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.
To be clear, this movement, which seeks to carve out roughly two-thirds of the eastern part of Oregon to join Idaho, is destined to fail. But the popular resentment and alienation among rural, eastern Oregonians that has fueled the movement cannot and should not be ignored.
First, let me explain why eastern Oregon won’t be joining Idaho anytime, now or later. As a legal matter, it would take the approval of the Oregon Legislature, the Idaho Legislature, and Congress to agree to shift the Oregon-Idaho border. Each of those bodies has reasons to reject such a change.
For the Oregon Legislature, few lawmakers from western Oregon would want to turn over two-thirds of the state’s land mass to Idaho – state pride matters. Significantly, even the residents of eastern Oregon’s Wallowa County voted against the measure two years ago. In fact, collectively, more voters in the 12 eastern and southern Oregon counties that have taken up the question have voted against the idea than in support of it.
For Idaho, the issue would be the cost. Oregon is not simply going to hand over so much land (and everything that’s in it) to Idaho free of charge. The state government owns almost 1 million acres of land and dozens of buildings, for which it would expect to be paid. Oregon would also expect Idaho to assume a share of Oregon’s $11 billion state debt, a portion of which was incurred for the benefit of eastern Oregon. Last but not least, Oregon’s state pension system covers thousands of state and local government workers in eastern Oregon, whose pension benefits are not fully funded currently to the tune of billions of dollars. Idaho would be expected to pick up the cost of those pension obligations for those workers. Now, are Idaho legislators willing to pay billions of dollars to Oregon for this proposed border change? Probably not.
As for Congress, well, you can be sure that Democrats would vote against the measure for one, simple reason: the impact on the presidential election. The proposed change would transfer one presidential elector vote from reliably Democratic Oregon to reliably Republican Idaho. One vote may not be much in the 538-vote Electoral College, but, given how close some of the past presidential elections have been, Democrats in Congress have no reason to agree to a change that would put President Biden (and all future Democratic candidates) one vote behind.
"Make sense" is not particularly meaningful when we have no customs borders. These are not international boundaries around which territorially-peculiar infrastructure and ports of entry have to be structured.
It has several times happened between Massachusetts and New York, 1855, 1786 and 1692.
1855 - The most recent case is Boston Corner, a small hamlet in New York that used to be part of Massachusetts. Turns out it is on the other side of the Taconic Mountain range from most of Massachusetts (the Taconics separate New York and Massachusetts) so Massachusetts decided to give it to New York. This in 1855.
1786 - Before that, what is now Western New York was claimed by both New York and Massachusetts. In 1786, Massachusetts gave up its claims to New York in exchange for allowing Massachusetts to sell the land to settlers (many of them from Massachusetts itself) which Massachusetts could use to pay off its considerable war debts from the Revolution.
1691 - In 1691, New York gave Dukes County (then Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, the Elizabeth Islands) to Massachusetts. This is why today Dukes County is in Massachusetts, but Dutchess County is in New York.
Interestingly enough, I have read there were several times in the last 100 years that residents of Nantucket have threatened to try to leave Massachusetts and go back to New York!
Being that all of West Virginia is located in the Apalachain Mountains making it more difficult getting goods in and out of the state, one reason for the state continuously ranking near or at the bottom for income levels and quality of life. Seems to me West Virginia could be divided up between Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania and their economic situation and quality of life would improve drastically.
I do not know the West Virginia and Virginia border very well but it looks like the border was made completely arbitrary.
This is especially true of the West Virginia panhandle nearest Washington DC. The one that contains Harpers Ferry and is just north of Winchester, Virginia. I can understand making a mountain range as a boundary, but I do NOT understand the reasoning of taking part of Shenandoah Valley from Virginia and giving it to West Virginia at all.
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.
