Amidst the backdrop of political and geographical reshuffling ideas spearheaded by discussions from high-profile figures like President Donald Trump, rural communities in Illinois and Oregon are advocating for changes close to home. These advocates are looking towards a significant geopolitical shift by extricating themselves from their current states, with possible intentions of merging from Illinois and Oregon into Indiana and Idaho, respectively.
The rationale behind this desire for separation stems from a belief shared among these rural residents that they identify more with their counterparts across the state borders than with the urban populations in core cities like Chicago and Portland. These cities’ Democratic governments allegedly wield disproportionate influence at the state level, thereby stifling the Republican-leaning rural voice.
In Illinois, over the past five years, referendums in 33 counties have revealed public support for discussions on separating from Cook County, home to Chicago. Each instance saw a majority favoring the idea of secession. This local momentum has even prompted legislative movements in Indiana, where lawmakers have introduced bills to pave the way for welcoming willing Illinois counties. If culminated, such an effort would be the first significant realignment of states since West Virginia parted ways with Virginia during the Civil War.
Nonetheless, obstacles remain considerable, the most prominent being the need for relinquishing states to consent and Congress to approve the secession and realignment, a scenario fraught with improbability.
Historically, U.S. state borders have evolved about 50 times, mostly involving minor alterations due to natural features or technical adjustments from earlier surveys. However, today’s proponents from Illinois and Oregon are looking to leverage the prevailing polarized political environment to press for change.
G.H. Merritt, who heads the New Illinois movement, suggests this polarization might reach a point of change. The grumble in Illinois is partly rooted in decisions from the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legislative seats must be population-based rather than county-based, creating a political dominance by populous Cook County. Thus, a sentiment of “taxation without representation” reigns among these rural communities. Voter-approved county measures propose dialogue for forming a new state.
Indiana’s legislative actions reflect support for absorbing such counties, with Indiana House Speaker Todd Huston suggesting his state offers lower taxes and enhanced economic prosperity compared to Illinois. Yet, endorsement from Illinois seems distant, as Governor J.B. Pritzker labeled Indiana’s legal action as a futile exercise.
Meanwhile, in Oregon, rural citizens on the eastern side hope to dissociate from the urban and Democrat-swamped western regions, aiming to join neighboring Idaho. Their efforts, under the Greater Idaho movement, have seen success in nonbinding county votes. While Idaho’s legislature showed interest with an inviting measure, similar discussions remain stalled within Oregon’s legislative process.
Historically, entire counties have not switched states since Virginia’s secession led to West Virginia’s creation over a century and a half ago. Although numerous initiatives have emerged sporadically – like secession drives in parts of New York, New Jersey, and California – none have materialized due to the complex nature and imposing difficulties of recharting state lines.
Experts like Garrett Dash Nelson, a geographer, recognize the enormity of fundamentally redrawing state boundaries, emphasizing the challenge such initiatives face in gathering necessary political will.
