressional seats will be a wash, since I’m sure the existing districts already are red.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Will this change the number of electoral votes and house representative each state has? Because if not, this seems to benefit Oregon: concentrates Republicans in Idaho while lessening the impact of their vote.

      • cbarrick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The number of electoral votes and the number of reps is based on population and is decided by the census.

        So if this happens, at the latest, the votes would get fixed in 2031. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this is part of the deal. Obviously those switching to Idaho want to bring their votes with them.

        • Neato@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Ah yeah. It was the total votes and minimums for Wyoming in Congress I was thinking of. That needs to be readjusted.

  • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Yea this might have something to do with it

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/24/people-rights-network-oregon-elections

    At least 66 members of far-right group in rural Oregon standing for office

    Revealed: anti-government People’s Rights Network, founded by Ammon Bundy, appearing to follow ‘entryism’ strategy

    At least 66 members of an anti-government group founded by far-right militia figure Ammon Bundy have attempted to win local positions of influence in the Republican party in Oregon, the Guardian can reveal.

    The candidates stood for Republican precinct committee person (PCP) slots in three central Oregon counties in this week’s elections, with some facing no opponent and thus winning their positions by default. The role of PCPs includes electing the executive of the county-level GOP apparatus.

    The move is part of what appears to be a coordinated attempt to capture the local Republican party infrastructure, following a far-right strategy of “entryism” into more mainstream political bodies.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    some 300 people live in some of those counties, which is like a city block in portland. If they want to be idaho so much why not just move there?

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I can really sympathize with these guys. I live in a blue dot in one of the reddest states in the country. I have been talking with my friends about doing this exact thing.

      Technically this is not secession. It’s partitioning. They want to partition themselves and join Idaho. Just like I’d love to partition my city away from the shit hole parasitic state it’s attached to.

      The state level representation just isn’t there for them. They’re so dramatically in the minority that they have no voice in state government at all. So changes are mandated to them, and they’re disillusioned. They love their home and they want the government to recognize them.

      Set aside the crazy bullshit they want. The grievance is legitimate, the government completely ignores their desires, they haven’t been able to get the government to acknowledge that, and so they retaliate by saying they don’t want to be a part of it anymore.

      To be clear, there is no resolution for people in this situation. They have no control over the state government, no ability to change it. The only choice is to leave, and faced with moving or a long shot at leaving or taking your home with you, you’d choose to take your home, every time.

      • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is caused by Gerrymandering and antidemocratic voter suppression. But Republicans don’t want to fix those issues because they’d be a regional party overnight limited to just the south.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          5 months ago

          This is something both parties are guilty of. Neither is all that interested in fixing it until they’re the victims of it.

          This doesn’t get fixed with a two party system.

          • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Ah yes, those vote suppressing Democrats…

            I do think there needs to be a dissolution of the parties, but accusing both sides of being the same is not valid nor useful in the state (lol, country?) that we currently live in.

            • Wogi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I’m not saying both sides are the same. I’m accusing two different political parties of employing the same shitty tactics, which they most definitely are.

              Is one party more guilty of it? Sure. But denying that the Democrats are gerrymandering is delusional.

              Oregon’s 2021 congressional map received an F from the gerrymandering project for giving one party a significant advantage.

              https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card?planId=rec6qj1vAOKsBnXnu

              Drawn and enacted exclusively by Democrats.

              Don’t lie to yourself. They’re still fucking politicians.

                • Wogi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  There are several available at the link I shared. It might be more than one click but, because you’re presumably able to read, a big smart guy like you should have no trouble finding them.

              • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                All governments are run by politicians, by definition. Are you in favor of an anarchist power vacuum that will instantly attract people wanting to set up their own terrible governments?

      • PenisWenisGenius@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        What do they want that Idaho can provide that Oregon can’t? Some people have to flee entire states over abortion laws for lifesaving medical procedures and they’re told stuff like “well if you don’t like it just move”.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          I appreciate that. And this is a great example to whip out when those idiots say shit like that. Obviously moving isn’t an option for most people and for those whom it is, they likely have.

          What exactly they want isn’t important, just that it’s very much the opposite of how the state is being run. Admittedly some of the demands fall under crazy bullshit, but the central issue is agency. Politically speaking they have very little, and this is the one lever left to them to pull.

          Imagine you’re on a train of trolleys, and every time it comes to a point where a direction could be chosen, every car votes and consistently the ones at the back are out voted by the other cars. You can’t get off and buy another ticket. But you might be able to detach the cars.

          Furthermore, reorganization like this should be done far more frequently than it’s being done. Why shouldn’t we allow disparate peoples of similar opinions vote together and govern each other? Why are we locked in to the lines on a map, the last major change of which happened in 1867. Since then, the borders have remained relatively unchanged.

          Not only should they, a group of people I likely hold only one fundamental belief in common with, not be afforded some self governance?

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Though it is only 53% of them that want this. Not that I think that should cancel the entire vote, but it should complicate the situation because a 6% difference shouldn’t change the situation into one that 47% don’t want.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      5 months ago

      There are natural resources out there that the land owners want to extract. Washington’s and Oregon’s environmental law is far more stringent than Idaho’s.

      • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 months ago

        Slight addendum: they own small parcels of land surrounded by public land that pay miniscule fees to use as they please for ranching.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    The parts of Oregon wanting this are rabidly anti-tax. The instant they find out Idaho has a 6% sales tax they’ll cry and come crawling right back.

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’ll swallow a 6% sales tax in exchange for joining the white ethnostate of their dreams idaho.

    • sparkle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      Cymraeg
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Conservatives are super pro-sales tax because it’s regressive taxation. A common fake-libertarian argument is “we don’t need income taxes, we can just have sales taxes”.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is so damn odd, it’s a state. Just move. It’s not another country. Shit like this is what makes me think we should just abolish the states honestly. This mindset is weird

    • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Some people are too poor to move. Just move is an insane idea and we need to eradicate it.

      • cheesepotatoes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        So moving is an insane idea, but transferring huge portions of land between states is totally rational and reasonable?

        • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Considering that it’s just some imaginary line in the dirt that a bunch of people agree on the location of, yeah it’s a lot more rational than everything you go through to physically move

            • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              The concept of “Idaho” is an entirely societally defined concept. If everyone agrees you are in Idaho, then you are in Idaho. If all you care about is being in Idaho, and you can do that with less effort and resources than physically moving across state lines, why wouldn’t you do that?

              I think it’s a pretty short sighted and selfish thing to do, but it is entirely rational.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you’re living paycheck to paycheck, you can’t afford to move. You can’t afford the moving van, you certainly can’t afford a week or two without work, and you can’t afford to go to job interviews in the place where you want to live.

          But if you don’t have to move, and instead you work with people around you to change the current geopolitical structure, that’s something that you can help be a part of by signing a petition or driving down to your town hall it’s a month for a meeting.

          I agree with you that overall it would make sense for people to move, but logistically many of them can’t. And even if they could, maybe they like the place they live. Maybe they’re lucky enough to own property, and the problem they have is not with their neighborhood, so they’d rather not replace it.

            • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah my apologies I was more responding to the second half of your commentary as it’s obvious I suggested that not them.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Just move is a perfectly legitimate idea when the only reason you want to move is because a political ideology. Not even political ideology wanting to impose your political ideology. If this was an economic issue I would never say just move. If this was a persecution issue I would never say just move. If this was any legitimate issue I would never say just move. However this is obviously, pathetically obviously, none of those things. They don’t like the people around them. They’re bigots. Bigots should move.

        Frankly I think it’s absurd that you’re even suggesting that they have some kind of legitimate gripe. Equating their issue to anything legitimate is beyond ignorant.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        Seems like a stupid vote then: choose to leave a state with at least some services to join one without, just to make it easier for a few landowners to extract resources without regard to the environment

      • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The cost of living is cheaper in Idaho! They’d just be giving up things like 1/3 the per student spending, physicians leaving to avoid idaho’s abortion laws, and face lower road spending, worse unemployment rights… I mean the benefits are right there. For the rest of us in Oregon. Sign here, press hard, 3 copies. Finally we can get rid of those walkout issues in the house.

        Oregexit your hearts out. Don’t let the non gendered bathroom handle hit you on the ass as you go.

    • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      The idea of States and federal governments make no sense to me. Same country but different set of laws? Why even form a country?

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The United States formed as a group of semi-sovereign political entities that wanted to make their own laws, but needed a common defense, foreign, and trade policy to prevent recolonization.

        The founding fathers knew that the country wouldn’t agree on everything, so they set up a system where a lot of decisions would be made by more local officials.

        Other federations work on the same principle. It is a lot easier to get political consensus in a smaller group than a larger one, so a lot of decisions are pushed to more local entities.

      • Dark ArcA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Look at lemmy. Same country, different laws per instance and different laws in the communities.

  • WhatIsThePointAnyway@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Just get rid of the electoral college already and stop giving these dipshit minorities a chance in hell of moving this country backwards.

  • Zier@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Just make all the racists move to Idaho proper. No need to change state lines.

    • thechadwick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Have you been to East Oregon or Idaho? They’re way ahead of you. Looking for an extremist compound and lax gun laws? Look no further. Good potatoes though…

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    So, this sort of thing requires both Congressional and state approval.

    US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3.

    New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

    Looking at the map, I’d guess that this isn’t because of fundamental geographical differences, but because the current party split tends to be a rural-urban one. Here’s a population density map for Oregon:

    https://d43fweuh3sg51.cloudfront.net/media/media_files/6ee39caa-dd64-494c-b0c6-bb29e1bbee0e/4ab7be15-971f-442b-8fd0-c1134782a003.jpg

    The more rural areas of Oregon, the counties without cities, are, based on current political coalitions, politically more similar to Idaho than to liberal coastal Oregon.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System

    The Sixth Party System is the era in United States politics following the Fifth Party System. As with any periodization, opinions differ on when the Sixth Party System may have begun, with suggested dates ranging from the late 1960s to the Republican Revolution of 1994. Nonetheless, there is agreement among scholars that the Sixth Party System features strong division between the Democratic and Republican parties, which are rooted in socioeconomic class, cultural, religious, educational and racial issues, and debates over the proper role of government.[1]

    The Sixth Party System is characterized by an electoral shift from the electoral coalitions of the Fifth Party System during the New Deal. The Republican Party became the dominant party in the South, rural areas, and suburbs, and its voter base became shaped by White Evangelicals.[2] Meanwhile, the Democratic Party became the dominant party in urban areas, and its voter base diversified to include trade unionists, urban machinists, progressive intellectuals, as well as racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      A state isn’t being formed: they’re just moving the lines. So I don’t think that comes into play.

      • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        They’re not, though. Not without the permission of the Oregon state government, the Idaho state government, and the US congress. That’s the point. This is a tiny portion of the population of Oregon. They don’t get to just decide they live in Idaho now.

  • Zyratoxx@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    You know things are about to get spicy when a state/nation adds the prefix “Greater” to its name