A bold vision similar to our TEXIT initiative is gaining traction in the Pacific Northwest. The “Greater Idaho Movement” is accelerating in Oregon. It is driven by residents who feel alienated in their liberal-run state and envision a future better aligned with their values in neighboring Idaho.

Should this initiative succeed, the movement would shift Oregon’s eastern border westward by 200 miles, integrating rural segments of Oregon with Idaho. In Crook County, Oregon, a community of around 26,000 residents are preparing to vote on whether or not to join this succession effort, in line with numerous other counties in Eastern Oregon.

Eric Smith, a resident of Crook County, voiced the sentiment prevailing among many in the region: “I love Oregon, but I just don’t love the people running it right now,” he told USA Today. “It doesn’t feel like they want to keep us anyway.”

Approval from the Oregon and Idaho legislatures and federal authorities would be required to advance this succession plan. However, the underlying sentiment remains strong among many residents of eastern Oregon. Even some who do not fully support the movement express dissatisfaction with liberal policies emanating from Salem, the state capital, such as marijuana legislation, fossil fuel usage reduction, and the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Quit treating us like Portland,” Smith demanded, encapsulating many’s frustrations towards the one-size-fits-all policies applied across diverse regions.

Proponents of the Greater Idaho Movement view this secession as a peaceful resolution, allowing residents to harmonize with like-minded communities rather than engage in constant conflict with a government holding a Democratic trifecta. “People have already sorted themselves into like-minded communities,” stated Matt McCaw, a spokesman for the Greater Idaho Movement. “People like to live around people who share the same values they do.”

McCaw highlights that while political disagreement among neighbors is natural, imposing urban liberal policies on rural areas is unsustainable. “I don’t think we can sustain the path we are on,” he stressed. “We need to be OK saying your values are yours, mine are mine, and you have to respect our ability to have different views.”

However, the opposing “IdaNo!” movement urges voters to reject the plan. Ryan Griffiths, a political science professor at Syracuse University, dismisses the movement as lacking significant public support and labels it “performative,” drawing parallels to a long history of state secession movements. “It’s a pipe dream in a way. What they’re doing is partly performative, for ideological purposes,” he stated.

Griffiths warns of potential dangers in such movements, suggesting that the goal of neatly partitioning populations by political alignment is impractical. “If you imagine a full-blown project to divide America into red and blue states, that would be incredibly dangerous because you’d have to partition people off,” he said. “You don’t actually have neatly sorted populations despite what many people think.”

As the Greater Idaho Movement mirrors our TEXIT aspirations, it underscores the growing desire among many for self-determination and governance that reflects their values. The journey to reclaiming governance that aligns with the will of its people continues to gain momentum from Texas to Oregon, demonstrating a collective drive towards independence and self-governance.