Plan to split California into 6 states advances

[muon2]

These are spectacularly poor boundaries, of course; "North California" stands out in particular as not making any sense.

I agree particularly with the thought that "North California" is a spectacularly poor construct. Even merging it with Jefferson only makes marginal sense. The problem for me is that the North Bay has been lopped off its natural region. Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano seem more part of the Bay area rather than merged with Sacto. The Census Bureau agrees from their view of MSAs and CSAs.

[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.

[muon2]

Are these awful names set it stone? Surely they can do better than just a directional California name...

Not that I'd vote for this anyway, but the names would be enough for me to vote No if I otherwise liked it.

I tend to agree, but I suspect there are electoral considerations at work. Picking a name other than a bland direction is more likely to lose votes than to gain them.

[muon2]

Are these awful names set it stone? Surely they can do better than just a directional California name...

Not that I'd vote for this anyway, but the names would be enough for me to vote No if I otherwise liked it.

I tend to agree, but I suspect there are electoral considerations at work. Picking a name other than a bland direction is more likely to lose votes than to gain them.

Silicon Valley isn't a direction, and I think Monterey, San Francisco, and Antioch will agree that they're not silicon valley.

None of the 3 UCs in "Silicon Valley" (Berkeley, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz) are actually in silicon valley. Silicon Valley generally means Santa Clara county, Fremont, Palo Alto, and Redwood City.

Good point, but in SF (and the other locales you mention) will the choice of Silicon Valley as a name move votes more one way or the other?

[muon2]

Hell no!  I need my in-state tuition!

Yeah, hows that going to work.  Maybe there will be an extra-state agency, but most likely not.

Many states have reciprocal arrangements for university tuition. Sometimes there are unilateral discounts. There's no reason that a split CA wouldn't come to some arrangement.

[muon2]

So more than a third of their signatures were fake? LOL

More likely they were a combination of unregistered and mis-registered voters. There was a petition drive earlier this year to put an amendment for independent redistricting on the IL ballot. Over 500K signatures were submitted, and 300K were needed. A random check of 5% of the signatures showed that only 45% were valid, which meant that the petition would end up short if a full count was done. The group later withdrew from the legal fight to put it on the ballot.

A breakdown of the invalid signatures looked like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If CA has rules about signatures like IL, it's not surprising that a third were invalid. There's a reason that experts recommend collecting two to three times the number of signatures required. A lot of people don't know if they are registered to vote and if they are what address is their voting address, especially for those who have moved since the last time they voted.