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.
Someone should make an exit list for what the exit numbers on I-68 and I-70 would become if this actually happened.
Quote from: KCRoadFan on October 23, 2021, 07:35:55 PM
Someone should make an exit list for what the exit numbers on I-68 and I-70 would become if this actually happened.
I-68 would be intrastate, so its full length would be under a single set of exit numbers.
I-70 would enter WV twice, so assuming exit numbers are continued from the first WV segment (starting mileage at MM 15 in this second segment), the I-68 interchange would be Exit 16, and I-81 interchange be Exit 40. MD exit numbers would be its current exit numbers minus 42.
Another road-related hypothetical: of the state routes located in the three counties in question, do any of them have numbers that are already assigned to highways in another part of WV? If there are any potential duplicates, what should the new numbers be?
Quote from: roadman65 on October 23, 2021, 07:25:45 PM
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.
There is a huge political difference between splitting a state (or admitting a new one) and granting extra senators and possibly diluting the representation of each state in the House and merely moving territory of one state into another. If there are enough people in the affected area of Maryland to move some whole number of congressional districts, the people want to go to West Virginia, West Virginia wants them and Maryland is willing to send them away, all that happens is that all of the people in two states are better off and the rest of us are largely unaffected. Something like that could actually happen.
What will undoubtedly happen in California (as happened to my School Disrict 45 years ago) is that we will get one or two more layers of administration between state and county. We might have regions and cantons or departments. That's Mich, from City of Fremont, County of Alameda, Department of East, Region of Bay, State of California.
It'll never happen. Maryland would have to agree to let them go. They won't.
Politics really do make people go insane. Maryland and WV are on opposite ends of most statistics, with MD consistently being in the best 10 while WV is usually in the worst 10. Though my political opinions don't really align with either state, I would rather live in Maryland 100 out of 100 times.
1) No state is going to just agree to let a part of it go to another state
2) Even if it did, the change would benefit one party or the other in Congressional representation, so the other party would block it
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 24, 2021, 11:36:50 AM
2) Even if it did, the change would benefit one party or the other in Congressional representation, so the other party would block it
This wouldn't lead to a change.
House: It's much less than one congressional district.
Senate: Both states are safe. The exception is Joe Manchin, but we don't know whether the change would benefit him or hurt him.
Presidency: Both states are safe. If 2020 had not happened yet, there would be the question of whether the addition to West Virginia would allow it to keep its fifth electoral vote, but that's no longer a possibility.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 24, 2021, 08:35:15 AM
It'll never happen. Maryland would have to agree to let them go. They won't.
Congress would also have to agree. They won't.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 24, 2021, 03:07:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 24, 2021, 08:35:15 AM
It'll never happen. Maryland would have to agree to let them go. They won't.
Congress would also have to agree. They won't.
I'm not so sure about that. Article IV, Section 3, provides as follows. It doesn't say anything about part of one state joining another existing state (as opposed to breaking off and becoming a new state).
QuoteNew States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Quote from: KCRoadFan on October 24, 2021, 12:38:51 AM
Another road-related hypothetical: of the state routes located in the three counties in question, do any of them have numbers that are already assigned to highways in another part of WV? If there are any potential duplicates, what should the new numbers be?
None of the three-digit routes that I can think of, but "yes" on the two-digit Maryland routes. MD 51 could conceivably be connected with WV 51 (unless the states swap panhandles) via taking over WV 9 and then being routed to join existing WV 51. There are already two 68s in West Virginia (WV 68 being the old route of WV 2 between Ravenswood and Parkersburg) so something would have to be done with MD 68. There are other routes that would be duplicated, but I'm not familiar enough with Maryland's numbers to recall them all of the top of my head.
For starters, West Virginia would drop a whole bunch of routes on the current Maryland primary system.
Many of the numbers 34-68 from the original Maryland designations in these 3 counties are still in use. Most would be duplicative of an existing West Virginia designation. The easiest thing to start would be to take the handful of routes that cross the current border and extend the WV designation over them (WV 7, 9 and 42 for example).
Quote from: 1 on October 24, 2021, 12:23:49 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 24, 2021, 11:36:50 AM
2) Even if it did, the change would benefit one party or the other in Congressional representation, so the other party would block it
This wouldn't lead to a change.
House: It's much less than one congressional district.
Senate: Both states are safe. The exception is Joe Manchin, but we don't know whether the change would benefit him or hurt him.
Presidency: Both states are safe. If 2020 had not happened yet, there would be the question of whether the addition to West Virginia would allow it to keep its fifth electoral vote, but that's no longer a possibility.
Politically, it barely helps the republicans as West Virginia gains a mostly red part of Maryland which could help it in future redistricting. Also it would hurt Maryland republicans like Larry Hogan, not sure if he would have won in 2014 without the west.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 24, 2021, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 24, 2021, 03:07:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 24, 2021, 08:35:15 AM
It'll never happen. Maryland would have to agree to let them go. They won't.
Congress would also have to agree. They won't.
I'm not so sure about that. Article IV, Section 3, provides as follows. It doesn't say anything about part of one state joining another existing state (as opposed to breaking off and becoming a new state).
QuoteNew States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
We're saying the same thing. In order for a one or more counties to leave one state and join another, both states' legislatures and Congress must agree. This is what is being requested by the Maryland and Oregon counties. In any case, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for either to happen anytime soon.
Also wouldn't Western MD suffer as they would lose out on tax revenue from the richer parts of Maryland? West Virginia ain't doing so well economically.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 24, 2021, 11:07:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 24, 2021, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 24, 2021, 03:07:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 24, 2021, 08:35:15 AM
It'll never happen. Maryland would have to agree to let them go. They won't.
Congress would also have to agree. They won't.
I'm not so sure about that. Article IV, Section 3, provides as follows. It doesn't say anything about part of one state joining another existing state (as opposed to breaking off and becoming a new state).
QuoteNew States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
We're saying the same thing. In order for a one or more counties to leave one state and join another, both states' legislatures and Congress must agree. This is what is being requested by the Maryland and Oregon counties. In any case, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for either to happen anytime soon.
No, you're not saying the same thing. The Constitution says that the consent of the legislatures and Congress is required when:
1) A new state is made within any existing state (i.e. a state is partitioned into an existing state and a new state). This does not apply because no new state is being made, only territory being transferred from one to the other.
2) A new state is made by merging two other states or from parts of two other states. This does not apply because no new state is being made, only territory being transferred from one to the other.
Also I seem to recall that 1995hoo is a lawyer (though not a constitutional lawyer, and not
your lawyer), so they're probably right on this one.
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. Virginia and West Virginia did have a dispute over the easternmost two counties in what is now the West Virginia eastern panhandle, but the Supreme Court decided it, and I believe Virginia's acceptance of that ruling was a condition of being readmitted to the Union. So that's a different scenario.
I was, as you suggest, just reading the plain language of the Constitution. Either way, I still think it's moot. Maryland won't let those counties go.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 25, 2021, 07:33:18 AM
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. Virginia and West Virginia did have a dispute over the easternmost two counties in what is now the West Virginia eastern panhandle, but the Supreme Court decided it, and I believe Virginia's acceptance of that ruling was a condition of being readmitted to the Union. So that's a different scenario.
I was, as you suggest, just reading the plain language of the Constitution. Either way, I still think it's moot. Maryland won't let those counties go.
Speaking only in terms of road maintenance, Maryland ought to be happy to jettison those counties. Think how much they'd save on snow removal and on maintenance of the Cumberland viaduct.
Funny how you never hear this kind of semi-serious stupidity in the other direction with a place like St. Louis threatening to break off and join Illinois or El Paso County, Texas, threatening to join New Mexico. Very telling.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 25, 2021, 02:36:08 PM
Funny how you never hear this kind of semi-serious stupidity in the other direction with a place like St. Louis threatening to break off and join Illinois or El Paso County, Texas, threatening to join New Mexico. Very telling.
I recall Killington wanted to secede from Vermont and join New Hampshire. Vermont said no way; New Hampshire's reaction was, "We'd love to have them."
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 25, 2021, 07:33:18 AM
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 25, 2021, 02:36:08 PM
Funny how you never hear this kind of semi-serious stupidity in the other direction with a place like St. Louis threatening to break off and join Illinois or El Paso County, Texas, threatening to join New Mexico. Very telling.
What makes you call it stupidity?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 25, 2021, 03:58:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 25, 2021, 07:33:18 AM
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.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 25, 2021, 03:58:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 25, 2021, 07:33:18 AM
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.
That has happened several times. The northern boundary of the Indiana territory was a line that went through the southernmost point of Lake Michigan, but upon statehood that boundary got moved north 10 miles so the state could have more of a lakeshore than a singular point.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 25, 2021, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 25, 2021, 03:58:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 25, 2021, 07:33:18 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 25, 2021, 09:28:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 25, 2021, 05:37:03 PM
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 23, 2021, 07:25:45 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/us/politics/maryland-counties-west-virginia-request.html (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.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 25, 2021, 03:58:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 25, 2021, 07:33:18 AM
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).
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 25, 2021, 10:00:23 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 25, 2021, 05:37:03 PM
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.
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?
Because it's stupid.
The ravings of zealots and lunatics who should be ignored and not given attention.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2021, 03:25:12 PM
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?
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 26, 2021, 03:43:59 PMIf 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.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 26, 2021, 03:43:59 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2021, 03:25:12 PM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2021, 01:56:48 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 26, 2021, 03:43:59 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2021, 03:25:12 PM
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
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 27, 2021, 02:39:28 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2021, 03:30:43 PM
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.
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 27, 2021, 02:01:53 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2021, 01:56:48 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 26, 2021, 03:43:59 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2021, 03:25:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 27, 2021, 03:31:13 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2021, 03:30:43 PM
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.