The US constitution requires that, for this to happen, Congress, the Oregon legislature, and the Idaho legislature must all agree. There's no provision that it is a matter that local country residents get to decide.
But for the sake of argument, say they somehow can. What then? Would they actually go through with it?
I suppose it goes to their own personal careers. Would they have a better chance of personal success in the new Idaho legislatures or in the current Oregon one?
Seeing that the population of Oregon is 4.2M and the new Idaho would be relatively unchanged at 1.7M (these counties combine to 0.06M people), I'd suppose they would want to stay with Oregon as the prestige and career flexibility would be greater in a more populous and richer state. Whatever the new districts of new Idaho would be, these new-comers would still be a small fraction of the legislature.
The only way I can see that they would have better careers in new Idaho would be in national politics. And then they have to fight amongst each other and the old Idaho politicians, all of whom would be jealous at the attention these new-comers would have. Unless one of them is especially gifted/lucky, I'm not seeing that as a high likelihood.
I don't think this really tracks. Being a minority state legislator sucks; you're basically completely ignored. I think most politicians would much rather be in the majority party in a smaller state than a minority in a larger state.
Wouldn't Idaho be capable of regulating that stuff?
Yes, Western/urban/blue Oregon is against this. I don't think there's a simple self-interest-based reason like "we would lose X if they left," but it is considered an unserious idea, would involve large-but-not-well-understood costs, and there's no reason to do it.
But I would guess a more common opinion is opposed, and I think it's more that it's not taken very seriously due to the lack precedent and the political impossibility than that it's fiercely opposed.
Redrawing state boundaries is a much bigger deal.
But srswtf123, seriously, wtf? You tell me how many offices you were asked to fill in the last ballot you filled out and how many completely asinine laws you were asked to vote yes or no on. Constitutional amendments are two points if you got any of those on your ballot. In my neck of the woods, the locals love sticking complete crap in our constitution to keep it outside the reach of State courts.
Dumping a bunch of people sucking down more money than they pay seems like a win for Oregon.
Idaho, on the other hand, might object. That would be comedy gold.
"We secede." "Congratulations! Good luck finding somebody who wants you, though."
The more worrisome effect is on the electoral college and the senate, but I think tying this to DC statehood would get rid of that.
The [Republican] Idaho legislature would get to gerrymand the districts instead of the [Democratic] Oregon legislature.
Do you mean the House? I think the Senate would still have 2 senators per state, and state-level electoral results are unlikely to change if an alienated minority from one state secedes, in favor of joining a more (politically) similar state.
For example if upstate NY joined Pennsylvania, then the D senator from PA would very likely lose. Or if (Republican-leaning) inland California joined Nevada, then Nevada would probably tip red. Or maybe (heavily blue) Jacksonville and Gainesville get fed up with DeSantis, and leave Florida for Georgia, cementing GA as a solid blue state.
While your question is still an interesting thought experiment, it is worth noting that OP was referring to counties moving between two existing states, not counties seceding a former a _new_ state, which would certainly have different ramifications.
And are counties only allowed to do it if they are contiguous with their desired state?