25 ms·

Grant voted 1,471 to 895 for county officials “to meet and discuss relocating Idaho border.” Lake voted 1,341 to 463 for the “relocation of Idaho border” to

Grant voted 1,471 to 895 for county officials “to meet and discuss relocating Idaho border.” Lake voted 1,341 to 463 for the “relocation of Idaho border” to be taken up in “county board of commissioners meetings.” Malheur voted 3,050 to 2,572 for “county court meetings regarding relocation of Oregon-Idaho border.” Sherman voted 429 to 260 in favor of “promoting moving Oregon-Idaho border.” Baker voted 3,064 to 2,307 for county commissioners “to meet three times per year to discuss a proposal to include 18 counties, including Baker, as part of Idaho,” the Baker City Herald reported. Baker County results are not yet available from the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office. Seems like this vote was to start "meetings" and "discussions" [1]. No one is leaving the state yet. [1] https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/05/more-oregon-counties-vote-to-move-into-idaho-part-of-rural-effort-to-to-gain-political-refuge-from-blue-states.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/05/more-oregon-coun...

bobthepanda 5y ago
There’s also the question of whether or not Idaho would actually want to take them.
- cronix 5y ago
  I've read that they are interested. It would extend Idaho to the Pacific Ocean and give them a seaport in Coos Bay, if certain adjoining counties in the proposal join.
  - a3n 5y ago
    Idaho has a "seaport" already, in Lewiston (across the border from Clarkston WA). You get there by way of the Columbia River and locks. I often haul giant rolls of paper in my semi from the papermill in Lewiston.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Also by way of the Snake river (which gets to the Columbia just before the tri cities). The snake river goes all the Jackson hole, but isn’t navigable for most of that (well, those parts are very good for white water rafting).
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    That implies that Idaho has the money to build a deepwater port and connecting infrastructure that currently doesn’t exist. And there’s not really any particular benefit since there is free movement of goods in the US; customs fees are not a state level thing to begin with.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Could Idaho afford to incorporate that much more rural land without cities to increase its tax base? They purposely avoid even Bend because that’s where Oregon starts getting liberal.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Could Idaho afford to incorporate that much more rural land without cities to increase its tax base? Sure, because by incorporating more economically underperforming areaa and dropping its per capita GDP, its federal funding share under many state-federal programs woild go up, increasing the degree to which if is subsidized by the rest of the country, including the reduced Oregon, which would get lesser proportion of federal funding for the same programs by shedding underperforming regions.
  - belatw 5y ago
    That’s why we have net-donor states like California, to subsidize poor right-ring net-taker states like Idaho.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  Sounds like the governor of Idaho is down with it: In an interview with Fox News, Idaho Gov. Brad Little said he understands why some rural Oregonians want to redraw the borders. "They’re looking at Idaho fondly because of our regulatory atmosphere, our values, Little told Fox News. What they’re interested in is they would like to have a little more autonomy, a little more control, a little more freedom and I can understand that."
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    That sounds like the govenor understands their point of view, not that he is willing to take on the massive legal and political battle that would ensue if this moved forwards.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      Not to mention, it's not really the governor's call to make. It'd have to make it through the Idaho legislature first, and I get the feeling they'd be less keen, particularly once numbers and figures start getting talked about. The proposed counties to secede, for example, don't have a great connection to Idaho proper that stays in-state. Also, Boise is farther from these counties than Salem, so it's not especially clear that representation would be significantly better.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > There’s also the question of whether or not Idaho would actually want to take them. There’s also the question of whether Congress and Oregon would want to support the change, both of which, in addition to the consent of Idaho’s legislature, are required under Article IV Sec. 3 of the US Constitution before a new state can be formed of the existing state of Idaho and parts of the existing state of Oregon.
  - Fezzik 5y ago
    From a purely fiscal perspective Oregon should be happy to rid itself of these counties (and Idaho stupid for accepting them) - with the exception of Jackson and (maybe) Josephine counties all of these regions are financial dead-weights that cost far more tax dollars to maintain than they generate. I currently work in Grant, Harney, and Deschutes counties and previously worked in Lake and Klamath Counties… and these are beautiful areas populated with wonderful people (and a lot of meth) and having them annexed from Oregon would be depressing… but as someone who would remain in Oregon with the changed borders I am all for it. That said, this whole initiative is going nowhere. It’s like the South’s last breath in fighting against the Unionization of the States, a losing battle.

bobthepanda 5y ago

There’s also the question of whether or not Idaho would actually want to take them.

cronix 5y ago
I've read that they are interested. It would extend Idaho to the Pacific Ocean and give them a seaport in Coos Bay, if certain adjoining counties in the proposal join.
- a3n 5y ago
  Idaho has a "seaport" already, in Lewiston (across the border from Clarkston WA). You get there by way of the Columbia River and locks. I often haul giant rolls of paper in my semi from the papermill in Lewiston.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Also by way of the Snake river (which gets to the Columbia just before the tri cities). The snake river goes all the Jackson hole, but isn’t navigable for most of that (well, those parts are very good for white water rafting).
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  That implies that Idaho has the money to build a deepwater port and connecting infrastructure that currently doesn’t exist. And there’s not really any particular benefit since there is free movement of goods in the US; customs fees are not a state level thing to begin with.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Could Idaho afford to incorporate that much more rural land without cities to increase its tax base? They purposely avoid even Bend because that’s where Oregon starts getting liberal.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Could Idaho afford to incorporate that much more rural land without cities to increase its tax base? Sure, because by incorporating more economically underperforming areaa and dropping its per capita GDP, its federal funding share under many state-federal programs woild go up, increasing the degree to which if is subsidized by the rest of the country, including the reduced Oregon, which would get lesser proportion of federal funding for the same programs by shedding underperforming regions.
- belatw 5y ago
  That’s why we have net-donor states like California, to subsidize poor right-ring net-taker states like Idaho.
rufus_foreman 5y ago
Sounds like the governor of Idaho is down with it: In an interview with Fox News, Idaho Gov. Brad Little said he understands why some rural Oregonians want to redraw the borders. "They’re looking at Idaho fondly because of our regulatory atmosphere, our values, Little told Fox News. What they’re interested in is they would like to have a little more autonomy, a little more control, a little more freedom and I can understand that."
- shkkmo 5y ago
  That sounds like the govenor understands their point of view, not that he is willing to take on the massive legal and political battle that would ensue if this moved forwards.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Not to mention, it's not really the governor's call to make. It'd have to make it through the Idaho legislature first, and I get the feeling they'd be less keen, particularly once numbers and figures start getting talked about. The proposed counties to secede, for example, don't have a great connection to Idaho proper that stays in-state. Also, Boise is farther from these counties than Salem, so it's not especially clear that representation would be significantly better.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> There’s also the question of whether or not Idaho would actually want to take them. There’s also the question of whether Congress and Oregon would want to support the change, both of which, in addition to the consent of Idaho’s legislature, are required under Article IV Sec. 3 of the US Constitution before a new state can be formed of the existing state of Idaho and parts of the existing state of Oregon.
- Fezzik 5y ago
  From a purely fiscal perspective Oregon should be happy to rid itself of these counties (and Idaho stupid for accepting them) - with the exception of Jackson and (maybe) Josephine counties all of these regions are financial dead-weights that cost far more tax dollars to maintain than they generate. I currently work in Grant, Harney, and Deschutes counties and previously worked in Lake and Klamath Counties… and these are beautiful areas populated with wonderful people (and a lot of meth) and having them annexed from Oregon would be depressing… but as someone who would remain in Oregon with the changed borders I am all for it. That said, this whole initiative is going nowhere. It’s like the South’s last breath in fighting against the Unionization of the States, a losing battle.