If this is taken to the supreme court and found legal, demonrats will just be left with cities. They'll be surrounded.

This would be an extremely interesting case before the SCOTUS indeed!!! Currently there is a movement out here on the west coast with Idaho working the same angle with Oregon and Washington counties (all Red) to align and make Idaho their state. Initiatives have been sent out to the counties targeted, no results released yet.

This is MY understanding, and I'm wrong then someone please correct me. Any state that wants to split off and join another state but not form a new state falls under states rights matters.

Basically, it's between the two state governments. They need to approve it and the feds have no right to interfere.

Now from MY understanding, the reason this has basically never happened, is because the blue states (the ones that are ALWAYS having the counties leave), refuse 100% of the time because it would lower their population and thus lower their number of representatives in the house. The red states almost always agree both for the opposite reason and because it would make them SIGNIFICANTLY redder by admitting a bunch of deep red counties to their state.

The SOLE exception to this, IS West Virginia and Virginia. Which is what makes this one so interesting. Because of the civil war, there's an open invitation that scotus has found to be still vaild even in modern day, for ANY county in Virginia to hold a special election and vote to secede to West Virginia at ANY time. Virginia has no right to interfere or prevent those counties from joining if they so please and approval is needed ONLY by West Virginia because of the special circumstances surrounding the two states.

So for the first time since we stopped splitting up territories into states and adding new counties to states from territories, we might have a map change since it its VERY possible half of Virginia will join West Virginia. The Maryland part is probably dead on arrival though, but the Virginia parts are incredibly likely.

They've already threatened it once when the governor before youngkin tried to force an assault weapons ban, and I'd imagine they'll do it again this time, but may actually go through with it rather than live under democrat tyranny.

Yes, there have been instances in U.S. history where parts of a state were transferred to another state, though such events are rare and typically involve small areas, often due to boundary disputes, geographic corrections, or agreements between states. Here are a few notable examples:

1. The Kentucky Bend (1812):

   • A small portion of land, known as the Kentucky Bend or New Madrid Bend, was created due to a surveying error and the shifting course of the Mississippi River. This area, geographically isolated from the rest of Kentucky, was effectively surrounded by Tennessee and Missouri. While not a formal transfer, the resolution of boundary disputes in the early 19th century led to Kentucky retaining this enclave, but it highlighted how river changes could complicate state boundaries.

2. The Virginia-West Virginia Split (1863):

   • While not exactly a "shift" of a part of a state to another, the creation of West Virginia during the Civil War is a significant example of territorial realignment. Western counties of Virginia, which opposed secession, broke away to form a new state, West Virginia, admitted to the Union in 1863. This was a major reconfiguration driven by political and ideological differences.

3. The Rio Rico Transfer (1977):

   • A unique case occurred with Rio Rico, a small area in Texas along the Rio Grande. Due to a 1906 treaty with Mexico and a shift in the river’s course, this land was inadvertently placed south of the river, leading to a belief it was part of Mexico. In 1977, after negotiations, the U.S. and Mexico formalized the transfer, and Rio Rico was officially recognized as part of Texas, though some residents were granted Mexican citizenship. This was less a state-to-state transfer and more a clarification of international and state boundaries.

4. The New Hampshire-Vermont Boundary (1933):

   • A dispute between New Hampshire and Vermont over their border along the Connecticut River was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1933. The decision clarified the boundary, effectively transferring small parcels of land between the two states to align with the river’s thalweg (deepest channel). This adjustment was minor but did involve small areas shifting jurisdiction.

5. Missouri-Iowa "Honey War" (1839):

   • A border dispute between Missouri and Iowa, known as the Honey War, arose over a 9.5-mile-wide strip of land due to ambiguous surveying. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the matter in 1849, confirming the boundary and effectively assigning the disputed area to Iowa. This resolved competing claims but involved a small territorial adjustment.

These cases are generally driven by:

• Geographic changes, like rivers shifting course, which often necessitated boundary adjustments.
• Surveying errors, where imprecise measurements led to disputes settled by courts or agreements.
• Political or legal agreements, where states or the federal government resolved disputes through negotiation or court rulings.

Such transfers are uncommon today due to well-defined state boundaries and modern surveying technology. However, they have occurred historically, often involving small areas and resolved through legal or diplomatic means. If you’re referring to a specific recent event or proposal (e.g., a modern secession movement or boundary change), please provide more details, and I can check for real-time information or analyze further!