Indiana takes first action in long-shot plan to acquire parts of Illinois
Indiana is taking a first step toward a rather unlikely effort to amend its border and acquire parts of Illinois.
The legislature in the Hoosier State passed a bill last week to establish the Indiana-Illinois Boundary Adjustment Commission that would recommend whether to alter the border between the two states.
Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, a Republican, plans to sign the measure into law, his office said on Friday. The governor will then face a Sept. 1 deadline to schedule the commission's first meeting.
Conservative Portion Of Blue State Looking To Break Off And Join Neighboring Red State
This comes as residents of some counties in Illinois seek to separate from the densely populated and deep blue Chicago area.
But despite support from the Indiana government and the people in the Illinois counties that would change states, the Illinois government and the U.S. Congress would need to approve the plan to change state boundaries.
Read On The Fox News App
Illinois' top elected officials do not support the idea.
A companion bill in Illinois authorizing the state to participate in the commission to change the border has not received a hearing in an Illinois House committee. Democrat Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker also described the Indiana measure earlier this year as "a stunt."
Minor boundary changes between states are not a new idea, as there have been at least 50 in U.S. history, according to the National Center for Interstate Compacts at The Council of State Governments. However, no major changes have been implemented since the Civil War era, when some counties in Virginia separated to create West Virginia.
The current effort to change the border between Illinois and Indiana is fueled in part by political divisions. The Chicago area is controlled by Democrats and, given the area's large population, the party also controls the state government, while Republicans represent many other parts of Illinois. The Indiana government, meanwhile, is controlled by Republicans.
Ny Lawmaker Calls For Staten Island To Secede
In the last five years, voters in 33 Illinois counties have approved ballot measures asking if they want to consider separating from Cook County, a county that includes Chicago, to form a new state. But the initiative does not necessarily mean they would join Indiana, if given the opportunity.
A similar effort is ongoing in eastern Oregon, as some counties in that Democrat-controlled state want to break away and join Republican-led Idaho. The Idaho House approved a measure two years ago allowing Oregon to enter into discussions, but similar measures have not moved forward as they remain stuck in committees in the Oregon legislature.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.Original article source: Indiana takes first action in long-shot plan to acquire parts of Illinois
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'
Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president, after the pair's public falling-out last week. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X. Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. Their blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far." - 'Wish him well' - The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days as Musk described the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore. I was surprised," Trump told reporters. Musk, who was Trump's biggest donor to his 2024 campaign, also raised the issue of the Republican's election win. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," he posted, adding: "Such ingratitude." Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the US government money. US media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Musk had alleged that the Republican president is featured in unreleased government files on former associates of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while he faced sex trafficking charges. Trump was named in a trove of deposition and statements linked to Epstein that were unsealed by a New York judge in early 2024. The president has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case. "Time to drop the really big bomb: (Trump) is in the Epstein files," Musk posted on X. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about and offered no evidence for his claim. He appeared to have deleted those tweets by Saturday morning. bur-sco/dhc
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk's feud timeline: From Epstein allegations to Elon's olive branch
On Friday May 30, President Donald Trump handed his close aide and 'first buddy' Elon Musk a golden key to the White House, praising the work the tech billionaire had done for his administration. 'Elon gave an incredible service,' Trump said in a joint press conference with Musk last week. 'There's nobody like him.' That press conference was intended to mark the end of Musk's 130 days as a special government advisor, leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in slashing excess federal spending. For the latest updates on the feud read our blog here Although there had been some disagreements during Musk's time in the role – the Tesla owner made it clear he was not a fan of Trump's tariffs, for instance – the event seemed to mark a conciliatory end to their working relationship. But there were rumblings: Musk, whose whole purpose at DOGE had been reducing federal expense, was deeply opposed to Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' fearing it would ramp up the national debt over the next 10 years. While White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had successfully managed to spin their difference of opinion as an example of healthy debate for a couple of days, everything came to a head on Thursday June 5. Here's a timeline of how the very public fight between Trump and Musk unfolded, which appeared unresolvable until Musk offered a grovelling apology six days later. Writing on X, Musk says: 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' He continued: 'It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America (sic) citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' Two days later, things escalated dramatically. In an Oval Office appearance with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Trump said he was 'very disappointed' by Musk's comments. 'Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here,' Trump told reporters. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore.' Trump added he 'would have won Pennsylvania easily anyway,' without Musk's help. Musk posts a slew of tweets to X, in one of which he rebuts Trump's point about Pennsylvania, arguing: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' In another, he asks, 'Where is this guy today??' in response to a tweet of screenshots from the president's previous criticisms of increasing the debt ceiling. He then tweeted: 'The Big Ugly Bill will INCREASE the deficit to $2.5 trillion!' This is shortly followed by a new suggestion from Musk: 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' This post was still pinned to the top of the X owner's timeline for several days thereafter. Responding to MAGA blogger Laura Loomer on X, who was commenting about the divide amongst Republicans over the fight between Musk and Trump, the billionaire said: 'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years...' The president says that Musk was 'wearing thin' in a series of posts on his social media platform. 'I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Trump said. He then added: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Retweeting a screenshot of Trump's EV mandate comment (alluding to the Big, Beautiful Bill scrapping a $7,500 tax credit for EV customers, which would impact Tesla), Musk said: 'Such an obvious lie. So sad.' Musk tweeted: 'Files linked to the investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have emerged as a point of fixation for Trump and his allies and right-wing media figures. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' Shortly after, he wrote: 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' 'In light of the President's statement about cancellation of my government contracts, SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately,' he tweeted. Another X user replied, urging Musk to 'cool off and take a step back for a couple of days.' Musk replied: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' Trump wrote on Truth Social: 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It's a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given. 'If this Bill doesn't pass, there will be a 68% Tax Increase, and things far worse than that. I didn't create this mess, I'm just here to FIX IT. This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' Musk retweets an X user, who said: 'President vs Elon. Who wins? My money's on Elon. Trump should be impeached and JD Vance should replace him.' Musk tweets: 'The Trump tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year.' The point echoes a warning issued by many of the president's critics, from economists to pundits, but most notably his former presidential rival Kamala Harris. Musk tweets: 'Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL.' Musk's last repost for the day came from an X user, who said: 'This is why Republicans will likely lose the House in 2026 and then Democrats will spend two years investigating and impeaching President Trump. 'Trump and the Republicans in Congress need to deliver. We want budget cuts. We want agencies shut down. We don't want big govt.' The following day, West Wing aides briefed the media that the two men were planning a private phone call to clear the air, only for the president himself to tell reporters that he had no interest in speaking to the man who had donated at least $288m to his election campaign just months earlier, leaving their once-close relationship in limbo. Trump told Jonathan Karl of ABC News he was 'not particularly' interested in talking to Musk and said to Dana Bash of CNN: 'I'm not even thinking about Elon. He's got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem.' With Trump and his administration subsequently shifting focus to the Los Angeles anti-ICE protests, the tech boss unexpectedly extends an olive branch. 'I regret some of my posts about President Donald Trump last week,' Musk wrote on X in the small hours of the morning. 'They went too far.'
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
