Three MD Counties want to maybe join WV

[GaryV]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't know for sure whether I'm right on that. As a general matter, I don't think transfer of counties in the manner envisioned in this discussion has ever happened, so I doubt there's precedent.

There is in a way, but the transfer was from a territory to a state.  What is now Clark County NV was originally part of the Arizona Territory when it was created in 1863.  Nevada became a state a year later.  It was given to Nevada in 1866, although Arizona fought it for several years thereafter.  Being a territory, Arizona really couldn't say much.

Imagine if Clark County was part of Arizona what ramifications it could have. Nevada basically becomes another Wyoming while Arizona becomes a lot more powerful of a state.

Responding to bolded: Only if AZ law treated Clark County the same way NV law does.  Vegas wouldn't have grown into the city it is now except for NV laws.

[Scott5114]

There isn't any inherent reason that Las Vegas became the big southern Nevada city other than being on US-91, is there? It's possible that in a universe where Las Vegas ends up in Arizona, the big gambling/resort city ends up becoming...Tonopah or something.

[NWI_Irish96]

There isn't any inherent reason that Las Vegas became the big southern Nevada city other than being on US-91, is there? It's possible that in a universe where Las Vegas ends up in Arizona, the big gambling/resort city ends up becoming...Tonopah or something.

Las Vegas is where the rail line from LA-Salt Lake gets closest to the Colorado River, so that could be why that spot was chosen. If that spot was in Arizona instead of Nevada, it definitely doesn't become what it is today (unless in this alternate universe the larger Arizona legalizes gambling), but I don't know that some other spot farther north ever become that either.

[KeithE4Phx]

Imagine if Clark County was part of Arizona what ramifications it could have. Nevada basically becomes another Wyoming while Arizona becomes a lot more powerful of a state.

Nevada legalized gambling in 1931.  If Clark County had been part of Arizona, there would have been no gambling there, and there still wouldn't be since casino gambling is restricted to Native American nations in Arizona.  Vegas would be a whistle-stop, while Reno would be the Entertainment Capitol of the World.

[bing101]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/us/politics/maryland-counties-west-virginia-request.html

This is interesting. Just like CA spliting up it won't happen.

Agree nothing is going to happen.

[US 89]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don’t know for sure whether I’m right on that. As a general matter, I don’t think transfer of counties in the manner envisioned in this discussion has ever happened, so I doubt there’s precedent.

There is in a way, but the transfer was from a territory to a state.  What is now Clark County NV was originally part of the Arizona Territory when it was created in 1863.  Nevada became a state a year later.  It was given to Nevada in 1866, although Arizona fought it for several years thereafter.  Being a territory, Arizona really couldn't say much.

Clark County did not exist when that area was part of the Arizona Territory, though, so that isn't really a precedent. At the time, that area was part of Mohave County and the defunct Pah-Ute County in AZ. (And at any rate, Clark County does not exactly match the transferred land anyway. If it did, the northern boundary of Clark County would line up with the Arizona-Utah border at the 37th parallel - which it doesn't.)

A possibility might be when the Nevada Territory was created out of the western half of Utah Territory. Utah Territory had two counties - Carson County and Humboldt County - that were removed from the territory and used to create the new Nevada Territory. The Nevada Territory's first set of counties included a Humboldt County that covered a lot of the same area as the Utah Territory's version had, so I do wonder if they were the same entity (though I doubt it).

Imagine if Clark County was part of Arizona what ramifications it could have. Nevada basically becomes another Wyoming while Arizona becomes a lot more powerful of a state.

Nevada legalized gambling in 1931.  If Clark County had been part of Arizona, there would have been no gambling there, and there still wouldn't be since casino gambling is restricted to Native American nations in Arizona.  Vegas would be a whistle-stop, while Reno would be the Entertainment Capitol of the World.

Except Reno is not a warm desert snowbird paradise, so you automatically lose at least that aspect of the Vegas appeal.

In this alternate universe, I-15 and old US 91 would not enter Nevada... but the Los Angeles-Salt Lake rail line still would, and I almost wonder if a better road would have been built following that line. We might have ended up with a US 91W and 91E between north of modern Vegas and somewhere in the Provo-Salt Lake City area. Although topographical and water constraints would probably prevent a Vegas-like megalopolis from forming in that part of southeast Nevada, I imagine at least something would have popped up at Caliente - which would now be the only Nevada city on that rail line.

[hbelkins]

Saw a story yesterday where Gov. Justice in West Virginia said his state would welcome the Maryland counties with open arms. And I also saw a piece that said a proposal would indeed be introduced in Maryland.

If the blue areas are complaining about the red areas in Maryland the way they do elsewhere (that's part of the reason I dislike Louisville as much as I do; the attitudes there toward the rest of the state) then this is the opportunity for them to put their words and thoughts into action. If those rural areas bother Baltimore and Annapolis so much, why not jettison them?

[triplemultiplex]

Because it's stupid.
The ravings of zealots and lunatics who should be ignored and not given attention.

[JoePCool14]

Because it's stupid.
The ravings of zealots and lunatics who should be ignored and not given attention.

Do people not have the right of self-governance? If a group of people doesn't want to be a part of one state, why should they have to be?

[abefroman329]

If a group of people doesn't want to be a part of one state, why should they have to be?

They don't - they're free to move to another state.

[hbelkins]

Because it's stupid.
The ravings of zealots and lunatics who should be ignored and not given attention.

Do people not have the right of self-governance? If a group of people doesn't want to be a part of one state, why should they have to be?

I have the same feelings about secession. We don't force people to stay in marriages or relationships they don't want to be in. If a state or a group of states wants to leave the union and form their own nation, why shouldn't they? California? Bye. Texas? See ya. It's absolutely crazy to say, "Yes, the United States can get bigger by adding states, but it can never get smaller by allowing states to leave if they wish."

I still think the north should have let the south go. Slavery would have ended soon enough without the reunification.

[JayhawkCO]

Because it's stupid.
The ravings of zealots and lunatics who should be ignored and not given attention.

Do people not have the right of self-governance? If a group of people doesn't want to be a part of one state, why should they have to be?

I have the same feelings about secession. We don't force people to stay in marriages or relationships they don't want to be in. If a state or a group of states wants to leave the union and form their own nation, why shouldn't they? California? Bye. Texas? See ya. It's absolutely crazy to say, "Yes, the United States can get bigger by adding states, but it can never get smaller by allowing states to leave if they wish."

I still think the north should have let the south go. Slavery would have ended soon enough without the reunification.

I somewhat agree, but with a caveat.  If your state wants to leave, then you and that state are in charge of all of the infrastructure changes that need to take place.  California wants to leave?  They have to be the one who funds buildings at every border entry point with the United States.  Texas wants out? They have to pay United, American, and Southwest a huge sum of money to move their hubs elsewhere since it's cabotage to now connect in Texas from two other points in the U.S..  It's never quite as easy as just saying "OK.  You're a new country.".

Chris

[SP Cook]

Nothing will come of this. 

This bubbles up regularly in Maryland, this time it is related to redistricting, Maryland being one of those states that draws grossly distorted districts to insure a certain result, rather than just joining together like communities and letting the chips fall where they may.

Generally, the 3 counties of western Maryland are much more like West Virginia's Potomac Highlands region than like any other part of Maryland.  They receive very little services from their state; and, trying not to be political, their views on laws that affect their everyday lives are disregarded as they are over-matched by people who feel differently, Penn Jillete's quote being correct here "there are two types of people, people who want to be left alone, and people that won't leave others alone."   Western Marylanders certainly are in the former group, the people running the state in the latter. 

Similar things are going on all over the country where this situation exists.  Nothing will come of any of them.

[Roadgeekteen]

Nothing will come of this. 

This bubbles up regularly in Maryland, this time it is related to redistricting, Maryland being one of those states that draws grossly distorted districts to insure a certain result, rather than just joining together like communities and letting the chips fall where they may.

Generally, the 3 counties of western Maryland are much more like West Virginia's Potomac Highlands region than like any other part of Maryland.  They receive very little services from their state; and, trying not to be political, their views on laws that affect their everyday lives are disregarded as they are over-matched by people who feel differently, Penn Jillete's quote being correct here "there are two types of people, people who want to be left alone, and people that won't leave others alone."   Western Marylanders certainly are in the former group, the people running the state in the latter. 

Similar things are going on all over the country where this situation exists.  Nothing will come of any of them.

Maryland's redistricting is bad but republican states like Texas and Ohio are much worse. Maryland could draw a no republican map if they so desire. Western Maryland doesn't even have enough people for a congressional district.

[hotdogPi]

The problem with Maryland's 2010 map is that the districts go all over the place and are impossible to follow. There are much cleaner 7-1 maps that could have been done instead.

[Roadgeekteen]

The problem with Maryland's 2010 map is that the districts go all over the place and are impossible to follow. There are much cleaner 7-1 maps that could have been done instead.

Their redistricting is only part to elect more democrats, it's mainly to protect incumbents.

[michravera]

Because it's stupid.
The ravings of zealots and lunatics who should be ignored and not given attention.

Do people not have the right of self-governance? If a group of people doesn't want to be a part of one state, why should they have to be?

I have the same feelings about secession. We don't force people to stay in marriages or relationships they don't want to be in. If a state or a group of states wants to leave the union and form their own nation, why shouldn't they? California? Bye. Texas? See ya. It's absolutely crazy to say, "Yes, the United States can get bigger by adding states, but it can never get smaller by allowing states to leave if they wish."

I still think the north should have let the south go. Slavery would have ended soon enough without the reunification.

I somewhat agree, but with a caveat.  If your state wants to leave, then you and that state are in charge of all of the infrastructure changes that need to take place.  California wants to leave?  They have to be the one who funds buildings at every border entry point with the United States.  Texas wants out? They have to pay United, American, and Southwest a huge sum of money to move their hubs elsewhere since it's cabotage to now connect in Texas from two other points in the U.S..  It's never quite as easy as just saying "OK.  You're a new country.".

Chris

But, there will probably come a time when the USA realizes that it would be better without California and California realizes that it would be better without the USA. If and when that ever happens, the divorce won't come fast enough for either. Until then, it's California USA.

[hbelkins]

The problem with Maryland's 2010 map is that the districts go all over the place and are impossible to follow. There are much cleaner 7-1 maps that could have been done instead.

Their redistricting is only part to elect more democrats, it's mainly to protect incumbents.

Members of Congress are not required to live in the district they represent, only the state. It's how Carl C. "Chris" Perkins was able to succeed his father, Carl D. Perkins, when he died. The Perkins family was from Knott County in southeastern Kentucky, and Carl D. Perkins represented the old 7th District for years. He's Kentucky's version of Robert Byrd when it comes to having stuff named after him. His son, Chris, actually lived in Montgomery County in the central part of the state, 35 miles northeast of Lexington. But he was appointed to fill the seat and won election to it a couple of times.

True story: Even though everyone called him Chris, his name appeared on the ballot as Carl C. Perkins. It was enough to fool a lot of people into thinking they were voting for his dead daddy, Carl D. Perkins. Of course, the political makeup of the district was such that he was never seriously challenged by a Republican. He ended up leaving Congress mired in scandal (possibly the House banking scandal) and then Kentucky lost a congressional seat following the 1990 Census.

So if two incumbents get moved into the same district, one of them can still run in what was their old district minus their home county.