Bills can
make East Side more than a state of mind Senators introduce legislation splitting Eastern Washington from West Richard Roesler - Staff writer
OLYMPIA, WA - Feb. 1, 2001- Saying people in Eastern Washington
have less and less in common with their raincoated West Side cousins, two
Spokane-area senators are trying to revive an idea that goes back more
than a century.
Eastern and Western Washington, they say, should be different states.
"Why do we have to keep living with these mistakes?" said
Sen. Bob Morton, R-Orient. "It's time to correct them. Our founding
fathers looked at strictly a geographical deal that now has changed
culturally."
Eastern Washington, he said, is increasingly overshadowed by the West
Side hordes. There are more people in King County alone than east of the
Cascades. At the statehouse, western lawmakers outnumber easterners by
more than three-to-one. The easterners are losing their grip on their own
destiny, Morton said.
"Our property rights, our water rights, and on and on," he
said. "We're saying `Whoa, we don't want to create a revolution, but
we certainly do want our rights.' We want our culture, customs and
lifestyle preserved."
So Morton had a bill drawn up -- Senate Concurrent Resolution 8409 --
that would form a joint committee with Oregon. The committee would study
the merits of splitting Washington and Oregon down the middle and forming
two new states along north-south lines.
In other words, Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, Salem and Eugene would be in
the vastly more populous western state. The inland state -- which would
have far fewer people but a lot of sprawling land, crops and open sky --
would include Spokane, Yakima, Walla Walla, Pendleton, Ontario, Bend and
Klamath Falls.
Morton said two Eastern Oregon lawmakers are working on a similar
proposal.
Sen. Bob McCaslin, R-Spokane Valley, has a slightly different plan. His
bill, Senate Joint Memorial 8002, asks Congress to make Eastern Washington
a 51st state. He concedes people shouldn't make plans to get rid of their
50-star flags just yet.
The bill is almost an exact duplicate of one introduced in 1991 by
Pullman Sen. Pat Patterson. Patterson later said it was a joke, prompting
West Side lawmakers to sponsor their own secession bill, which would have
allowed the split provided that Ritzville was the capital and that the
Tri-Cities be renamed "Fondaville, among other conditions."
McCaslin says his bill is no joke.
David Nice, a political science professor at Washington State
University, warned East Siders should be careful what they wish for.
"It wouldn't be a terribly strong state financially," he
said. "We'd be even worse off than we are now."
In 1984, The Spokesman-Review held a contest, asking readers to suggest
names for a fictitious 51st state incorporating Eastern Washington, North
Idaho and Western Montana. The most popular name was Columbia, but with
other suggestions including Silverado, Independence, Glacier, Sacajawea
and Trinity. Several readers tried variations on combining the state
names, including one unfortunate entry, Idawana, that sounded more like a
whine than a state.
Complaints about Puget Sound dominance date to at least the 1880s, said
University of Washington professor John Findlay. But once boundaries are
set, political and cultural inertia make it virtually impossible to change
them.
Interestingly, Findlay said, many of the things that Eastern Washington
communities take pride in -- lower crime, less traffic, lower taxes and
real estate prices -- are familiar refrains in Puget Sound.
"The same complaints that people from Spokane have about Seattle,
Seattleites have about Californians," Findlay said.
Taken too far, it can become bigotry, he said. But it's common, he
said, for groups to define themselves by who they are not.
"Its a form of self-definition. It helps crystallize those
differences," Findlay said. "They know who they are because
they're not us." In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml] |