U.S. journalist Roman Balmakov says a slow-motion border story is unfolding in plain sight.
According to his report on Facts Matter with Roman Balmakov, 13 of Oregon’s 36 counties – about 36% – have now voted to explore leaving Oregon and joining Idaho.
Balmakov calls it the Greater Idaho Movement.
It’s not a novelty vote anymore. It’s a coordinated push by rural counties that feel alienated from Portland-driven policy.
His framing is blunt.
A large swath of Oregon votes red, but the state legislature – dominated by Democrats from a few dense metro areas – has a supermajority. That math means rural priorities rarely make it past the Capitol’s front door, as Balmakov describes it.
This isn’t just culture-war theater. It’s a structural fight about representation vs. population – and what happens when one overwhelms the other for too long.
Why “Greater Idaho” Resonates in the East
Balmakov walks viewers through the rural logic. Imagine being a rancher five hours from Portland and having policy, spending, and regulation set by people who don’t share your economy, culture, or lifestyle.
He notes the 2024 county map: most Oregon counties voted for Trump, while a handful of populous ones voted for Harris.
The result isn’t surprising – one-party control in both chambers and the ability to “railroad” bills without needing bipartisan votes, as Balmakov puts it.
That’s the spark. The solution for these voters isn’t to “flip” Portland; it’s to change states.
Balmakov says 13 counties have passed non-binding measures directing local officials to pursue the border move.
He cites counties across the east and south – places like Sherman, Morrow, Union, Wallowa, Jefferson, Wheeler, Crook, Grant, Baker, Malheur, Harney, Lake, and Klamath – signaling they’d rather align with Idaho’s conservative governance.
In my opinion, when non-binding votes keep piling up, politicians stop calling them stunts.
They start calling them pressure.
The Hard Part: Article IV, Section 3
Balmakov doesn’t sugarcoat the constitutional hurdle. Article IV, Section 3 says you cannot form a new state or shift territory without the consent of both affected state legislatures and the U.S. Congress.
That means three green lights: Oregon, Idaho, and Congress. Two of those three don’t like surprises.
Still, Balmakov points out momentum on the Idaho side. Idaho Governor Brad Little told Fox News that eastern Oregonians look “fondly” at Idaho’s values and regulatory climate and want more autonomy and freedom, which he understands.
And in February 2023, Balmakov notes, the Idaho House passed a non-binding memorial declaring the legislature ready to negotiate a border move with Oregon. That’s not a treaty—but it’s a door cracked open.
Boise is signaling “we’ll talk.” That’s more than symbolism. It’s a procedural foothold if Oregon ever comes to the table.
Why Oregon Might – And Might Not – Play Ball
Here’s where Balmakov’s report gets interesting. He says an Oregon bill floated two reasons why the Democratic supermajority could accept the split – even if only in theory.
First, money. Balmakov cites the movement’s claim that western Oregonians subsidize the east due to income disparities, estimating the burden at $500+ per wage earner per year. He notes a poll showing only 3% of northwestern Oregon voters want to keep paying that.
Second, power. If the conservative counties depart, Balmakov says Oregon’s legislature would become even more progressive, essentially locking in a “super-supermajority” free to pass whatever it wants.
Those are real incentives. But his report says the bill outlining this logic died in committee.
The signal is mixed.
On paper, progressives get more money and less opposition. In practice, leaders rarely want to be the ones who shrink the map.
It’s the difference between philosophy and politics. Philosophically, “win-win” sounds tidy. Politically, giving up turf – even unhappy turf – feels like loss.
The Two Holdouts – and What Comes Next
Balmakov says 13 counties have passed local measures, while two eastern holdouts – Gilliam and Umatilla – haven’t held votes.
He reports county clerks there are blocking signature collection, which stalls the process.
Even so, momentum builds. Balmakov argues nearby county wins make it more likely those holdouts come under pressure to let their voters weigh in.
If those two flip, the map coheres. But the real fight would then shift from rural courthouses to Salem, Boise, and Washington, D.C.
Balmakov’s bottom line is measured. Local votes are non-binding. Success still hinges on state-level negotiations and Congressional approval – a tall order in any era, let alone an election cycle.
Border Changes Are Rare – But Not Unthinkable
Balmakov reminds viewers that state-boundary changes are rare, and virtually all happened before the 20th century.
He name-checks Kentucky from Virginia (1792), Maine from Massachusetts (1820), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863).
That’s a long time ago, he concedes. But it’s not never.
He adds that Illinois is seeing a similar push: 33 counties have voted to consider separating from Cook County and joining Indiana, and the Indiana House has advanced a welcoming measure.
That parallel, Balmakov suggests, shows this isn’t just an Oregon anomaly – it’s a broader rural realignment conversation.
When the same pattern appears in multiple states, you’re not watching a fringe. You’re watching a trend test its strength against institutions built to resist change.
The Declaration, Revisited
Balmakov closes with the Declaration of Independence, quoting the passage about dissolving political bands when a government becomes destructive to life, liberty, and happiness.
He asks viewers whether these county votes reflect that American ethos – or something else entirely.
It’s a provocative ending, and intentional. He wants you to think in first principles, not party labels.
Here’s my read.
Local majorities seeking peaceful re-alignment within the Constitution’s rules is not radical; it’s federalism, stress-tested. The process demands consent at every tier, which protects both minorities and majorities.
If consent is given, the system worked. If consent is withheld, the system also worked – because sovereignty lives where the Constitution says it does.
Either way, the votes are a message. They say: “We don’t feel represented.” And even if the border never moves, that message is now on record – in 13 county tallies and counting, as sourced by Roman Balmakov.
Balmakov outlines a simple scoreboard. Idaho is publicly open to talks. Oregon has reasons to say yes – but hasn’t. Congress would have to bless any deal, which is its own mountain.
Two practical markers will tell us if this story is crossing from talk to traction. First, whether Gilliam and Umatilla allow votes and pass them. Second, whether Oregon leadership agrees to formal negotiations with Idaho instead of burying bills in committee.
Until then, the political secession remains electoral rhetoric with teeth.
Teeth that bite the same way, year after year, whenever policy runs far ahead of consent.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
