Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do live in Idaho, and I do support this initiative.
I'll just say that I think it would be good for Idaho in several ways, and I think it would be good for those citizens of eastern OR who are not well served by Salem.
As a philosophical matter, I support the idea of lowering the barriers to people being able to form political associations of their own choosing.
As a practical matter, I doubt it will happen. The impact on the balance of power at the national level would be small, but it would likely shift one electoral college vote from OR to ID, and I think that's enough for it will be strongly opposed in Congress.
Dave
This it too expensive for Idaho because we would be taking on a lot of poverty in Eastern Oregon. We can barely take care of our own and we already have in state issues of people who think Boise isn't serving them fairly.
Last edited by Syringaloid; 02-27-2023 at 10:30 AM..
How many people are there in Oregon who want to make this happen?
I tend to believe it's not very many at all. The area is lightly populated to begin with, and I'm sure most of those folks don't want to be a part of this mess.
Barbara Ehardt, from Idaho Falls and Judy Boyle from Midvale are the main legislators behind this.
First Barbara is one of Idaho's most far right whackjobs. A few of her hate bills are/have been tied up in courts and Idaho has been sued and now we as citizens must foot that massive bill.
Secondly, Judy Boyle actually out performs Barbara in the crazy category, because Judy is working with another far right loon, Senator Tammy Nichols on a bill to criminalize Covid shots and boosters in Idaho and whatever else they "think" is in our food supply. These are dangerous women.
Judy is also tied with the Proud Boys and white nationalism.
Both of these ladies have admitted that they want the border pushed in order to make it harder to buy pot and get an abortion. And they want more "like minded" people forcefully brought in to a new larger Idaho in order to turn this state into some facist Christian nation.
Their intent is corrupt as are all of their bills they bring forward. Thankfully this will never happen.
Here is a local news video/story from a few weeks ago. Note how Barbara talks about more space for people...which equals more sprawl? What is her intent? She seems "lost".
Idaho has plenty of space for more people...we don't need to take over Eastern Oregon.
The process demands the approval of both houses of Congress, permission by SCOTUS, and agreement by special election of the citizens of both states.
... and some other stuff I don't know about.
The difficulties are so enormous I can't ever see this happening. Those who are promoting it are doing so for their own benefit of some kind, I'm sure, and if this nonsense follows the typical course, nothing happening will cost Idaho's taxpayers about $2 million in legal fees.
Again. There have been so many times for so long this monkey business has happened I can't remember all of them. No one is ever held accountable for wasting all that money and time.
I can't see the Oregon legislature allowing (without a fight) a state referendum that does not include the separatist counties and Idaho assuming billions or ten of billions of dollars of state debt for school properties, roads & prisons in region and perhaps asset value for those which are paid off and state lands, accrued liability for what is owed for share of public employee pensions, etc. Once the breakaway costs are part of the debate, many or most are likely to shy away from it. And some in Idaho would likely push for the Oregon counties to also assume "fair shares" of some past Idaho debts for prisons and universities and other things that would become available for them.
It is a vehicle for non-stop griveance for partisan purposes. It will likely continue for a long time, unless and until people get tired for the time & expense spent on its consideration.
Whether acknowledged as a goal, the plan would probably shift 1 electoral vote, something that Congressional Democrats in other states would likely oppose for that reason and to hold off similar proposals in other states for whatever reasons including shifting electoral votes.
If this effort worked, I could see some incentive for southern Nevada to try to shed the rest of state or southeast Wisconsin or Michigan to shed rest of states. Or eastern PA to shed western PA. Or some in western / southern Montana to try to do the same. Might those in southeast Idaho consider trying to join Utah? Could a future more purple or blue Boise try to join Oregon or go solo? Lots of possibilities, though remote.
Some possibilities are not "remote". Current legislative effort for Buckhead neighborhood to separate from Atlanta GA. At a minimal price.
Easier, not that unusual at local level.
Yes.
My own father was involved in an attempt to move a county line so it included some remote farm property in one county to the other county. This was done because one county was maintaining proper public access and the other wasn't.
It could have happened, as there was nothing to prohibit it in the law book and everyone who had anything to do with the issue all agreed while their opposition in the other county stayed silent.
The issue never made it to court though, as the offending county decided to do some extensive and serious road work while everything was being discussed.
That stopped the project, so the county was able to keep it's taxing districts intact and unchanged.
Size does count. The project only involved about 10 people, and all agreed early on. So their costs and effort was minimal in comparison to what would be required to reach the same agreement in 10,000 people or 100,000 people who live in a vastly larger area.
Within Idaho, all the county and local laws are very similar to each other. That made the county annexation proposition fairly simple. A few farmers were all who were involved.
But trying to annex E. Oregon would involve 2 different state's laws, and would also involve federal laws. There wouldn't be just a few farmers involved- everyone and every kind of business in both states would be involved.
Who would be responsible for approving an enormous tax increase or change that would be inevitable? Idaho's revenues depend on property taxes the most, while Oregon does not. Each state has a different tax scale.
As things are right now, those poor counties in E. Oregon are receiving major funding from Oregon's cities. If they became part of Idaho, those impoverished farms and ranches would suddenly have to pay enormous land and property taxes, as Idaho citizens have no cities as big as those in Oregon.
Urban voters in Idaho would not be agreeable to a tax increase on their property, for sure. Property taxes are fought over in every legislative session here. Idaho's rural lands are highly productive, so there's money in them to fight over.
No so in E. Oregon. If those farmers are poor now, they will all be stone broke and on welfare if their tax burden was increased.
All this began out of a desire to self-sort politically, and that's a very weak cause. Politics changes all the time, often with only the slightest little push on one direction or the other.
Last edited by banjomike; 02-27-2023 at 07:03 PM..
How many people are there in Oregon who want to make this happen?
I tend to believe it's not very many at all. The area is lightly populated to begin with, and I'm sure most of those folks don't want to be a part of this mess.
So far, 11 counties in Oregon have voted in favor of moving the border so they would become part of Idaho.
The process demands the approval of both houses of Congress, permission by SCOTUS, and agreement by special election of the citizens of both states.
... and some other stuff I don't know about.
It would require approval of both states and congress, but not SCOTUS.
I don't believe approval of the states necessarily requires a special election, although one or both states could decide to go that route if they wanted. Basically, there needs to be an agreement negotiated and agreed by both states, which would then need to be approved by congress.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These are dangerous women. 
