Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Melissa Davlin: The Greater Idaho movement would shift the Idaho-Oregon border to the West and merge conservative Eastern Oregon with the Gem state.

It's a long shot, but what's at the root of the proposal?

And is it ever possible for a minority party to be happy in a democratic republic?

I'm Melissa Davlin.

Idaho Reports starts now.

Hello and welcome to Idaho Reports.

This week, we explore the origins of the rural-urban divide and the anger that is driving the Greater Idaho movement.

Then Dr. Stephanie Witt and Dr. Jaclyn Kettler of Boise State University join me to discuss how growing political polarization fuels the Greater Idaho conversation.

But first, on Tuesday, the U.S. Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, visited Whitney Elementary School in Boise to announce the department is awarding a five year, $46 million grant to offer resources to rural Idaho schools with $6.5 million going out in the first year.

United Way of Treasure Valley will receive that grant and distribute it to 50 schools in 25 districts.

That money is intended to increase medical, dental and social services at those schools.

Our job at the federal level is not to dictate how they do it.

It's to say here are dollars because you're telling us it works.

What I heard from the superintendent here is students have access to health services.

They have access food programs.

Their families have access to programs as well through the school.

Many times in rural communities, the school is where where they can find those services and the only place they can find services.

And I can tell you from experience, when kids are not well, they don't learn as well.

When they're hungry, it's hard to concentrate.

When your tooth hurts, it's hard to think about reading.

When you don't know where you're going to sleep at night, it's harder to concentrate.

These are the realities that are happening in our schools every single day.

I know one thing, and that is we can’t teach them if they're not here.

It’s the only maybe the only true statement that you can make in education is that you can't teach them if they’re not here.

So we need our kids in school.

We need them to feel safe in school.

We need to address more than just the academics in order for them to learn.

So people who say this isn't the role of the school do not understand education.

The needs and viewpoints of rural residents have often clashed with urban population centers.

That tension is part of the story of the West.

But a few years ago, residents in eastern Oregon proposed a solution to their long simmering frustration at being outvoted.

Moving their state border so conservative Oregon residents could join ruby red Idaho.

Even proponents know it's a long shot.

But regardless of whether lawmakers and voters sign on, that philosophical division isn't going to go away anytime soon.

Over the summer, Idaho Reports explored the origins of the anger that's driving the movement and whether supporters see any other path forward.

Melissa Davlin: Ask Greater Idaho supporters why they want to shift the state's borders to include Eastern Oregon.

And you'll get a multitude of answers.

Carter Powell: They're a very red state.

Matt McCaw: Certain restrictions on gun ownership.

Mike McCarter: We didn't agree with recreational marijuana.

Justin Shumway: Have a totally different lifestyle.

Terry Goodwin: It'd be nice to just have our voice heard.

Davlin: But it boils down to one key thing.

Rep. Judy Boyle: When you're ignored by your Capitol and by your legislators, it's extremely frustrating for people.

McCaw: Oregon is a single party state.

State level government is completely all dominated by Democrats and left leaning people.

And so it's left these folks out in eastern Oregon, in other parts of the rural Oregon as well, feeling like they don't have a voice.

They don't have a say.

And they get policy forced on them that they don't want.

Davlin: Sound familiar?

That's the same dilemma the minority faces everywhere.

Just ask Democrats in Idaho.

But there's more to it, says Ryan Booth, a post-doctoral fellow at Washington State University.

Wanting to separate from a government that doesn't represent you is part of the American identity.

Ryan Booth: We started by seceding from Great Britain, right?

I mean, we said we're not we don't want to be a part of that.

So our American Revolution begins, you know, this story of us saying, no, we don't want that.

We want something else.

And so that sort of begat all of these other kinds of movements, including the U.S. Civil War, that ends up, you know, these breaking away and sort of forming new things, sort of baked into the DNA for Americans in a way.

Davlin: Mike McCarter of the Greater Idaho Movement agrees.

He likens their movement to the American Revolution.

McCarter: What were the reasons?

Why did the people want to become free and independent of England or British influence?

And it's almost the same thing.

It's unjust laws, no representation and outrageous taxes.

Davlin: There are obvious differences between the American Revolution and the frustration of Eastern Oregon residents who were unhappy with the government in Salem.

Still, that discontent is nothing new, says Keith Petersen, author of Inventing Idaho: The Gem States Eccentric Shape.

Conversations over Oregon's Rural Urban Divide date back to Oregon's 1857 Constitutional Convention, at which 60 delegates discussed what should be enshrined in the state's founding documents.

That included the state's borders.

Keith Petersen: Of these 60 people, only one represented the area east of the Cascade Mountains.

It was a guy by the name of Charles Meigs, who came from Dallas City, which we now know is The Dalles, which was Wasco County and Wasco County was gigantic.

It included everything east of the Cascades, including all of southern Idaho and part of western Wyoming.

and part of western Wyoming.

Davlin: Petersen says Meigs recognized the cultural and socioeconomic differences between the eastern and western parts of the proposed state of Oregon.

West of the Cascade Range, Oregon was already more urban, with access to the ocean.

East of the range was high desert, destined to be rural with a heavy agricultural focus.

Petersen: So not only are they different now, but they're always going to be different.

There's because of the geography of the West and the geography of the east.

There's going to be cultural, economic, political differences between those folks and our folks.

Davlin: At the Constitutional Convention, Meigs argued for the new state's eastern boundary to be set at the Cascade Mountains.

Petersen: The arguments are much the same, at least in terms of the rural urban divide.

And Meigs basically outlines that you know, matter how much we grow and we know Eastern Oregon is going to grow, we will always be rural.

There's not the possibility for great urban centers in eastern Oregon.

We will always be outvoted by the people in the West.

But mainly our interests are just different.

Davlin: Meigs didn't get far with his arguments, ultimately getting only three votes.

But he wasn't alone in his concerns about power being centered in Salem.

Petersen: In that same constitutional convention, there was a movement to establish a new territory or a new state.

The state of Jackson, which would include part of southern Oregon, what became southern Oregon, as well as Northern California.

Davlin: While the geographical areas were different, the issues were the same a separation from the seat of government.

That frustration rings true today in circles that have nothing to do with shifting borders.

Western governors and legislatures have long expressed anger at Congress and the federal government for not understanding issues residents face in the West.

Gov.

Victor Atiyeh: I would really like to understand what the purpose of wilderness is.

Rupert Cutler: I don't have any objection to Governor Ray's definition.

Wilderness is where people ain’t.

That's the bottom line.

Gov.

Dixy Ray: How do you include it as recreation then?

If people can't really use it for recreation, how can you say wilderness is a recreation area?

Cutler: Well, don't mislead the media now, Governor, because it's open to all the public.

If they can get out there on foot.

Ray: Only if they can backpack.

Cutler: Or they can ride a horse or they can float in a canoe or a raft.

What's wrong with walking?

Most of us can walk?

Ray: As we know that from experience that means about something less than 1% of the population.

Cutler: 1% of the population can walk?

Ray: No, sir.

Actually make use of wilderness areas for recreational purposes.

Cutler: I think that’s their decision rather than their capability.

rather than their capability.

North Idahoans are familiar Davlin: North Idahoans are familiar with that exasperation, which they’ve felt since the territorial capital moved from Lewiston to Boise in 1864.

Petersen: So that idea that we are different, part of that during the territorial period was we're just damn upset that the people at Boise because you stole the capital.

But there always was this, you know, you've left us up here, we're isolated.

We've got this little narrow panhandle.

We have nothing in common We have nothing in common with the folks in southern Idaho, eastern Idaho, western Idaho.

Over the years, Davlin: Over the years, there's been talk of splitting off northern Idaho and joining with eastern Washington to form a new state.

But those ideas haven't gained much traction.

Marc Krein: Washidamont?

Well, to most people the current attempt to form a new state in the Northwest is simply a way of letting off steam about claims that state legislatures are not responding to the needs of the entire state.

And while this is not the first attempt of its kind to form a new state in the Northwest, public officials backing the idea are quite serious about the possibility of seceding into what could become the 51st State of the Union.

Booth: There have been these this sort of sectionalism that has been part of America's story for quite some time.

From the very beginning, I would say.

And now you have rural-urban, which I think is sort of the latest iteration of these differences.

Greater Idaho organizers Davlin: Greater Idaho organizers recognize that their frustrations aren't unique to Eastern Oregon.

Every state, every country has an aggrieved political minority.

McCarter: It's not just here.

It's in every major, every state in the union.

Because if you look at who controls the vote in Washington, Seattle Metro.

Who controls the vote Who controls the vote in Illinois?

Chicago.

Who controls the vote in New York?

New York City.

Atlanta controls Georgia.

I mean, it's one right after another.

Davlin: But they think in this specific situation, their approach is one that makes sense.

And they're getting more people interested in their proposal.

Rep. Vikki Breese-Iverson: I represent the Center of Oregon, rural community.

And surrounding me, there's been 12 counties that have voted to take this conversation forward.

I've clearly heard from my constituents and I am here today because they've asked me to have this conversation.

Rep. Barbara Ehardt: We've got so many like minded people, people who share Idaho values, especially those old fashioned traditional values.

Why wouldn't we want to have that conversation?

Davlin: While interest might be growing in Idaho and eastern Oregon, it isn't in the Oregon legislature.

McCaw: The next step for our movement is to get to the legislative level.

Last year, we were able to get, thanks to Rep. Ehardt and Rep. Boyle, introducing a memorial in the Idaho house.

With the Idaho House passed a memorial saying, We are ready to have this conversation with the State of Oregon.

We attempted to do the same thing in the state of Oregon, and it did not go anywhere in the legislature last year, but that's where we're at now.

Davlin: And moving the border doesn't just require sign off from Oregon and Idaho.

Congress needs to approve the shift, too, if it even gets to that point.

And it's going to be tough to get them on board for such a novel solution to a universal problem.

It's no fun being in the minority.

Petersen: Once these states are established, it's virtually impossible to change borders.

Unless, the few times it's happened, again, it's been cases with meandering rivers or things like that.

And we've been involving very small bits of real estate, nothing like, you know, the size of Greater Idaho, which is basically all of eastern Oregon joining Idaho.

Davlin: We reached out to Oregon Democratic lawmakers to ask their thoughts not on Greater Idaho so much as the growing discontent among Oregon's rural residents and whether they care.

We didn't hear back.

But it's a question we could ask the majority in any state.

No policy is universally popular, so what does a majority party owe to those in the minority?

McCaw: Every governor's race, every cycle, election cycle in Oregon, we hear a lot of talk about we're going to be a governor of the whole state.

We're going to, you know, listen to eastern Oregon.

We're going to address eastern Oregon specific, you know, issues that deal with them.

It hasn't happened.

And the people in eastern Oregon feel like that hasn't, that outreach, those specific policy, you know, ideas that that would ideas that that would would help Eastern Oregonians?

Those haven't happened.

The political tension has only gotten greater.

The political frustration’s only gotten greater.

McCarter: In my travels, I go over West Side and I talked to a state representative over there and I said, you know, the problem is that they don't listen to our representatives in the legislature.

He says, stop, stop right there.

And I go, What?

He says, Mike, we hear what they're saying.

We just out vote you.

Rep. Ilana Rubel: And that's life in the minority, folks.

Davlin: Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel knows what it's like to be outvoted.

Rubel: It's very discouraging.

I mean, it's certainly not fun to be steamrolled on many issues of what we which we care about deeply.

Davlin: But Rubel points out that Oregon Republicans are actually far better situated to influence policy in their legislature.

40% of Oregon's lawmakers are minority Republicans.

Compare that to Idaho, where the minority Democrats make up just 17% of the legislature.

In fact, Oregon's In fact, Oregon's Republicans are powerful enough to shut down legislative proceedings in protest, which they've done multiple times by walking out, denying their colleagues a quorum.

Sen.

Rob Wagner: Colleagues, a quorum is not present.

Davlin: The latest protest during their 2023 session lasted six weeks and resulted in the majority Democrats agreeing to change provisions in an abortion bill.

Rubel: We don't have the numbers to be able to deny them quorum in Idaho.

So, you know, it's we I think it's because they're actually not that small a minority that they actually have considerable power to do that kind of thing.

I think supermajority rule is unhealthy.

They don't have supermajority rule in Oregon, though.

And so the minority actually has substantial power.

Davlin: Rubel isn't unsympathetic to frustrations of those in the minority, even if they're in a different party.

But she has some advice on how to get things done.

Rubel: I think as a member of the minority party, you do have to work a lot harder.

You have to gather five times as many facts in support of your case.

You have to mobilize groups on the outside.

You have to think creatively about who are the constituencies that would benefit from this piece of legislation or be harmed by that piece of legislation.

Reach out to them, educate them, let them know.

Here's you know, here's who you can email to.

Here's you can, how you show up at a hearing and testify.

We have to work very hard.

We have to collaborate.

We have to bring in members of the majority party on everything that we do.

It's just something we have learned to adapt to.

Davlin: Idaho Representative Judy Boyle was an early supporter of the Greater Idaho Movement.

She says even if the movement isn't successful in moving the borders, it might still have other advantages.

It might make legislators Boyle: It might make legislators listen to what they're constituents actually want and make governors listen.

McCaw: We're about getting representation and policy for Eastern Oregon for for Eastern Oregon that people in Eastern Oregon that people in Eastern Oregon want and makes sense for their communities.

There's other ways to get there.

Unfortunately, those other ways have not happened.

What we're trying to do is we're trying to solve a problem, and it's a problem that's been around for a very long time, and it's only gotten worse over time.

So we're offering people a solution.

We think that moving the state border would solve the urban rural divide in Oregon and solve the issue of mismatched government to people's values.

Because that's what we have right now.

Goodwin: I'm an older guy.

I've invested a lot of money and time in my property, making making it, preparing it for my latter years.

I don't want to abandon that.

You know what I mean?

I’d just like to see our community have some say.

Boyle: Any time people will talk, is good.

It's a success.

My thanks to Ruth Brown, Logan Finney and Morgan McCollum for doing a lot of that reporting over the summer.

Joining me today to discuss the roots of the Greater Idaho movement and how else these frustrations come out is Dr. Stephanie Witt of Boise State University and Dr. Jaclyn Kettler, also of Boise State University.

Dr. Witt, I wanted to start with you.

This rural-urban divide, it doesn't just come out in these big secession movements that we talked about.

There are other ways that this frustration spills over.

Witt: Well, I think that each side thinks the other has a better deal in some ways.

But typically, the rural districts feel like they're being bulldozed by the urban districts because representation is based on people not geography, right.

As the people in your pieces point out so many times.

So if you're just counting heads, you know how many people want this kind of policy option as opposed to that they typically are on the losing side or they perceive that they're on the losing side.

That probably extends to some policies too, related to funding formulas and what kind of taxation laws we're going to use in a state that may disadvantage the rural voters in their minds.

Davlin: And this Greater Idaho movement, specifically a lot of it people brought up many things, right?

Taxes, a lot of it though seemed focused on cultural issues, these cultural flashpoints that we hear so much about, drug policy, abortion, same sex marriage came up, guns.

And that aside, how else is this different than previous secession type movements?

Witt: Well, all of those things are related to values, but in the end, they become votes on a policy.

Right.

So it boils down to who has the most votes and when the population of Eastern Oregon, for example, is so much sparser or more sparse than the western side of Oregon, and if the beliefs kind of divide on the mountains there, then you're going to you're going to lose if you're the rural district.

Kettler: And what's interesting, I think, about the Greater Idaho movement as they've continued to be organized and continue to pick up steam as they've been rolling along, even starting to get legislators now involved in the conversation and and so I think that is interesting to see, even through COVID or perhaps boosted by the COVID pandemic continuing to be really active on this issue.

Davlin: I think the highest hurdle to clear, though, still is the Oregon legislature, where Democrats have so far made it clear that they're not interested in having that conversation.

And Congress, which is a whole other beast by itself.

Kettler: Yeah, I mean, there are it's they're making progress, but there's still it's still really it'd be really hard to actually see this through.

And it's interesting to hear their thoughts.

Some of them talk about I mean, some of them clearly want this to happen.

Some seem to think I just want the conversation to happen.

I want to be heard better.

And maybe this is one way to really force some conversations.

Witt: I think that's that's key to what how it reminds me of previous versions of this, not necessarily to change state borders, but you think of the county supremacy movement in the 1990s and the Sagebrush Rebellion years before that.

I'm not sure.

I mean, there were some true believers who, of course, thought that the federal government should turn over public lands to local governments.

But most people understood that wasn't going to happen.

But the point was to force a conversation about what should be the role of a county government, for example, in land management decisions that are going to change livelihoods and change the tax base of a county.

And so I think Jaclyn is exactly right.

Part of the point here is just let's bring people to the table to talk about the stuff that we care about.

Davlin: We're also seeing this movement during a time of growing polarization in American politics.

How do you think that is contributing to the conversation?

I think that's a really key thing to keep in mind here is that our geographic polarization or place based polarization has been increasing.

Rural-urban divides are not new, as we've been discussing, but we've we're starting to see this alignment of a lot of our identities and values all together.

And so our partizan identity aligns with our racial identity, our religion, now where we live.

And that deepens some of those divisions and it could deepen those us versus them ideas.

And so then you might really feel left out or unheard if you are the minority in your state.

Witt: I think that it's the tenor of the conversations too, that the polarization has made different.

So much sharper and hostile and it's us versus them.

And, you know, we're not seeing any of the commonalities that we might have as residents of a state together, but rather, you know, if you're one of those, then you're not one of us.

And the rhetoric is quite vicious.

Davlin: You know, along with that rhetoric, here in Idaho, we have our own divisions.

They might not be, the division between the Democrats and Republicans might not be as stark because of the supermajority the Republican Party has.

But certainly within the Republican Party, those divisions are can be very vicious.

Witt: Yeah, well, we've seen over the last several legislative sessions that that the bigger fight is between the factions within the Republican caucus, not between the Democrats and the Republican caucus.

And in fact, the far right has managed to do for the Democrats what the Democrats haven't been able to do for themselves in 20 years.

And that's make them relevant in votes, right?

So the the you know, the main Street Republicans need those Democrats every once in a while to get a budget passed, for example.

Davlin: There's certainly... Kettler: Oh sorry, I was just about to say like it in some of these conversations.

It seems to suggest that these divisions don't exist in Idaho, which they do.

There is a rural urban divide in Idaho.

There are divisions within here, I mean, deep divisions within even the majority party.

And so even it seems it's a long shot, even if this were to happen, it does not mean that suddenly everything's resolved, Right.

We still have some of these divisions.

You're just now changing, changing the the entity that you're dealing with.

Davlin: You know, in bringing that conversation back to Idaho too, we're already seeing the primary races heat up in fall of 2023.

Months before those candidates can even file.

Kettler: That's right.

We're seeing a lot of donations starting to flow in big donations and organizing starting to happen.

A lot of on social media, a lot of kind of battling between different kind of ideological factions.

And I think we're going we had quite a few incumbents defeated in the 2022 Republican primary.

Some of that, of course, was due to redistricting, but also some of these ideological divisions and battles.

And it looks like we're going to definitely see a lot of that happen in 2024 as well, at least in terms of really tight races.

Davlin: Really tight races and really expensive races.

Kettler: Really expensive races and probably bringing a lot of outside money as well, which is often spent on negative advertising.

So it, the tenor of these of these campaigns may may be very negative.

Davlin: You know, buckle up.

Along those lines, we're also seeing people move because of politics specifically.

And we've seen recently in the past four years with a lot of new COVID related policies, people moving to Idaho who identify as Republican.

Witt: Yeah, that new dashboard that the Secretary of State’s office has was that was really so interesting to look at and to see the newcomers are not bringing liberal values from Seattle.

They're bringing Republican Party affiliation and registering as Republicans when they get here.

So I people ask me all the time, but we're growing, won't that make the state more purple and it’s like, well, no, I don't think so.

I think it's making it more red because the people are moving to places that match their policy preferences and their cultural comfort.

Kettler: It's interesting, like a few years ago when you'd survey it was still a pretty small percentage of people that say they'd move for politics.

It's still small, but it's growing and it including here in Idaho in surveys, it's a growing percentage of people that say they're moving here for political reasons.

And so I think that can contribute and exacerbate some of these trends.

Davlin: I mean people are also moving away from Idaho because of those same policies, people who identify as more liberal or who have been upset by some of, you know, the legislature's recent policies, whether it is on, you know, transgender policies or some of the debates surrounding libraries.

I know that I've heard that cited by multiple people who have said that they have decided to leave.

Kettler: Yeah.

And so I think that is, we are seeing some really interesting trends in terms of people looking to other states and saying, oh, their policies align more with what I want.

But instead of trying to change the state boundaries, they decide to move them, their families.

But again, it's going to continue to actually deepen some of the geographic polarization and potentially some of these different I mean, and really a lot deepen the differences across states depending on what state you live in and what policies that you are experiencing.

Davlin: Right.

What's the, I mean, we don't have a crystal ball, and we have about a minute 30 left.

But what are the consequences of losing these purple states and purple districts?

Witt: Well, I think it may have implications for the national parties as they try to build their state by state networks.

And I don't know, Jaclyn, what do you think?

I that’s.

Kettler: There's and there's research that suggests competitive partizan races at the state level actually improves policy outcomes for people.

That by having competition, we have better conversations.

We bring more people to the table.

And it works to craft really better policy for everyone.

And so there's actually those outcomes as well as people feeling more represented.

Like, oh, my voice counts if I'm in the minority.

Maybe I'm still in the minority, but there's competitive races or those types of things.

So I think there can be representative benefits as well as actually policy outcome benefits.

Davlin: We have about 30 seconds left.

Do those same benefits exist when the competition that fierce competition is still, it still exists, but it's in the primary?

Kettler: That's an excellent question.

The research I've seen is all looking mostly at the general election.

And so I think that'd be an excellent question for us to dive into.

Davlin: All right.

Well, Dr. Jaclyn Kettler, Boise State University, Dr. Stephanie Witt, Boise State University, thank you so much for joining us.

We have so much more online.

Check IdahoReports.org throughout the week.

While you're there, make sure you subscribe to our newsletter.

Thanks so much for watching.

We'll see you next week.

Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.