Counties can become a part of Idaho. 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.
If the United States were governed as a single state, we wouldn’t have the opportunity for state governance to vary according to the culture of a local area. The purpose of having state lines is to allow this variance. The Oregon/Idaho border was established 161 years ago and is now outdated. It makes no sense in its current location because it doesn’t match the location of the cultural divide in Oregon. The Oregon/Washington border was updated in 1958. It’s time to move other borders.
Areas that vote like Idaho does, and are economically healthy enough to be welcomed by Idaho are: eastern, southern, and most of central Oregon, southeastern Washington, and northeastern California.
This proposal is different from creating a new state because it does not affect the balance of power in the US Senate. This means that it’s more likely to be approved by the Oregon Legislature.
Our proposal is a win-win for the interests of each state legislature, and for the counties that get to switch states. Click the questions below to see why:
1. American Values: Oregon will continue to violate more and more American values and American freedoms because normal rural Americans are outnumbered in Oregon. Not in Idaho. Addicts will be attracted to Oregon from all over the world by the 2020 drug decriminalization law.
2. Law and Order: Oregon refuses to protect citizens from criminals, rioters, wildfire arsonists, illegals, and the homeless, but then infringes your right to defend your family with firearms. Idaho enforces the law.
3. Low Tax: Idaho is the state with the 8th smallest tax burden, and Oregon ranks 33rd, according to https://taxfoundation.org/tax-freedom-day-2019 . Combining all taxes together, including sales tax, the average Idahoan pays $1722 less in taxes per year than the average Oregonian. That’s averaging together every adult or child, employed, retired or unemployed. And cost of living is 39% higher in Oregon than in Idaho. Oregon tax rates will continue to go up due to a lack of willingness to control spending.
4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.
5. Thriving Economy: Idaho has less regulation than any other state, low unemployment, and would allow our rural industries to revive and employ us again.
6. Representation: The ruling party in the Oregon Legislature doesn’t have a single representative from a rural district or from eastern or southern Oregon, except one Ashland representative. But our reps would be in the ruling party in Idaho, where our concerns and needs would be heard.
1.PUSHES OREGON LAW FARTHER AWAY: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs in 2020, which will bring addicts closer to Idahoans and tempt Idahoans to make a quick drive to get drugs. Moving the border is the only way to push Oregon’s drug laws farther from the county in Idaho where you live. It would change the Boise-Oregon drive time from 51 minutes to over 5 hours.
2. HELPS STATE BUDGET: We chose a group of counties that has a slightly higher average income than Idaho. Under Idaho’s low taxes and low regulation, those counties’ economy will revive so that they become a big benefit to Idaho’s budget. Idaho can approve projects at the deep-water port at Coos Bay and tax those projects.
3. Idaho would no longer be dependent on Oregon for a deep-water port.
4. Idaho would have the sense of purpose and the satisfaction of freeing 1.2 million people from immoral blue-state law.
5. DOES NOT MAKE IDAHO MORE LIBERAL! Adding these counties would prevent Boise from drowning out the state’s vote in the future. This group of counties are rural counties that vote just as pro-Trump as Idaho votes (2 Trump votes per Hillary vote).
6. Adding Oregon counties to Idaho means Oregonians (and others) won’t have to move to your county. So it will alleviate future overcrowding in your town. It gives Idaho room to grow.
7. The state government would gain economies of scale, as the population would increase by 71% to 2.9 million, making it almost half the population of the average US state. The tax base would include more industries, so that it would be broader and more stable.
1. SAVE MONEY: Currently, northwestern Oregonians subsidize eastern/southern Oregon counties by $324 per year per wage earner. Are you willing to keep paying that, just so that Oregon looks big on a map? Oregon’s state government is not funded by property taxes. The health of the state budget is determined by the average income per person, not the amount of territory. Corporate taxes are a very small part of state revenues. As far as the state budget is concerned, people and their incomes matter – not land area. The only thing Oregon has to lose is the satisfaction of seeing a large footprint when they look at a map.
2. END THE GRIDLOCK in the Legislature: Letting these counties go helps the Democratic Party keep its super-majority in their state legislature, and avoid gridlock when Republican legislators walk out to deny a quorum. Oregon would make progress, becoming more liberal than Washington state, although not as liberal as California. No Republicans would be added to the US Senate or US House by this change. The effect on the electoral college would only be one elector out of 538, or less than 0.2%, and wouldn’t take effect until 2032.
3. Willamette Valley conservatives get the opportunity to move to a red state and still live within driving distance of their family in Willamette Valley.
4. PEACE and HARMONY: Moving the border allows each side of the state to get the kind of governance that is desired by the majority of local residents, which will reduce the amount of civil strife that the future holds.
5. NOT A LOSS: The state government owns very little land in these counties. It’s almost all federal or private land. The state government does not collect property taxes, so it has little to lose from the border relocation. The state assets and liabilities would be divided fairly on a per-capita basis.