In 1980, the B-52's release "Wild Planet", which included the song "Private Idaho". The B-52's are definitely not a band with conservative leanings and their music is usually accepted by those who prefer to consider themselves separate from the mainstream. They would probably find it odd that I am a fan of their music.
Anyway, they say the song is just about stuff and not really about Idaho. It is what they think Idaho is, since they didn't play a concert there until 2011. Honestly, they probably should have made a song called "Private New Hampshire", because that would be more their speed.
10 years later the movie "My Own Private Idaho" was released, which is based off of Shakespeare's Henry IV part 1, part 2 and Henry V. It was an independent film and got a lot of praise from those who would also probably like the B-52's "Private Idaho", which is not listed as a song in the movie.
Fast forward another 30 years and we have the "Greater Idaho" movement. A plan to move Oregon's border in order to create a "Greater Idaho". Greater Idaho wants to move 18 counties from Oregon to Idaho for better representation. These 18 counties are primarily rural areas with a much smaller overall population than the urban areas on the cost, specifically Portland. Because of this population spread, the urban areas have more representation and therefor control the path of the state.
This isn't a situation unique to Oregon's rural areas. In Illinois, Chicago alone has enough representation to control the entire state. This is also the same in Michigan and New York, where a non-capitol city's population has control over the rest of the state. Since 2010, Michigan has been losing population in the Detroit area, which has caused the power control of Detroit to lessen to the point that Michigan is leaning more red than blue, which isn't good news for their governor, who might be hated by everyone in the state.
The Greater Idaho movement isn't the first to try to change the political landscape of the west coast. California has had attempts to split it into anywhere from 2 to 6 different states. The State of Jefferson wants to take parts of California and Oregon to make a new state. There is even a movement called Cascadia Independence, which wants to take portions of Northwestern United States and Canada and form an independent country. And of course, there is the movement to make DC a state.
The one thing that Greater Idaho has over the other plans, is it isn't trying to make a new state or country. For DC or other states to become a state, they have to pass Constitutional hurdles.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress
DC has other issues, as it was created for the purpose of administrating the Federal government and not a place of residence. Congress wasn't expected to be in DC all the time, just for a short period, then they would go back to their jobs in their district. Similar to how state legislatures work.
But, for any of these other state wannabes, they not only have to get approval from the states they are leaving, they would have to get approval from the whole of Congress, which means getting a majority vote in the House and Senate. If Senators were still elected by the state legislatures, this probably be less of a challenge.
Since Greater Idaho is not creating a new state, but only changing the borders, this is a much easier plan. State borders have changed due to better measuring and mapping. But sometimes natural disasters, like the 1811-1812 New Madrid Earthquake, have changed borders because rivers changed their flow. In 1958, Oregon changed their constitution to allow redefining borders.
A few days ago, Greater Idaho announced that 5 counties agreed to the plan, bringing up the total to 7 counties. But, having the counties agree on the plan, doesn't mean it will happen. They will have to get their state legislature to agree on letting them go. The coastal counties might not be willing to release control of their rural siblings. Of course, they could also be happy to get rid of them as well.
After the last few election cycles, it has become very obvious that there is a disconnect between rural and urban citizens. It seems that things are leading towards another civil war, but what are the sides? If a civil war did break out, it would between the cities and those who surround the cities. How do we split up the states when a city in the middle of the state wants to leave? Do we give each city a statehood?
The future will show the direction, but for now, it is up in the air.
