Over the past five years, 13 counties in eastern Oregon have voted in favor of joining the neighboring state of Idaho, a development known as the “Greater Idaho” initiative. This effort would shift the state boundary westward, incorporating nearly two-thirds of Oregon’s landmass into Idaho. While often portrayed as a reaction to partisan polarization—rural conservatives escaping liberal governance—recent research suggests deeper motivations rooted in economic dissatisfaction and regional identity. n nA study conducted by Semir Dzebo, Erin K. Jenne, and Levente Littvay surveyed 193 residents in these counties to explore the underlying drivers. Findings indicate that economic grievances and a sense of cultural distinctiveness are far more influential than partisan animosity. Respondents expressed concern that state policies crafted in urban centers like Portland do not reflect their economic realities or values. n nThe movement gained momentum after 2020, fueled by long-standing political imbalance. Since 2012, Democrats have maintained control over Oregon’s legislature and governorship, leaving conservative voters east of the Cascade Mountains feeling politically marginalized. Policies on environmental regulation and firearms, among others, are seen as misaligned with local interests. n nMatt McCaw, a supporter of the initiative, emphasized that the goal isn’t secession but autonomy: “When Portland imposes rules on us that don’t fit our way of life, tensions rise.” Unlike separatist movements in Scotland or Catalonia, this effort seeks integration into another U.S. state rather than full independence. n nResearchers tested three theoretical frameworks: identity-based, fear-based, and economic motivations. Measures included regional identification, perceived cultural erosion, intergroup relations, and economic exploitation. Results showed that belief in economic marginalization was the strongest predictor of support. Those who feel their tax contributions subsidize western regions are significantly more likely to back the move. n nRegional identity ranked second in influence. Many residents believe Oregon’s character has shifted, while their communities have remained stable. As one participant noted, “The people here haven’t changed. Portland’s changed. Salem’s changed. Eugene has changed.” n nPartisan affiliation had a moderate effect. Though Republicans were about 50% more likely than Democrats to support the shift, economic and identity factors had four times the impact. A Democrat who feels economically disadvantaged and strongly identifies with eastern Oregon is more inclined to support joining Idaho than a Republican without those concerns. n nNotably, fear of persecution or hostility toward western Oregonians did not significantly correlate with support. The movement is not driven by animosity but by a belief that governance under Idaho would better serve local economic and cultural needs. n nThe implications extend beyond the Pacific Northwest. As political geography in the U.S. becomes increasingly polarized, understanding such internal realignment efforts is crucial. Dismissing them as mere partisan frustration overlooks legitimate regional discontent. n nPolicymakers may need to consider institutional reforms—such as consociational arrangements—that grant minority regions greater influence over decisions affecting them. While redrawing borders is unlikely due to constitutional hurdles, ignoring underlying grievances risks deepening national divisions. n nThe Greater Idaho movement exemplifies “internal exit”—seeking change within the existing national framework. As geographic political sorting intensifies, similar movements may emerge. Solutions may lie in federalism that respects regional diversity, equitable economic policies, and inclusive governance structures. n nThe central question isn’t whether eastern Oregon will join Idaho—it likely won’t—but whether American democracy can evolve to ensure all regions feel represented within current boundaries. The research suggests this is achievable, provided leaders recognize the real drivers behind calls for territorial change. n
— news from The London School of Economics and Political Science
— News Original —
Economic grievances are driving support for redrawing state borders in the Pacific Northwest
In recent years, several counties in eastern Oregon have voted to join the neighboring state of Idaho. Semir Dzebo describes a new study he conducted with Erin K. Jenne and Levente Littvay based on survey evidence from the separatist countries. The study finds that economic grievances and regional identity—not partisan hatred—drive support for redrawing state borders in the Pacific Northwest. n nIn the past five years, 13 counties in Eastern Oregon have voted to leave their state and join neighboring Idaho. This “Greater Idaho” movement would redraw the Oregon-Idaho state border, moving it westward to encompass nearly two-thirds of Oregon’s land area. While media coverage often frames this as another symptom of partisan hostility – rural Republicans fleeing liberal Democratic rule—our new research reveals a more complex story. n nWe surveyed 193 residents in the separatist counties to understand what motivates support for this dramatic political reorganization. What we found challenges conventional narratives about “culture wars” and partisan sorting. Eastern Oregonians who want to join Idaho are driven primarily by economic grievances and perceived threats to their regional identity, not by hostility toward their Democrat neighbors. n nHow did the Greater Idaho movement emerge? n nThe Greater Idaho movement emerged from a perceived crisis of . It formally began in 2020 and has since seen 13 eastern Oregon counties vote to join Idaho through ballot measures between 2020-2024. Behind this push is the reality that Republicans have become a permanent political minority in Oregon, where Democrats have controlled both legislative chambers and the governor’s office continuously since 2012. East of the Cascade Mountains, conservative voters watch as Portland and other western cities enact policies on issues ranging from environmental regulations to gun control that they believe do not reflect their values or economic interests. n n“We don’t think of ourselves as a secessionist movement,” Greater Idaho activist Matt McCaw told CNN. “The political tension comes when Portland does something and says we have to do the same thing. It doesn’t work for us.” n nThis is not just a US phenomenon. In recent years, from Scotland to Catalonia and beyond, regional minorities worldwide have questioned whether existing political arrangements serve their interests. Unlike those international cases, however, the Greater Idaho movement does not seek independence—it wants to switch which American state governs the region. n nPhoto by Caleb Mikesell on Unsplash n nTesting Theories of Separatism n nTo understand what drives this movement, we tested three established sets of theories from the academic literature on separatism: n nIdentity theories suggest that groups seek separation when they see themselves as culturally distinct from the majority. We measured whether Eastern Oregonians believe they have a unique regional identity (regional identification), whether they think Oregon’s current values have deviated from its historical identity (identity subversion), whether they see Oregon as a unified state (entitativity), whether they view their region as superior (in-group bias), and whether they feel their voices are heard in state politics (right to dissent). n nFears theories propose that minorities support separation when they perceive threats to their safety and well-being. We asked whether respondents believe Oregon state authorities pose dangers to their cultural and physical security (threat perception) and how they evaluate the quality of their relationships with Western Oregonians, including experiences of discrimination or disrespect (intergroup relations). n nEconomic theories hold that groups seek separation when they believe they are being economically exploited or that their economic interests are being harmed. We measured whether Eastern Oregonians feel they are subsidizing other parts of the state or that state policies damage their economic interests (perceived economic grievances). n nEconomic grievances are the strongest driver of Eastern Oregonian separatism n nFigure 1 – Predictors of separatism in Eastern Oregon n nOur analysis revealed that economic grievances emerged as the strongest predictor of separatist support. Eastern Oregonians who believe they are being economically exploited by the rest of the state are significantly more likely to support joining Idaho. n nRegional identification and perceived identity subversion were the second-strongest factors. Supporters of secession believe Oregon no longer represents their values—that the state has fundamentally changed while they’ve remained the same. As one movement supporter put it: “The people here haven’t changed. Portland’s changed. Salem’s changed. Eugene has changed.” n nThese findings resonate with rural grievance research from Wisconsin which shows how place-based identities shape political resentment when rural communities believe urban politicians do not respect their distinct values or allocate resources fairly. n nSurprisingly, partisan identity played only a moderate role after accounting for these other factors. While Republicans were about 50% more likely than Democrats to support the movement, this effect was dwarfed by economic grievances, which had four times the impact, and regional identification, which had nearly four times the impact. In other words, a Democrat who feels economically exploited and strongly identifies with Eastern Oregon is more likely to support joining Idaho than a Republican who does not share these grievances. Party affiliation alone does not explain the phenomenon—it is the economic and identity factors that truly drive support. n nImportantly, fears and inter-group hostility were not significant predictors. Eastern Oregonians do not support joining Idaho because they fear persecution or hate Western Oregonians. They simply believe their economic and cultural interests would be better served in a different state. n nEastern Oregonian separatism has implications beyond the region n nThese findings matter far beyond the Pacific Northwest. As the US experiences increasing geographic political sorting—with Republicans moving to red states and Democrats to blue states—understanding what drives territorial separatism becomes crucial. n nOur research suggests that dismissing movements like Greater Idaho as mere partisan tantrums misses the deeper grievances at play. When permanent political minorities feel that their economic interests are ignored and their cultural identity is under threat, they may seek drastic solutions. The key finding that hostility and fear do not drive the Greater Idaho movement offers hope: secessionists are not irreconcilable enemies of their neighbors but fellow citizens who feel unheard. n nFor policymakers, the lesson is clear: political minorities need meaningful voice in governance, not just formal representation. Consociational arrangements that guarantee minority groups influence over policies affecting their regions might address grievances before they metastasize into separatist movements. n nThis does not mean redrawing state borders is the answer—such changes require approval from state legislatures and Congress, making success unlikely. But ignoring the deeper grievances driving these movements risks further polarization and political instability. n nDevising solutions to regional separatism n nThe Greater Idaho movement represents a case of “internal exit”—attempting to leave one political unit for another within the same country. As partisan geographic sorting intensifies and winner-take-all politics leaves more Americans feeling permanently excluded from power, we may see more such movements emerge. n nUnderstanding what truly motivates these campaigns—economic marginalization and identity threats rather than partisan hatred—points toward potential solutions. Federalism that respects regional variation, economic policies that do not leave rural areas behind, and governance structures that give all groups a meaningful voice may help transform zero-sum territorial conflicts into positive-sum democratic politics. n nThe question is not whether Eastern Oregon will actually join Idaho—it almost certainly will not. The question is whether American democracy can evolve to give its diverse regions and communities the voice they need to feel heard within existing borders. Our research suggests that this is still possible, but only if we understand what really drives the desire to redraw the map.