Plan to split California into 6 states advances

[DrScholl]

Jefferson and Central California would end up being dependent on the federal government, as Jefferson would likely start out with too low of a revenue to be a state and Central California has water issues, plus poverty in many areas. That's one of the problems with secession, the new entities can't support themselves efficiently and independently. In Arizona, the state changed the law after La Paz County split from Mohave County, and had to initially rely on the state for money to function.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So if it gets on the ballot, would it need a simple majority to pass or would all six "states" need to have a majority in favour?

Statewide propositions in California only need a simple majority of those who vote on that specific proposition.

[ElectionAtlas]

I wrote a small results scenario on this here. 

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Those borders make for one f[Inks]-ugly map, aesthetically speaking.

[Adam Griffin]

As someone who isn't from CA and definitely doesn't understand all of the regional nuances and such, I still thought I'd try to make a better map than the one presented initially. I went for 4 states instead of 6, and made the selection without trying to guess which party would be the majority in which (though I secretly had hoped Republicans would still be marginalized). Particularly in the northern state, I wanted there to be at least one major city (hence the inclusion of Sacramento), but this was what I got:

[Antonio the Sixth]

FTR, that was my idea for a California split:



The yellow counties go to Nevada (though I'm not that sure anymore regarding the northeastern tip, maybe they'd fit better in the blue State).

[muon2]

The problem with any split attempt that goes to referendum is dealing with the Jefferson area in the far north. It's such a small population compared to the rest of the state, yet it has recently been the area that has made the most noise about separation. The southern splits seem reasonable in terms of population and demographics, and mirrors ideas that also show up on a five-way split of CA for a hypothetical apportionment of 100 Congressional seats. A Bay Area/Silicon Valley and Central Valley split also shows up in that plan. However, to satisfy Jefferson as an R-leaning area apart from the rest of the state and keep the San Joaquin valley R-leaning as well requires that Sacramento be attached to some part of the Bay Area. In this case it results in the mess they call North CA.

[beaver2.0]

That would be the ugliest map in the world.

[King]

Why are we revisiting this?

[MaxQue]

Why are we revisiting this?

Because it will probably be on the ballot in 2016, sadly.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why are we revisiting this?

Because it will probably be on the ballot in 2016, sadly.

Will "Yes" break 10% of the vote is what I want to know.

[traininthedistance]

I wouldn't mind a clean, minimalist split of California North/South along that nice straight horizontal line north of Kern.  Probably not absolutely perfect from a CoI perspective (Kern, Inyo, and Mono are probably in the "wrong" state), but better than this mess.  And, besides, if you're gonna rejigger state lines to be perfect representations of organic communities rather than pretty boundaries than there's so many other places that need it more.

[Sbane]

The only logical split of California would be along the line north of Kern County. Maybe leave Kern county with Northern California but that is it. Anything else is complete nonsense. I hope this gets destroyed at the ballot box.

[Хahar 🤔]

I wouldn't mind a clean, minimalist split of California North/South along that nice straight horizontal line north of Kern.  Probably not absolutely perfect from a CoI perspective (Kern, Inyo, and Mono are probably in the "wrong" state), but better than this mess.  And, besides, if you're gonna rejigger state lines to be perfect representations of organic communities rather than pretty boundaries than there's so many other places that need it more.

I've always been a proponent of the straight-line split. Kern County would definitely belong with the South; it's clearly oriented with Southern California in general and Los Angeles in particular. Inyo and Mono, being on the other side of the mountains, are more easily accessible from Southern California than Northern California, but that can be
sacrificed for the sake of reasonable boundaries.

Really, if you're going to split California, there are only two ways to do it:

1) A simple north-south split
2) A simple north-south split combined with a split of the north between the coast and inland

More than three states makes no sense whatsoever.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why are we revisiting this?

Because it will probably be on the ballot in 2016, sadly.

Will "Yes" break 10% of the vote is what I want to know.

Almost certainly, but of course it will fail.

[politicallefty]

That map doesn't make any sense at all. The logical two-state split is the straight line above Kern County. If you're going to divide the state that many times, the entire Bay Area should be kept together. I also don't see the logic in keeping Sacramento in a different state from Stockton and Modesto. I could see a serious proposal dividing the state at most three or four ways, but even those are a stretch.

^I stand by my post from a few months ago.

Even if this were to somehow pass (and I sincerely hope it gets destroyed), it wouldn't just require passage through Congress. Article IV of the Constitution would require consent of the California Legislature, as it involves creating new states from a current state. I don't see either as even remotely likely to happen.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That map doesn't make any sense at all. The logical two-state split is the straight line above Kern County. If you're going to divide the state that many times, the entire Bay Area should be kept together. I also don't see the logic in keeping Sacramento in a different state from Stockton and Modesto. I could see a serious proposal dividing the state at most three or four ways, but even those are a stretch.

^I stand by my post from a few months ago.

Even if this were to somehow pass (and I sincerely hope it gets destroyed), it wouldn't just require passage through Congress. Article IV of the Constitution would require consent of the California Legislature, as it involves creating new states from a current state. I don't see either as even remotely likely to happen.

IIRC, it's generally accepted that popular referendums meet the legislature requirement in various US constitutional provisions, provided that they are normally part of the legislative process.  The requirement that legislatures approve things was intended to prevent state executives from acting unilaterally, not to prevent the application of popular sovereignty.  That said, I too am dubious that Congress would approve this six-way split.  While it doesn't affect the balance in the House or Senate, it definitely tilts the electoral college towards the GOP.  Also Jefferson is rather small population-wise.

[Miles]

The Upshot looked at this. Republicans would benefit in the short term, but down the road, they'd be playing with fire.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

You guys don't actually think this will happen, will you?

[King]

Republicans would benefit in the short term, but down the road, they'd be playing with fire.

That describes pretty much every GOP strategy right now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Endorsed!

Leftifornia is the best Fornia, obviously.

[King of Kensington]

6 seems ridiculous - why not just spit into Northern and Southern (not that would fly either).

Anyone how Northern and Southern differed in presidential voting?

[Хahar 🤔]

6 seems ridiculous - why not just spit into Northern and Southern (not that would fly either).

Anyone how Northern and Southern differed in presidential voting?

Southern California is much more Republican than Northern California. A state just composed of the ten southern counties would have come close to voting for Bush in 2004; Kerry won 51.50% of the vote in those counties, while Bush won 47.22%.