Effort in ‘red' swath of Oregon to join Idaho gets new life, as political secession has had mixed results
During the anti-police riots of 2020, Oregon was front-and-center as protesters vandalized Portland and made a dayslong violent stand in front of the Mark Hatfield Federal Courthouse.
But in the eastern two-thirds of Oregon, the conservative geographic majority of the state did not ideologically align with their urban brethren.
Over the past several years, the Greater Idaho movement has tried to create the conditions needed for about 13 counties to join the conservative Gem State next door.
Greater Idaho began putting such measures up for votes in various counties in 2020 and this month saw Republican lawmakers file a bill in the state legislature that would create a task force to study "moving" the border.
State Rep. Mark Owens, R-Malheur, put forward HB 3844, a measure that creates and directs a task force to document the impacts of relocating the Idaho border and requires a report be presented to lawmakers in Salem.
Greater Idaho Movement Gains Momentum
Read On The Fox News App
Owens did not respond when reached for requests for comment.
Greater Idaho president Mike McCarter said in a statement: "We are encouraged to see the representatives of Eastern Oregon coming together to advocate for their voters by bringing these bills to the Legislature. The people of Eastern Oregon have made clear they want to explore moving the border and joining Idaho.
"This movement has always been about the people of Eastern Oregon, getting their voice heard and helping those communities get the kind of state-level governance they actually want."
"If the Oregon Legislature truly believes in democracy, they will honor those voters' wishes and move forward on making a border change happen," executive director Matt McCaw told Fox News Digital.
"Both bills have been moved into committee and are awaiting further action there."
By shifting the border, proponents believe both states have a "win-win" – in that the people living in each would better reflect the established political majority and lower political tension.
Ny Lawmaker Calls For Staten Island To Secede
A report in the Central Oregonian noted an "interstate compact" is part of what is required to move the line, and cited other border-shifting bills in other states.
One would forward the cause of adding several rural Illinois counties that don't see eye-to-eye with Springfield or Chicago to more closely aligned Indiana. Another in Iowa would allow the same movement for counties in the Land of Lincoln that are closer to the Hawkeye State line.
Idaho GOP Gov. Brad Little and Oregon Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek did not respond to requests for comment.
So far, only a few such movements regarding either secession or redrawing of state lines have been successful.
The now-55 counties of West Virginia voted to secede from the then-Confederate Virginia and independently ratified the U.S. Constitution on June 20, 1863.
A Washington Post story on the matter said Mountaineers split from Virginia as a way of "defending the 'United States'… rather than the 'seceded states'."
In New York City's Staten Island – the "forgotten borough" as many locals call it – there has been a movement afoot for decades seeking to break from the Big Apple.
Already geographically distant on the "New Jersey side" of the Hudson River, the borough is also separated from the Garden State by the Kill Van Kull and Arthur Kill.
Efforts to reestablish the reliably-red borough as the city of Richmond (after its coterminous county) or other names began with a favor from then-Gov. Mario Cuomo in the 1980s.
Cuomo enraged city leaders but endeared himself to the working-class voters on the island by approving state Sen. John J. Marchi's push for a secession referendum.
Marchi, who died in 2006 and now has a Staten Island Ferry named in his honor, saw his borough vote nearly 2-1 to secede in 1993 – only to have their desires quashed by Albany's Democratic majority.
And while the 1995 election of Mayor Rudy Giuliani calmed secession tensions, the drumbeat began anew in recent months.
"I think it's time to secede," Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., told The New York Post as Gov. Kathy Hochul was touting her congestion-priced driving fee that now double-taxes Staten Island commuters.
"There's no real value in being part of this city or the state. We didn't vote for this mayor; we didn't vote for this governor; and we didn't vote for this president, but we're always the ones getting screwed," she said.Original article source: Effort in 'red' swath of Oregon to join Idaho gets new life, as political secession has had mixed results
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

16 minutes ago
Hegseth spars with Democratic senators during congressional hearing
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sparred with some Democratic senators as he was grilled at a congressional hearing Wednesday about the Trump administration's latest military actions. The former Fox News host, who faced a contentious confirmation hearing, got into a heated exchange before the Senate Armed Services Committee with Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., who questioned him over the military's authority to arrest and detain protesters. "It's sort of amusing the extent to which the speculation is out there," Hegseth said. "So what is the order? Then list it out for us. List it out for us. Be a man. Did you authorize them to detain or arrest?" Slotkin, a former CIA analyst who served in Iraq, said. The senator questioned Hegseth about the possibility of an order given for the military to use lethal force against protesters. "I'm just asking the question. Don't laugh," Slotkin said after Hegseth brushed off the question. "What is that based on?" Hegseth responded. "What evidence do you have that that order has ever been given?" Slotkin responded that his predecessor, Mark Esper, didn't accept such an order during the first administration. "He had more guts and balls than you because he said, I'm not going to send in a uniformed military to do something that I know in my gut isn't right … You're pooh-poohing this," the senator said. Hegseth testified that there was "zero indication that an order was given to shoot protesters and that has not happened." But when she asked whether troops could use force against unarmed civilians, Hegseth wouldn't say. "I'd be careful what you read in books and believing it. Except for the Bible," he said. Hegseth responded similarly when questioned by Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Ariz, earlier in the hearing. Rosen asked about the firings of several top national security officials, including the director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Timothy Haugh, that were allegedly done at the request of far-right social media influencer Laura Loomer. "She's been denounced even by Republicans, and the idea is that any leaders within our agency responsible for our nation's security, somebody would be dismissed based on the advice of a social media influencer," Rosen said. Hegseth reiterated that the panel should not be "believing everything you read in the media." "I don't discuss who I talk about anything with, but ultimately, this is my decision and he serves at the pleasure of the president and that's why he's no longer there," he said. "Do you believe it's appropriate for social media to influence personnel decisions in your department, yes or no?" Rosen asked. Time then expired. The chairman left a moment for Hegseth to answer the question, as witnesses often do after a lawmaker has asked their final question. Hegseth took a beat, and said, "I believe your time is up." Rosen pushed back. "Oh, it is not up to you to tell me when my time is up. I am going to say, Mr. Secretary, you're either feckless or complicit. You're not in control of your department," she replied. "You [are] unserious. ... I yield back and I don't appreciate the smirk, sir. You are the secretary of defense."


New York Post
17 minutes ago
- New York Post
GOP senators mock Dems for ignoring Biden's cognitive decline AGAIN by skipping autopen hearing
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee skewered Democrats for burying their heads in the sand once again over the question of Joe Biden's cognitive decline by skipping a hearing about the alleged abuse of the aging president's autopen authority. 'Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years,' erupted Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). 'They knew. Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was mentally not competent to do the job,' he added. 'And they're not here because they can't defend themselves.' Advertisement During the hearing, titled 'Unfit to Serve: How the Biden Cover-Up Endangered America and Undermined the Constitution,' Republican senators voiced concern that the presidential autopen had been used for executive orders and pardons without Biden's knowledge. GOP committee members also lampooned prominent Democrats who ran cover for the oldest-ever president's public slip-ups by playing a montage of their embarrassing evasions. 4 'Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was mentally not competent to do the job,' said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) of his Democratic colleagues. EPA Advertisement 'I can't even keep up with him,' said ex-White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who has since left the Democratic Party, in one clip. 'He is sharp. He is on top of things' 'He has knowledge. He has judgment. He has strategic thinking,' House Speaker emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at another point in the video footage — despite having been part of the push to remove Biden from the 2024 Democratic ticket. 'Many elected officials, including some in this chamber, have used autopens — a mechanical device that replicates a signature. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as we're the ones actually making the decisions,' said Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.). 'But under President Biden, the autopen became a troubling symbol,' he added. 'A symbol of an absentee president and an executive branch directed by nameless, faceless, aides that no one outside of Washington DC had ever heard of and no one ever voted for.' Advertisement The only Democratic members to show face at the hearing were Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Earlier this month, President Trump ordered his administration to investigate 'who ran the United States while Biden was in office' and to look into the executive actions that had been signed with an autopen. 4 Senator Dick Durbin was one of the only Democrats to show face at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. AFP via Getty Images 4 Former President Biden has denied that an autopen was used to sign policy documents without his go-ahead. AP Advertisement Biden immediately snapped back in a written statement, vehemently denying the claims that he had not been the one making decisions in the Oval Office. 'I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false,' the ex-president's statement read. In his opening remarks, Durbin expressed frustration that there had not been Judiciary Committee oversight hearings about the Minnesota assassinations, the arrest of Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) at a Department of Homeland Security press conference, or the Los Angeles deployments of National Guard to quell anti-ICE riots. 'Apparently armchair-diagnosing President Biden is more important than the issues of grave concern which I've mentioned,' said Durbin. 4 Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) has called Biden's time in the Oval Office the 'autopen presidency.' AP The Illinois senator also attempted to redirect attention from the former president by calling Trump's cognitive ability into question. Republican committee members declined to entertain speculation about Trump's mental state, instead refocusing attention on Biden's decline and his administration's autopen use.


Fox News
18 minutes ago
- Fox News
'We won': Social media erupts over SCOTUS ruling dealing 'fatal blow' to transgender surgeries on minors
Conservatives on social media rejoiced on social media Wednesday after the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-transition treatments for adolescents. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee's Senate Bill 1, which "prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow 'a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex' or to treat 'purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity,'" does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Conservatives on social media, who viewed the ruling as a win for parents' rights, quickly praised the court ruling. "A huge victory," conservative commentator Matt Walsh posted on X. "A fatal blow to the child mutilation industry. We won." "A massive win for sanity," Townhall columnist Dustin Grage posted on X. "This is a massive!" Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk posted on X. "A wonderful victory for decency, common sense, and our kids Now we need a nationwide ban! Onward." "Awesome news!" GOP Rep. Riley Moore posted on X. "States absolutely can and should be able to protect children from chemical or surgical castration." "This is a massive victory for common sense and the safety of our youth," American Principles Project posted on X. "No more irreversible harm in the name of ideology!" "WE NEED A NATIONWIDE BAN ON TRANSGENDER SURGERIES AND HORMONE DRUGS FOR MINORS," conservative influencer account LibsofTikTok posted on X. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the law in question is not subject to heightened scrutiny "because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review." All three liberal justices notably dissented in the case. That law in question prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to facilitate a minor's transition to another sex. It also targets healthcare providers in the state who continue to provide such procedures to gender-dysphoric minors — opening these providers up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.