Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

The Ricochet Podcast
3 Whisky Happy Hour
Beyond the Polls
GLoP Culture
Heritage Explains
Chicks on The Right
3 Martini Lunch
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
The American Idea
Federalist Radio Hour
The Erick Erickson Show
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
Daily Signal
Hillsdale Dialogues
Madison’s Notes
Mom Wars
What the Hell Is Going On
Parsing Immigration Policy
Freedom to Learn
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
The Learning Curve
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
Not Dead Yet
Giving Ventures
Who Funds that?
The Back of the Book
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
Gray Matters
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Glenn Show
The Libertarian
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert DoarRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
In theory, America believes in self-determination. We have a Federal system that allows people to move from state to state. But we do not seem to have a mechanism for allowing areas of adjacent states to migrate the state boundary.
This is not a hypothetical question. Right now, a total of thirty-three Illinois counties are trying to join Indiana. And if such a thing is truly possible (subject to a supermajority vote by the residents and the growing state), we would see borders change all over the land: 90% of Oregon's land mass would happily be absorbed into Idaho, for example, to get away from Multnomah County. So would most of California.
So this is a practical question: what does it take to allow borders between states to be adjusted? Assuming we are for it, would we not also allow, say, Alberta to join the US on that basis?
Recommended by MembersThis post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (92)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
News stories suggest the state losing the counties has to agree. But I am not sure why this should be so - if we truly believe in self-determination?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Article IV, Section 3:
constitution.congress.gov
Open link
Why? Because it is the law, and because the states were sovereign originally.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
We could let Alberta join the US, but that might make things sticky with Canada. It's not very likely to happen. Possibility, but not probability.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Arahant, thank you for the citation. Article 4 section 3 shows that both the donor and the recipient state need to agree and calls for neither a supermajority nor even a popular vote on the topic. It would seem straightforward for the 33 Illinois counties' representatives to get the matter taken up by the Illinois legislature. You would need a beard in Indiana's.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Heh, now that's funny. It used to be straightforward enough, but now that Mike Madigan is gone, who all do they have to bribe? And how much?
You're seeing five of 92 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.