Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in December 2024

What will we become

December 31, 2024

What will we be like - what will this nation be like - on the other side?

One day, this COVID-19 business will be over.  One day, thousands and thousands of dead will have been mourned.  The sick will be well.  Hospital operations will return to normal.  Doctors and nurses will work usual schedules.  The feelings of fear will be calmed.  What will it be like?

One day, the Congress of these fractious states will return to the business of legislating for the people instead of the current divided, do-nothing, look-the-other-way creature we have now.  The needs of the citizens of the 50 states will, again, become the substance of hearings that result in answers rather than stonewalling.  What will it be like?

Truth is, no one - not one - can answer the question of what this nation will look like in 2025 and thereafter.  The recent years of uncertain governance - coupled with a worldwide pandemic - have twisted, pulled, strangled, tortured and severely injured our Republic.

Corporate, ultra-conservative front organizations like ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council - have flooded state legislatures with carbon-copy bills authored by - and dedicated to the benefit of - big business and the ultra-right.

Citizen needs have been ignored in attempts to legislate morality and citizenship as promulgated by evangelical groups and others who believe it's their right to determine how this nation should live.  When their loud, fanatical, divisive voices are stilled, what will this country become?

The plain fact is those promoting division - with racist, jingoistic, lying - have been more successful separating us, one-from-the-other, than the virtues of patriotism and inclusion that usually have kept us together.  When we needed to reach out to our brothers and sisters, we were warned "They can't be trusted because they don't look like us." "They speak foreign languages," or "They'll take our jobs" or "...threaten to undermine what has always been the majority" - read "White Christian majority."

The last couple of decades - especially the last four years - there've been strains on our nation and its governance.  What we've witnessed - what we're living through - has been a time of internal national struggle, involving all our fundamental institutions and beliefs.

The process of a return to stability, re-establishing trust in our institutions and re-creating a functioning government does not start at the top.  It starts at the bottom.  It starts with us.  Everyone.  No matter the skin color.  No matter the nation of birth.  No matter the religious practices.  No matter who.

Some of us won't be around to see how it all works out.  The nature of things - the process - is to hand over responsibilities to the next generation.  After the Civil War  - after two world wars - that process included expansion.  Expansion of territory.  Expansion of housing.  Expansion of rights.  Expansion of all the things those wars had been fought to protect.

The difference now is expansion must be accompanied by inclusion.  Inclusion of race and nationality.  Everywhere.  Inclusion of a new direction for government and institutions, accepting differing religions and other human practices so we may proceed as a unified nation.

Voices of division and mistrust must be stilled.  Voices of building, of getting together - of everyone sharing in what comes next - should be amplified in commerce, in politics, in religion and in changing national institutions.

What will it look like?  No one knows.  But, we need to get started.

 

Remembering Dan Chadwick

December 30, 2024

When I learned of Dan Chadwick’s handling of a truancy case in Payette County, not long after I took office as Attorney General in 1983, I was greatly impressed.  The case produced headlines across the country. Dan was a deputy county prosecutor at the time and he resolved the case by exercising a firm but reasonable approach. I decided he would be just the person to act as legal counsel to Jerry Evans, who was then the State School Superintendent. Dan excelled in that job, which was just part of his record of distinguished public service, right up until he passed away this year on April 23.

In 1985, I tapped Dan to serve as Chief of my Intergovernmental Affairs Division.  For the next five years Dan and his staff provided legal advice to practically every unit of local government throughout the state, as well as a large collection of independent state agencies and commissions. He listened to the concerns of elected and appointed officials of every political persuasion and helped them stay in compliance with the law. His advice likely saved hundreds of thousands of tax dollars over those years.

His reputation as a highly competent attorney and administrator resulted in his selection in 1991 as Executive Director and General Counsel of the Idaho Association of Counties (IAC), a position he held for 27 years until his retirement in 2018. Dan was not a showboat who generated headlines, but he was well known as a go-to problem-solver among officials at all levels of government in Idaho. He was a trusted spokesman for county officials on so many issues, including opposition to unfunded mandates, advocating for state funding of county public defenders and improving county policies and practices for risk management, juvenile corrections, property taxes, substance abuse and mental health.

It is no easy feat to work effectively with 132 headstrong county commissioners and over 260 other elected county officials for such an extended period of time and still be respected by the great majority of them. Dan pulled it off by actually listening to concerns and then working hard to find a solution. Former IAC President, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, was right on point in saying: “Dan’s retirement brings us to the end of an era that cannot be equaled. His contributions have been immeasurable.”

Dan was also known and respected by his peers in the National Association of Counties (NACO). When word of his passing spread, tributes from NACO members and officials came in from across the country. A number attended Dan’s memorial service to show their respect for their friend and former associate. Paul Beddoe, a NACO legislative affairs director was quoted in a Chadwick tribute in NACO’s May publication: “He taught me that in lobbying, you never make a permanent friend, and you never make a permanent enemy. You have to treat people with respect and if you just have a disagreement or a tough conversation, don’t take it personally. You can come back and work together on something with those folks on another issue.” That certainly epitomized Dan’s approach.

Last year, Dan told me that he was a firm believer in Thomas Jefferson’s saying: “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Dan said those in local government positions “use common sense to take care of problems,” while state legislators often choose to “micromanage local affairs and impose one-size-fits-all, statewide solutions for every perceived problem.” Amen!

Although he did not often talk about it, likely because of security concerns, Dan served as a linguist in the US Air Force during the Cold War, learning Serbo-Croation and working with the National Security Agency and intelligence community to protect US interests in that volatile region. He was a decorated patriot.

Following his retirement from IAC, Dan and his lovely wife, Michele, a former County Commissioner for Gem County, operated a government consulting firm. Dan also served as attorney for several cities. I rarely have known a couple so devoted to one another. They demonstrated that there is such a thing as a match made in heaven.

I was privileged to have known Dan. Like the Boy Scout motto, he left his place on the Earth, the State of Idaho, much better than he found it. We sorely need many more dedicated public servants like Dan Chadwick.

 

Only the worst people

December 28, 2024

The world could not imagine a Syria without an Assad. But it happened, and with stunning speed. The pure evil of that corrupt, malevolent regime has been obvious for years. The weakness behind the Syrian leader was not so obvious until his murderous, incompetent rule collapsed. This is the way of all tyrants.

Before Assad was forced to flee – he’d been in power for 24 years – Syria was described by the U.S. State Department as “a republic ruled by the authoritarian regime … The president makes key decisions with counsel from a small number of security advisors, ministers, and senior members of the ruling” party and “Assad and party leaders dominate all three branches of government.”

Authoritarians seem invincible until they aren’t. I wrote recently that the corruption in the next administration will soon enough become obvious, and for a while it will seem merely odious and then suddenly it will engulf everything around it.

Finally, when the end inevitably comes – it always does – it will be brutal and fast, and the wreckage will long linger.

Bashar al-Assad, a brutal sociopath, ran a corrupt, incompetent regime by surrounding himself with the worst people. He’s now living out the remainder of his dictatorial life in Putin’s Moscow.

Meanwhile Donald Trump, a born authoritarian, is constructing a truly awful, inept, corrupt American government, almost certainly the first time a president-elect has purposefully done so. The Trump government in waiting is distinguished only by its utter lack of distinction, a collection of misfits, sexual abusers, billionaires – lots of billionaires – political grifters, reality television fakers and above all loyalists.

Loyalty to the dear leader is, after all, the only real qualification that matters in the mob or in a Trump Administration.

As headlines detail the white supremacist beliefs of the Fox News personality who may soon run the Pentagon and the conspiracy embracing nonsense of the nominee to head the FBI, the stories have read as though this kakistocracy is somehow normal. But, if you are among the nearly half of the American population who thinks this show of schlock and awe is abnormal and frighteningly dangerous then you aren’t among the crazy ones.

As the writer Eliot Weinberger observed recently, only partially summarizing the coming circus:

“The future surgeon general, a Fox News regular, and the future administrator of Medicare and Medicaid, a daytime television host, sell dubious health and weight loss supplements online.

“The future director of the FBI promotes a supplement to reverse the effects of the Covid vaccine.

“The future deputy assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism is the spokesman for a fish oil supplement.

“The future secretary of homeland security stars in an infomercial for a cosmetic dentistry business, in which she exclaims: ‘I love my new family at Smile Texas!’”

With the possible exception of Florida Senator Marco Rubio, the secretary of state designate who has served on the Foreign Relations Committee and presumably could find Uganda on a map, the rest of this collection, as Weinberger wrote, “have no connection to the work they will manage, or no experience in the work they will manage, or no experience managing large bureaucracies like the bureaucracies they will manage.”

Let’s remember this is the same Marco Rubio who in 2016 called Trump a “con artist,” and “the most vulgar person to ever aspire to the presidency.” That statement, as was once said in the Nixon White House, is clearly no longer “operative,” begging the question: who changed – Trump or Rubio?

—–

All these jobs – really, really important jobs – are fundamental to keep Americans safe, the economy working and the essential functions of government operating. Yet, these positions are being gifted to a collection of the worse possible people. It is the American kakistocracy.

Most Americans don’t pay much attention to history, but if they did they might see the historical warnings attached to the coming government.

There will be a crisis in the next four years, likely more than one. We forget now how close the American economy came to complete collapse in 2008. That fiasco left wounds that still bleed, but without a competent adult at the Federal Reserve or a realistic Treasury secretary we might have experienced this generation’s own Great Depression. While many, many mistakes were made no one who saved the American economy back then was selling fish oil supplements.

Competency matters.

And now come the unaccountable oligarchs. America has always had its unfathomably rich men – always men – who used the power of their money and prominence to shape the way we live. A thousand efforts to prevent the kind of outsized influence the uber-rich employ in Russia or the oil kingdoms has given way to a South African immigrant, Elon Musk, becoming the un-elected co-president of the American republican.

The corruption, if you care to see it, will cause eyes to water. In a true oligarchy – and we’re getting there – guys like Musk don’t abide any rules. They act to preserve their wealth and status and polish their egos, even if it means shutting down the government by Tweet.

Journalist David Samuels had it right when he wrote, “Defining ‘corruption’ as a personal hunger for luxuries or stuffing cash in one’s pocket, as Americans often do, is to mistake the essence of the offense, which is to destroy public trust in the institutions that are supposed to keep people safe.”

CEO’s are watching all this and then making the trek to Mar a Lago to hand over their protection checks to the American mob boss. And we ain’t seen nothing, yet.

Add in the retribution, the promise to prosecute Liz Cheney, while suing an Iowa pollster, the coming pardons of January 6 rioters – many convicted for vicious acts – and blatant bullying of the press and you begin to see clearly the next four years, or more.

“Recapturing the presidency in 2024,” says Maryland Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, “is Donald Trump’s ultimate safe haven from the legal consequences of his prior crimes. He believes it will give him all the immunity he needs for the rest of his life.

“And if you think he ever plans to leave office and let the justice system come near him again, you’re too innocent to be let out of the house by yourself.”

The worst people, retribution and rampant corruption. The American mob. Not quite what the Founders had in mind.

So … Merry Christmas.

 

Year ending, year beginning

Year ending, year beginning

December 27, 2024

Some stories that ought to have an ending never seem to go away. The Moscow murder case which continued to generate so many Idaho headlines in 2024  began with four deaths in 2022, has gone through various changes of venue and personnel and squabbles over legal issues, but it won’t be tied up until at least well into 2025. And maybe later. It will reliably generate more headlines in the coming year.

And there are stories everyone would like to go away but prove hard to quash. One example would be the invasion of the Snake River system by quagga mussels, which the state has fought since they were spotted in 2023 and hoped were eradicated. Such eliminations are hard to accomplish, and they returned this last year. Will they be back in 2025? We can hope not, but they could be.

Then there are other stories with larger implications which have no clear beginning or end point. They morph into new phases, and Idaho will have to deal with new versions of them in 2025.

One example is the state’s massive suburban growth, mainly in the Boise metro area but to some degree elsewhere too, such as in Kootenai County. There’s more than the usual pressure on for more development , as housing supply in Idaho’s big population centers has remained limited and prices have stayed high, even if they’re not growing quite the way they did a few years ago.

Ada County is poised for another massive explosion in the next couple of years, with new developments recently approved by the city of Meridian and the projected pass expansion of Avimor in the hills above what has been the city of Eagle … among other examples. Those approvals are not the end of the story, but only the beginning. We’ll see more of what comes of it in the next year.

Politically, Idaho voters in 2024 made decisions - which largely aligned - which may put the state’s recent ideological developments on a high speed rail. The election of an even less centrist legislature, coupled with the clear voter rejection of the open primary/ranked choice voter initiative, gives the most hard-core factions in the Idaho Legislature full motivation (and even some surface justification) for plowing ahead as far as they can see.

One of the questions looming over the state ever since election day, then, has been: How far is that?

The ground apparently ripe for seizure seems likely to include passage of school vouchers - another way of saying money transfers from public to private schools - which has been frustrated for years. This next session starting in a matter of days is likely to be a different story, with changes in overall membership and committee leadership.

Probably there will be much more. While the colleges and universities, and their governing boards, have submitted in advance to demolition of their social equity programs, the legislature is likely to see that as an opening bid begging for a raise. The culture war at the Statehouse is more likely to accelerate than to slow down this session; the point, after all, is not to solve a problem so much as it is to keep stirring the pot, and we can expect plenty of that.

2026 will be a relatively high-end political year in Idaho elections, or at least it may be. All the statewide state offices, including governor, will be up, and so will a U.S. Senate seat (now held by Jim Risch) and two U.S. House seats. Will Risch seek a fourth term, or Representative Mike Simpson his 15th? There’s some potential for a shakeup. And the governor’s office will be the object of a lot of speculation and war gaming. The pieces of all that should be in place by this time a year from now.

And, of course, there will be fallout from the Trump Administration Redux … though I’m offering no predictions at the moment about exactly what form that will take.

Happy New Year, and let’s make the best of it we can.

 

More nonsense in the case

December 25, 2024

An intermediate appellate court in Georgia ruled this week that Fani Willis, a county prosecutor, and her office should be disqualified from personally pursuing the criminal action pending against Donald Trump and a slew of other defendants, on the basis of the "appearance of impropriety" by her and her office. In a two-to-one decision reversing the trial court's ruling that there was no basis to take action, the appellate court ruled that the prosecutor and her entire office "had no authorization to proceed" against Trump.

The appellate court did not find any actual impropriety on the part of the prosecutor or her staff. It only noted the "appearance" of an impropriety that might appear to "some." Additionally, it held that the ruling would not apply to any normal case but existed only because of Trump's particular circumstance as a candidate for the office of President.

Trump had argued that a sexual relationship existed between the prosecutor and the local attorney she had designated to try the case, and that the two had spent an exorbitant amount of money in their relationship. Trump argued that this was sufficient to justify the prosecutor's recusal. The trial court disagreed and denied the application, but the appellate court reversed, concluding that although there were no instances of actual improprieties shown, the appearances were sufficient to warrant the prosecutor's dismissal.

The prosecutor stated she intends an immediate appeal. But if so, it is highly unlikely that any decision on review will occur between now and the time Trump is to be sworn into office as President. Once he is sworn in, substantial statutory and regulatory rulings clamp on preventing any further action by any of the lower courts in Trump's cases. The Supreme Court's ruling in other cases that a sitting President is immune from any federal criminal prosecution while in office will most probably be sufficient to derail all proceedings against Trump in state courts as well. Meaning Trump will be insulated from any criminal action in any court throughout his presidency.

Notwithstanding all of this, the appellate ruling in the Georgia case is plainly wrong. The ruling pertained to allegations of a personal relationship between the prosecutor and another, and to her alleged misuse of state funds in the process. A defendant in a criminal case has no standing to raise or complain about such instances in the criminal case. The appropriating government entities, either state or local or both, that oversee the funds supplied to the prosecutors' offices can audit the finances of a prosecutor's office and take action if the prosecutor over-spends or mis-spends public funds. A lone individual caught up in the criminal system has no standing to sue in such matters. Further, most state rules providing for the disqualification of an attorney based upon a prohibited relationship with another lawyer require that the relationship be with an opposing party's attorney but not one associated on the same side as the target. In any such action by the state or county agency overseeing the prosecutors' offices, a mere appearance or possibility of a such a connection might be sufficient for recusal,  but in the case of an objection being advanced by the defendant in a criminal case, the showing of actual prejudice or harm resulting from the existence of the alleged  relationship is usually required. None of these expected requirements were met in the instant case.

All privileges and special protections extended to a President only operate for presidential actions taken after the candidate is elected and while in office. Here, none of Trump's criminal actions alleged in the action in Georgia related to the office of President. The nexus of the crimes charged were Trump's actions as a potential candidate for election to the office of President, and for alleged wrongs during the campaign, but not for any action or inaction by Trump while he was acting in service as the elected President. It would make no difference in deciding the issue of Presidential immunity whether the candidate was seeking office for the first time or was already the President seeking re-election. If the actions under examination pertained entirely to the candidate's campaign for office, they should not have been subjected to any defenses or privileges existing to the office holder. There are no statutory exceptions protecting a candidate for office, and no demonstrated factual basis for the creation of any judicial prerogatives.

The upshot of all this is that the action by the intermediate appellate court was wrong, but it may be too late in this case for any corrective action by a higher court. Action in other cases indicate that all issues raised in federal courts that might have prevented Trump from running for office have been mooted. Sentencing in the federal case against Trump pending in New York which found him guilty of fraudulent misconduct, was stayed  pending the election. Two federal court actions in the District of Columbia and Virginia, were dismissed by the special prosecutor Jack Smith, citing a Department of Justice written policy not to pursue any case against a sitting president. With these rulings and actions in place, the expectation would appear to be that no matter what the outcome of the current Georgia case finally is, it, too, will be stayed and all of Trumps's criminal case problems will be washed away for the duration of his current presidency.

While some of the actions will remain over his head, and the cases Jack Smith was pursing might be refiled later, there is no action now pending that will interfere with the proceedings to inaugurate him into office on January 20, 2025, or that will interfere in any way during his term once he assumes office.

The twists and turns occurring in Trump's political career continue to astonish, and every indication is that it is not over yet.

I am convinced of that, so  pay attention.

Guy in the shadows

December 24, 2024

Who the hell is Elon Musk and why the hell should we care about what he says?

The media seems enchanted with the guy for some reason.  He's in the headlines - or at least the lead - in all forms of media these days.

Personally, I'd be happy if he got back in his company Tesla and resumed his previous status as just another billionaire.

The guy is apparently doing auditions for a shadow presidency or personal Speaker of the House for DJT.  In both cases, he gets a failing grade.

Musk is often referred to as "the world's richest man."  That's a title I'm not sure he deserves considering the balance sheets of some of the fellas from Saudi Arabia.

Be that as it may, he's what reporters and editors call "hot copy" these days and his name is plastered everywhere.  Deserved or not.

Guys like Musk come along every generation or so.  Some singular trait - in Musk's case his accumulation of dollars - makes what he says and does newsworthy for awhile.  But, like most of the rest, the public soon tires of that person and moves on.

Musk's name will likely last a little longer than the rest because of a former President's bosom buddy relationship.  Trump - who apparently doesn't have a lot of real friends - is Musk's "ticket to ride" as they say in the public relation's business.  As long as that relationship lasts, you can expect to keep hearing Musk's name in the news.

Some wags in the media are saying the guy should be Speaker of the House.  Musk is not a member of the House.  And, it may be a bit of a surprise that you don't have to be a member of the House to be Speaker. Just any old person can do it with enough votes.  So far, Elon doesn't have the votes.

Musk really doesn't seem to have much going for him in real qualifications.  His fortune - at least about $455-million of it - was inherited.  Before Elon reached legal age, a consortium of financial advisers invested all those dollars in a series of things and, when he was old enough, there it was.

I'm not trying to downplay his participation in wealth accumulation.  But, seriously, most of us don't start out with that kind of basis when we're 21-years-old.

And, I'm not saying Elon had it all handed to him.  But, his first steps into the real world were certainly on a better - read higher -financial footing than most of us.

Just how long Musk and Trump keep marching to the same drummer is anyone's guess.  But, Trump is not known for long term relationships.  Just ask Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen or several former wives.

It'll be interesting to see how members of Congress deal with that pairing and for how long.  Musk can pick around the edges for awhile.  But, if push comes to shove, if he tries to direct Trump toward some end Conservatives in Congress don't agree with, shove will come pretty quickly.

We don't need a civilian Speaker of the House.  We don't need a closeted "shadow president."  We've got our hands full with the real President coming up.

Musk's enjoying the buddy-buddy cuddling at the moment.  If he plays his cards right, that could last for the foreseeable future.

But, off the record, I'm told that Elon's a terrible card player.  And, we already know - when it comes to relationships - so is his current "meal ticket."

 

Two kinds of cases

December 23, 2024

Two headlines in the December 11 issue of the Idaho Capital Sun caught my attention because they typified Raul Labrador’s track record during his two years in office.

While Labrador promised to represent the interests of the people, he has utterly failed to do so. The first headline proclaimed: “Judges in Oregon, Washington, block Kroger-Albertsons supermarket merger.” The second headline said: “Appeals court considers next step for emergency abortion care in Idaho.” In the first instance, Labrador chose to sit out a case that would have increased the grocery bill of Idaho families in areas where Fred Meyer and Albertsons compete for customers. In the second, Labrador has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prevent women with dangerous pregnancies from getting life-saving care in Idaho emergency rooms.

When the Kroger-Albertsons merger was announced in October of 2022, the anti-competitive implications of the first- and second-largest traditional grocers combining was obvious. It was practically a no-brainer that competition would suffer and grocery prices would rise. In March of 2023, Labrador’s office indicated that he was reviewing the deal. The US Federal Trade Commission and 8 states, including Oregon, Nevada and Wyoming, filed suit against the grocers, claiming that the merger would increase grocery prices in the areas where the two companies competed head-to-head. That was certainly the case in significant portions of the State of Idaho. A US Senator from another neighboring state, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, strongly opposed the merger. Washington and Colorado filed separate state lawsuits to stop the merger.

Labrador failed to lift a finger to protect Idahoans from the rising food prices that would have resulted from the merger. On December 10, the US District Court Judge handling the FTC suit halted the merger, ruling that it would harm consumers with rising prices. The Washington state court judge handling that state’s case ruled that it would lessen competition and violate Washington’s consumer protection laws. It would, likewise, have violated Idaho’s protection consumer laws. Although Labrador failed to take any action, Idaho consumers benefited from actions taken by surrounding state Attorneys General.

This is not the only important issue for Idahoans that Labrador has failed to address. When a serious water dispute arose earlier this year between Magic Valley water users and upstream water right holders, the Attorney General failed to take a leadership role in trying to resolve it. Previous Idaho AGs–myself, Echo Hawk, Lance and Wasden–had used our legal expertise to weigh in on water disputes that threatened the lifeblood of segments of the water community. It took so much of my time that I wrote a whole book about it–”A Little Dam Problem: How Idaho almost lost control of the Snake River.” Labrador should have actively engaged in trying to resolve the dispute. Thankfully, the Governor and Lt. Governor stepped up to help fashion a compromise in his absence.

The abortion care headline mentioned above dealt with Labrador’s continual effort to block emergency room care for women who develop life-threatening pregnancy conditions. A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires most hospitals to provide stabilizing care to people who arrive with a medical emergency. Labrador has taken the position that Idaho’s total abortion ban does not conflict with the requirements of EMTALA and has tried to sell that position to the federal district court in Idaho, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS). None of them have bought his argument.

Idaho law says a doctor can perform an abortion that is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Labrador claims that language means the doctor can perform an abortion if deemed necessary to save her life. There is a huge difference when the doctor can be sent to prison by making the wrong call. How close to death’s doorstep must the woman be for the doctor to abort the fetus under the letter of the law? Labrador claims the doctor is safe if he or she acts in good faith. Yet, when doctors have stated they need to send women out of state to get necessary emergency care, Labrador claims they are liars, not acting in good faith.

Labrador’s crusade may all be in vain because SCOTUS accidentally leaked an opinion on June 26, ruling against Labrador by a 6-3 vote. The Court quickly withdrew the opinion and, instead, sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit, which resulted in the second December 11 headline mentioned above. Idahoans can vigorously differ on whether or when a non-emergent abortion can take place, but most Idahoans would be in agreement with the SCOTUS opinion, favoring the EMTALA position over Labrador’s skewed view of the law.

 

Hitting a wall

December 22, 2024

The Greater Idaho movement, which seeks to redraw Oregon’s border and have most of central and eastern Oregon counties join its eastern neighbor, has displayed a knack for getting attention. But its run may be nearing an end because it is hitting a wall in moving toward its goal.

On Dec. 4, the Citizens for Greater Idaho group sent a letter to President-elect Donald Trump asking for his help in shifting the counties to Idaho. Pointing out that people in eastern Oregon largely supported Trump in the November election while the state overall remained Democratic, the group said, “We yearn to join the family of small-government and citizen-directed systems that Idahoans enjoy, but we need help from your administration to make this happen.”

Apparently, Trump has not responded.

He could speak out on the issue, but a president has little ability to change state boundaries. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution says no changes involving “parts of states” can happen “without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.”

The Greater Idaho movement could petition Congress for action, though there seems to be little interest there. Early in 2023 the group did see a whisper of movement on that front, with the Idaho House of Representatives passing House Joint Memorial 1, which “resolves that the Idaho Legislature stands ready to begin discussions with the Oregon Legislature regarding the potential to relocate the Oregon/Idaho state boundary.”

But the statement was nonbinding, and it didn’t pass by a large margin. It died in a Senate committee, and the idea was not revived in the 2024 legislative session.

One of the legislators who supported the memorial said during the debate he didn’t think it would ever happen. Though the Greater Idaho movement is good public relations for Idaho, state officials don’t appear to have much interest in moving forward with it.

Their action is still more than what Oregon lawmakers have done, and there are no signs of any movement on that front in Salem. Gov. Tina Kotek has not addressed the issue either even though backers called for talks on the issue this spring. Then on July 11, the Greater Idaho leaders sent her a letter, asking to meet. Their website says no response has been forthcoming.

The group has had some success with voters. From November 2020 to this May, 13 Oregon counties voted in favor of talks on the Greater Idaho idea: Jefferson, Union,  Baker, Grant, Lake, Malheur, Sherman, Harney, Klamath, Morrow, Wheeler, Wallowa and Crook. One of those, Wallowa, voted against in 2020 but reversed that stand this year by a margin of seven votes.

That marked a slight reversal of the general trend of support, however. The most electoral enthusiasm for an Idaho move was in 2021 and 2022, when measures calling for talks on the issue won about 60% support. Votes in Wallowa and Crook counties that have been held since then have been much closer.

The movement may have gone as far as it can. Voters in Josephine and Douglas counties rejected Greater Idaho, and meetings on the idea in counties where measures passed have been sparsely attended.

The movement is based in La Pine, which is in Deschutes County. The county has not voted on the idea, and it would likely fail there: Deschutes County tilts Democratic. A vote has not been held in Jackson County, either.

The Greater Idaho movement has few options left, but it still  can be considered a success. It has brought fresh attention to the concerns of the eastern part of the state, and it probably has had an effect on legislation and even Kotek’s travels, though she’s not met with the group itself.

The likelihood of Trump getting involved is close to nil, but the movement has had an impact.