INTRO TO GREATER IDAHO

…
Can borders legally be relocated?

A: State lines have been relocated many times in American history because it just takes an interstate compact between two state legislatures and approval of Congress. We explain more in the first two pages of our proposal (pdf). Our strategy for accomplishing it is here.

What is this idea? Who is affected?

Northwestern Oregon is embarking on social experiments: a cultural revolution that rural counties want no part of. Eastern Oregon has a different culture and values. Eastern Oregon votes even more Republican than Idaho does.

Our proposal would put 14 eastern Oregon counties and 3 partial eastern Oregon counties under the governance of Idaho instead of Oregon. This is 62% of the land area of Oregon and 9% of the population of Oregon. As this area has a population of 386,000 (in 2022), and Idaho has a population of almost 2 million, it would increase the population of Idaho by 20% in phase 1.

The original version of phase 1 included all 5 counties of southwestern Oregon, but those counties were temporarily excluded from phase 1, pending proof that the counties wish to be included in the proposal (two countiesvoted 53% and 51% against the idea in May 2022).

Phase 2 is optional. It would add to Idaho five counties of northeastern California (plus Plumas County, perhaps), with a population less than 350,000 and/or 3 small counties (plus two small towns) of southeastern Washington with a total population less than 31,000.

Under phase 1, Idaho would become the fifth largest state in the Union, almost tying Montana in land area. But it would have twice the population of Montana. Maps are available here.

The Chances of Greater Idaho happening

We are confident that we will convince Idaho to accept our counties. Polling there is very strong.

Congress usually approves interstate compacts approved by both a blue state and a red state. It approves several interstate compacts per year.

Votes on our ballot initiatives show that our proposal is approved by 62% of voters in eastern Oregon.

We expect that the chances of the Greater Idaho movement being successful depend entirely on whether we are able to convince northwestern Oregon to let our counties go. In July 2021 we published an op-ed in the most widely-read newspaper in the state explaining why northwestern Oregon should want to let us go: our counties are a drag on the budget, and our state representatives are causing gridlock in the Oregon Legislature. www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2021/07/opinion-shifting-oregon-idaho-border-can-help-us-all-live-in-peace.html

Perhaps our chances are less than 50/50 at this moment in history, but we know that we have a shot. Plus, the political environment can change.

Our strategy for accomplishing our goal is here.

Support for Greater Idaho

Idaho’s governor and the leadership of both houses of the Idaho legislature support the border relocation, and dozens of legislators have indicated their support. Idaho state Rep. Barbara Ehardt (R) and Rep. Judy Boyle (R) plan to introduce legislation in the next session. The Idaho public strongly supports moving the border according to a Trafalgar group poll.

SurveyUSA did a poll of 1068 voters of northwestern Oregon and found that only 3% are willing to pay the cost of having eastern & southern Oregon in their state. We hope to build a bipartisan coalition in the Oregon Legislature. We want western Oregonians to understand that their state budget would improve greatly without these counties, and that this would prevent gridlock in the legislature that has been caused by the denial of quorum.

How would this affect people?

We list the benefits of the proposal on the homepage of greateridaho.org. We answer frequently-asked questions here. Our 38-page main document (our proposal) is here,although it’s not up to date.

History of the Greater Idaho movement

In 2019, supporters of joining Idaho who live in eastern Oregon interacted online with State of Jefferson proponents in southern Oregon. An analysis showed that both Oregon and Idaho would benefit if rural Oregon counties switched states. This is different from creating a new state because it would not affect the balance of power in the US Senate, so it would be more likely to be approved by the Oregon Legislature…


…Phase 1 of our proposal is to move the Oregon/Idaho border. This will create an Idaho/California border. Adding counties of northeastern California or southeastern Washington is Phase 2. Phase 2 is optional.

We know that the press coverage of the momentous achievement of moving the Oregon/Idaho border will be enough to attract the attention of the California and Washington legislatures. We hope that the campaign to convince Oregon state leadership to let go of “relatively low income, Trump-voting counties” for the benefit of Oregon will also convince the state leadership of California and Washington. These counties would strengthen Idaho by paying more than their share of Idaho’s state taxes, because they will have higher average incomes than Idaho does, although lower than their home state’s average income.

In December 2020, we revised our proposal to not include Del Norte County, CA. We request that journalists update the maps in their folders with our new maps. Our proposal has always included Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, and Tehama counties, and the northern neck of Plumas County…

…We do not copyright any of our work. We prefer attribution to greateridaho.org (optional). News media should visit our photos page. …







https://www.greateridaho.org/







This is an ongoing effort. It is something benefits all states involved. The financial benefits to the blue states are clear. The question is whether even though this has no impact on the senate or the partisan make up of the House.

 

I am from one of the 5 California counties with less than 350,000 population combined potentially impacted. We here love the idea!

 

It is just another form of secession here and their own fiefdom. But it won't go anywhere. And no, it won't benefit any state whatsoever. They are not the first to try to create another state within an established state, and they won't be the last. But they are using the lazy way out because they can't accept different points of view.

 

I bet you could bring the northeastern CA counties all the way down to Placer. Why stop at part of Plumas?

 

Move, problem solved.

 

Had you read the article it’s not about creating another state within an existing one. This keeps the states at 50 and has no impact on the Senate at all or the partisan make up of the House. It simply adjusts the borders of existing states. It saves Washington, Oregon, and California money as well as improving Idaho. There won’t be any creating a state within a state until democrats try to make PR and or DC into states and Republicans ask for something equal in return regarding the senate and EC.

 

Placer and down to Mariposa and Stanislaus are part of the Jefferson footprint. They are in on that plan. As to Idaho, adding anymore would overwhelm the current Idaho. There are only two congressional districts in that state. Adding the small parts of Ca and Wa. in addition to rural Oregon would double both its representatives and population. Idaho wants ruby deep red counties. Placer and Eldorado are too big and they don’t want Nevada county or Butte the latter because of Chico and fighting California over the Oroville Dam and it’s water and power. Shasta Dam is federal and it doesn’t matter what state it is in. I have family in Placer county and from what I understand, democrats from the Bay Area are turning Roseville blue or at least purple and eventually it will be about Rocklin, Lincoln, and Auburn trying to out vote Roseville to keep the county red.

 

If you are changing the borders of states, then you are still creating another state. Idaho will no longer exist. Part of Oregon/Washington will no longer exist. the New State will be Greater Idaho State. Otherwise, it is another example of a sovereign citizen conspiracy theory here.

 

We are moving…the border….

 

Idaho would still be Idaho. It would simply double in size and population. Oregons two Republican Congress persons would simply represent those in Ca and the ones in Idaho would add the Washington population. There would still be 50 states. Idaho would become about the size of Montana with 2.5x its population and extend to Coos Bay and Corning. These added counties are poorer than the states they are in now and richer than Idaho itself. All involved states would financially benefit from this. Still 50 states and no partisan change in the house or the senate.

 

Why should they settle for being micromanage to death by people who think milk comes from milk cartons and are trying desperately to destroy their lives and livelihoods?.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! Spot on

 

Why not split Idaho in two moving half to Washington and half to Oregon..

 

What would the GDP of these new states be?

 

That is exactly the right question to ask.

 

That is the question of the day for us. They think that they have some sort of right to rule over us. They are clueless as to rural or even small town life yet think they know better than us. We hate them for it too.

 

Doesn't solve the problem.

 

Forget that. The last thing we need are more people living under the crushing oppression of Olympia and Salem. You’re not taking away two red Senate seats either.

 

There would be no new states. The GDP of the counties would remain the same. All four states would see their own GDP go up. California, Oregon, and Washington would lose counties poorer on paper than their average that they spend extra on in their budget while Idaho gets same counties that are better off than their mean. Everyone wins. The affected counties when cost of living is factored in do quite well as a group.

 

The chief problem with the left isn't so much that they want to dive off the cliff on to solid rock, horrible as that is, no the real problem is that want everyone else to jump wth them, in fact, they insist on it.

 

It’s the same with them out here in Ca as well except that here there’s a big urban vs rural sub play to it all where they think that they know better and aren’t shy about imposing/ coercion to get their way when we disagree. Fortunately for some of us we live far enough away from their population centers that they can’t control everything. Then they take it as a personal affront and an insult to them that we want our own state or to be part of any other state. Idaho in this instance.

 

I'd say it would just need something in the draft to build a wall between CA and ID.

 

"Misery loving company" drives everything they do.

 

Abolishing a state? lol

 

It wouldn’t be needed since there’s almost 100 miles from that border on I-5 down to Sacramento and the two counties to the south, Glenn and Colusa are just as conservative as the 5 that would be in Idaho. I wish that the greater Idaho people would include them. Besides even after the separation we’d still want trade and tourism going both directions.