Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot

[EricMaundry]

Source: CNN

An initiative that would divide California into three separate states qualified Tuesday to appear on the ballot in November's general election.

Californians will vote whether to separate into three states: California, Northern California and Southern California -- subject to approval by US Congress.

The proposal by venture capitalist, Tim Draper to break up California in a campaign called "Cal 3," received more than 402,468 valid signatures -- surpassing the amount required by state law.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla will certify the initiative as qualified for the November 6th ballot on June 28.


Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/us/california-three-states-initiative-ballot/index.html

[wryter2000]

1. Hmmmm

An attempt for Republicans to win some of our electoral college votes by splitting off Southern California?

[rgbecker]

28. Great chance to pick up 4 Democratic Senators.

I'm for it.

[wasupaloopa]

32. The State won't always be blue

[Hekate]

33. Do you live here?

[treestar]

39. One of them might be quite red

The middle one - looking at the map, maybe not. The red parts still contain big blue cities.

[RandySF]

76. Not all of CA is blue.

[itsrobert]

2. GOP is throwing everything out there to get base to show

Including repealing a gas tax.

[calimary]

47. They're tired of Democratic domination. But they can't win on the issues.

Certainly not THEIR issues - IN California (thank goodness!). The only way that bunch can win is if they cheat. And this is a new and rather creative way to cheat, as far as I'm concerned. Can't carry the state? Then fuck up the state as we currently know it. Cut it up in such strategic ways that the whole damn state is gerrymandered to the advantage of the bad guys. Well, I guess that's one way to figure it. Amazing - the lengths to which they'll go - for the sake of screwing California and gaining an advantage. And you HAVE TO ask - gaining an advantage to do WHAT? To further cut taxes on the rich, favor the big corporations against the little guy, and screw the poor, the sick, the homeless, the refugees, the children - all those folks who would fit into the category of "the Least of These" from Matthew 25: 35-45.

And that's another thing they do that just leaves me boiling: pound the podiums about how much more faith-based they are, holier-than-thou they are, more "godly" they are, while shitting on the very guidelines laid down by the Son of God Himself (in Matthew 25:35-45).

[beaglelover]

84. Prop 8 passed the same year Obama was elected. Don't count on CA always voting the correct way.

[GoneOffShore]

3. Yet another reason that I wish to leave the US.

The number of rich guys who have bad ideas is endless.

[jayschool2013]

4. Just let me know

Just let me know which of three will still have legal weed so I can retire there.

[Fullduplexxx]

17. It's why we need to go back to pre Reagan taxes

[Bleacher Creature]

5. If Russia wants to get the most bang for its buck, this is it.

I assume Californians are smarter than this, but true legitimately frightens me.

[Zoonart]

10. Yep.... divide by 3...

the world's 6th largest economy, the state of California. What they are really after is a Calexit.

[Hekate]

34. Bingo

[Mr. Sparkle]

6. This is the GOPs only way back into power in California.

They will do anything for power and money.

[Wounded Bear]

9. Perhaps they should try to do what the majority of people want...

I know that is a radical idea, but hey?

[Dopers_Greed]

7. So they're trying to gerrymander the electoral college?

[Wounded Bear]

11. Essentially yes...

If you look at the proposed map, it creates 2 red states out of thin air by hiving the reddest areas of the state from the dominant blue area.

This should die this November. If not, I don't see the state or national legislature pushing it through.

But we do need the blue wave this year, even in blue states.

[Zambero]

24. Only one of them would be "red"

And light red at that. The other two would go from solid blue to deep intractable blue.

[rgbecker]

29. I like the chance to get some more Democratic Senators in Congress.

I'd like to see the computer analysis on how it would break out.

[Hekate]

35. Look at who is backing it. There is your answer. It would be catastrophic in every respect. nt

[Doitnow]

61. My first thought was---Who is backing this. If it's coming from Rethugs, it's

a no-brainer. All they can think of is rotten.

[Hekate]

63. Add to that: Calexit had Russian backers, just as Brexit did, and for the same reason.

Divide and conquer.

[calimary]

49. Yep. Gerrymandering is what they do best.

In my opinion we should be getting rid of BOTH gerrymandering AND the Electoral College. Since when does the candidate who got almost THREE MILLION MORE VOTES lose to the candidate who got almost three million FEWER votes?

[Doreen]

83. My first thought also.

[keithbvadu2]

8. It worked so well for the Roman Empire

Sarcasm thingie goes here.

[SunSeeker]

12. It would be a GOP gerrymandering of CA. Fuck that shit.

NO.

[TygrBright]

13. The population of California is represented by two (2) Senators.

So is the population of Wyoming.

If there are three states rather than one, that population will be represented by six (6) Senators.

Doubtless at least one of them would be a Republican.

But the net Democratic gain in a U.S. Senate of 106 members could be substantial.

If we could also get Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, the U.S. Senate could begin cleaning up the judicial system.

It's an interesting scenario.

speculatively,
Bright

[Hav]

15. That depends how the state is split up

Others mentioned that two out of the three parts would be rather red. Either way, it would make sure that a part of the electoral college votes would go to the Repubs.

[treestar]

41. One

California would include LA county and coastal areas
North Cal. would include San Francisco and the Bay Area
South California would be red

[0rganism]

18. the proposed state lines would not result in a net Democratic gain

frankly, we'd be lucky to break even with a 3-3 split. 4-2 R is more likely, and where we used to have a +2 advantage we'd have -2 disadvantage, or +0 at best.
"an interesting scenario", indeed, but mostly for Republicans.

[calimary]

50. That's the whole idea. RIGHT THERE.

[0rganism]

52. any word on how this self-inflicted disaster is polling?

i'd like to believe it would lose handily, but my son (who tends to be right about how Americans vote) thinks it will pass
if so the new boundaries would have to go through the state legislature and congress, so it would probably stall out before it does permanent damage, but i'm nervous nonetheless.

[Sophia4]

37. I'm in California. I like the size of my state even though both senators are from

Northern California.

I will probably vote against that measure. Instead, we need to get rid of the electoral college.

[Fresh_Start]

14. Keep asking California voters...which of the California states

will have control over their water supplies?
I think the new north california has sufficient water for its own citizens.

But LA and SoCal do not.

That discussion should be enough to cause initiative to fail.

[Wwcd]

80. Here's a good read on the water issue & others. From April 2018

Buyer beware..all I have to say!

Think this was when Draper was pushing the idea back then.
There's a certain RW agenda going on also.

Right after trump was selected, there was an article that talked about Repubs now going into CA to divide it up into 3 states.
I believe it was with Bannon or Lewandowski or some Brexit political connection.

I cannot find anything on google anymore, & don't even have the names to connect it to.
There was some fishy stuff going on back then under the wire tho.
I don't know how Draper the Million/Billionaire came into the mix but there definately was an agenda back then.

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2018/04/university-southern-california-not-state-southern-california-issues-cal-3-state-proposal/

The University of Southern California is not in the State of Southern California and Other Issues With the “Cal 3 State” Proposal

Tiny print, Good Read...

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

16. Now the Repugs want to gerrymander an entire state!

This is what they are proposing:



Notice that the area labeled "California" includes Marin County, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Los Angeles -- all bastions of Democratic voters.

North and South California are both areas of predominantly conservative, i.e., Republican, voters.

Here is the effect of this division: (1) It concentrates the largest portion of the population -- mostly Democrats -- in a small area. The other two "states" will have much lower populations. (2) Under the U.S. Constitution, each state will be entitled to two senators. The effect will be to add four more Republican senators to the Congress. (3) Given the experience with other red states, we'll be creating one "maker" state (California) and two "taker" states (North and South California).

By putting this proposition on the ballot during a midterm, which has a low turnout of mostly conservative voters, there's a possibility it might get passed. Then it's off to the courts, which Trump and Turtle have been packing as quickly as possible with Federalist Society members.

WCGW?

[deurbano]

20. Shameless! That's now my go-to word for all these deplorable Republicans and so-called

"Independents"... Attempting to divide a very liberal state in such a way as to make 2 conservative states and 1 liberal state?! Shameless.

[pwb]

22. Congress would need a super majority to make it happen?

I may be wrong but two thirds I think would be needed .

[PoliticAverse]

53. No super majority needed just "the consent of Congress"...

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

[pwb]

58. Article 4 section 3 says no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of

any other state nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states or parts of states without the consent of the states legislature as well as congress. So the way I read it is that to amend article 4 section 3 of the constitution would require two thirds of congress as stated in article 5. My interpretation anyway, I still may be wrong.
The three states are being formed within the jurisdiction of California so the constitution would need to be amended? Thus Two thirds of congress would be needed?

[PoliticAverse]

64. No, because the provision in article 4 section 3 "or parts of states" would include the breakup...

of California into 3 states (new state(s) being formed from part of a currently existing state) and so would just need "the consent of the states (California) legislature as well as congress."

Note that Maine became a state after it was part of the state of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts legislature and Congress gave their approval for the creation of Maine as a new state. So basically Massachusetts broke up into the state of Maine and the state of Massachusetts.

[pwb]

67. I read that as parts of other states not parts of California. So no.

I still think it would take a constitutional amendment . Guess that why the constitution can be interpreted differently .

[PoliticAverse]

68. Well, I'd point out again that Massachusetts effectively broke up into 2 states...

Maine and Massachusetts so under the same rule I don't see why California couldn't break up into 3.

[pwb]

70. I guess it's all moot anyway. California's legislature would never approve it.

And it is solid democratic . Good talk?

[PoliticAverse]

71. Yes, it seems extremely unlikely that the California legislature would approve any split. n/t

[zentrum]

23. Hmmm. I see your point.

But I think we could get 3 Dem Senators, at least. Only certain areas are really red. The rest, if not blue, are purple. I think.

[wryter2000]

25. That map is truly effed

I can't see us going for this. The population centers are liberal, and we'd vote it down.

[spotthebird]

81. They will game it, and win

It is a disaster for everyone but Putin

[sdfernando]

36. Actually the area labeled NorCal has the entire SF Bay area in this map

That would include all of Marin County, San Francisco, and Silicon Valley....and just to piss of the rethuglicans, it would also contain all of Oakland and Berkeley.

[treestar]

42. How obvious

So hopefully the blue voters defeat this attempt to weaken them into one state.

[lagomorph777]

43. Excellent analysis; CA (D) candidates should make this a major campaign issue.

i.e. "Hey Dem voters; protect your voting power! Vote NoWay on NoCal/SoCal."

[zentrum]

19. Is this really a bad idea?

Instead of having 2 Senators to represent millions of voters I think we'd have at least 4. Maybe 5 or 6.

Of course, a good Governor like Brown would lose clout.

But California is really underrepresented in the Senate as it stands now. And I think we could flip the Senate to Democratic with those 2 to 5 extras.

[Iggo]

26. Yes. 4 of the 6, in other words all four of the new senators, would be Republican senators.

[SunSeeker]

62. Exactly. nt

[rockfordfile]

27. not a good idea

Sounds like something Russia/GOP would want.

[ripcord]

74. People outside the major population centers have a point

They are often ignored in funding and other areas while the urban areas take their water. This will keep coming up until these problems are addressed, this hasn't got much traction and won't pass but there are underlying problems.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

21. Even without the political considerations of who will

get elected to Congress, the cost of establishing two new state governments and all the necessary agencies and so on, ought to be rather high, I would think.

[jg10003]

30. Map of the Former United States After Trump

[Ghost Dog]

89. This map of yours is great, jg10003!

Here's the link to your previous post on this, and comments: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028319880

I would like to see your Republic of South Florida accept an invitation to confederate with the Republic of Cuba, amongst perhaps others...

Great map. I like maps, all sorts of maps. They can be so vividly explanatory.

As regards this present OP, I guess the question is whether SoCal would more naturally fall in with Hispanica rather than with the rest of Pacifica.

[haele]

31. It will destroy the California economy for everyone in California. There will be no winners.

It would make more economic sense to push a proposition that makes California it's own country than it would to try and break up the state.

1. Rich F-wad "Venture Capitalist" thinks that his little slice of "California Proper" won't feel any affect. He's f'n wrong, because he's a flunky businessman instead of someone who has experience with governance.
The cost of food, water, and energy will skyrocket - further forcing that "innovative workforce" and all the service workers to move out of the newly minted state because the only people who could afford to live in the new state will have a greater burden to assume, both in taxes and consumer costs.

2. "Red state" Libertarian A-holes who elect the Rohrbachers and Nunes types think "Well, we'll have all the water, or all the food, or all the natural resources, so we can take care ourselves. And they'll promptly turn their respective states into Arkansas or Mississippi. Without any good food, because they'll try to kick out all those "MS-13 type foreigners" in the vanity attempt to keep their states White.
And they'll quickly find themselves with a crapload of tax burden and no real infrastructure support because the ownership of most of those resources have turned into corporate farms, and they'll vote themselves all sorts of tax exemptions, again, leaving the majority of the working state residents to carry the fiscal revenue burden of the governance of those states.
Honestly, there's just as much stubborn racism in the 2nd/3rd generation speculator and Okey migrant families as there are in the Southeast. I can easily see Prison Labor being the major source of agricultural labor for the corporate farms and light industry.

They all think California is expensive now? Just wait until they break it up. Just because certain people don't want to share...

So much for the fifth largest economy in the World...

Haele

[Hekate]

45. Excellent analysis, Haele. Thanks. nt

[Anon-C]

59. Assessment is as real as it gets! Nt

[Initech]

75. That's exactly the plan.

Remember that quote from the Dark Knight where Alfred tells Bruce Wayne "some men want to watch the world burn". Those men are in charge right now and they not only want to see the world burned, they want to torch it from the inside and watch it implode.

[Hekate]

38. One look at that "map" & hubby said, "Four Republican Senators and two Democratic Senators"

Plus economic ruin. Minus water for everybody not in Northern California.

It would go to the GOP-controlled Congress, who would be only too happy to destroy the 5th largest economy in the world to make Trump happy.

[lagomorph777]

44. NoCal would sell water to Cal & SoCal in "Unleaded" or "Leaded" varieties.

A slight premium applies to the "Unleaded" variety of course.

[treestar]

40. It would be giving up

being the 10th largest economy in the world, which might be a point of pride.

[Hekate]

46. 5th largest economy in the world

[treestar]

72. Awesome

Rs are so transparent.

[Hekate]

82. They don't care who they hurt or destroy, do they? As with other things, destroying the biggest...

...and richest State on the Union would harm all of the US.

[cbreezen]

48. Extreme Northern California would be ticked...

They are still dreaming of the great State of Jefferson. lol!

Having said that, this won't go anywhere, but I'll sure interested in the demographics of the "yes" voters come November.

[Iggo]

56. Voters would have to approve, Legislature would have to approve.

Probably not on the first one. Definitely not on the second one.

It's all a ploy to get out the no-money-having-republican vote. (GOTNMHRV)

[cbreezen]

66. I did understand that it would require legislative approval...

I was just musing. Personally, I'd have no problem with the state of Jefferson. We progressive areas of Oregon are supporting the southern counties that refuse to raise taxes, etc.

Sounds a lot like what we blue states do for our red states.

[BigmanPigman]

51. There are already two Californias, let's keep it that way.

Alta CA is the part that is in the US. The Baja CA part of the peninsula is in Mexico. It has been this way since the early 1800s and it has been going fine so why ruin a good thing? Oh yeah, this is no longer the UNITED States but is the divided states of America thanks to the GOP since the 1980s. I guess we are no longer the USA but actually what Russia wanted...the DSA.(divided states of america).

[seta1950]

54. WHY?

Why is this guy bent on breaking up California what’s his agenda , I don’t believe the reasons he has stated so far. California is powerful as it is , hands off!

[Hekate]

88. Follow the money, as my accountant friend used to say. I just ask: "Who does it serve?"

Basically the same thing.

Who does it serve to break apart the biggest and wealthiest state? Who bankrolled the Calexit effort a short while ago? (Hint: same ones who bankrolled Brexit.)

The people who get caught up in their resentments and grudges over socioeconomic changes they can't control say a lot of things -- forget it. They are just the means to someone else's end, and they will be badly hurt if they get what they vote for.

Who does it serve. Follow the money.

[The River]

55. Won't Happen

“Consent of the Legislature” Required for State Splits. As noted above, Section 3 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution requires the “Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress” for specified acts to create new states. When West Virginia became a state in 1863, Section 3 generally was interpreted to require the consent of the state legislature and the Congress in order to split Virginia. (President Lincoln and some others recognized a unionist legislature—established in West Virginia after the rest of Virginia joined the Confederacy—as the body then empowered to give the required state legislative consent.) There have been other interpretations of Section 3 over time. Based on the most recent precedent from 1863, it appears most likely that the U.S. Constitution requires a state’s legislature—along with the Congress—to consent before that state is split into two or more new states.

http://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2017-018

The (very Blue) Cal State Legislature would never approve this sh*t.

[PoliticAverse]

69. Yes that's correct. The California legislature and the US Congress would have to vote to allow...

the split.

[Honeycombe8]

57. The Repubs are trying to separate out that den of iniquity, Hollywood?

Let me guess...the northern part is the conservative part? The middle part is Hollywood and related. The lower part has the highest % of Hispanic immigrants?

That way the Repubs get a piece of CA to call their own, and they get another "state" with its own electoral votes to call RED. And they can minimize the southern part as being "full of immigrants"?

Pardon me if I've gotten this wrong. I'm not that familiar w/CA.

[LisaM]

60. I don't even sign citizens initiatives any more.

Even if I agree with it. I'm tired of them. They hamstring government. People don't stop to consider the consequences of conflicting initiatives. Many of them are unworkable. I'm over them.

[orangecrush]

65. Nope.

One more attempt at gerrymandering.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

73. what are they? Nuts?

[RandySF]

77. This being pushed by Republicans

[Anon-C]

78. Has it already been stated that Tim Draper (and f--k him btw) is an investor in Telegram and a...

...Russian stooge?


California is what they are after and what scares them to Hell.

[pangaia]

79. read about this attempt months and months ago.. russians? repubs? others?

divide cal..like divide usa from europe, etc...

[Raine]

85. Won't happen

it's a big fight just for an area to break away and form a new city and it's been impossible to creat a new county from an existing one. Two new states, never going to happen!

[bluestarone]

86. Well i'm pretty sure Californians are too smart for this to happen!!!

How did this get on the ballot?

[kwassa]

87. well, northern Californians often look down on southern Califorians ...

and pretend superiority and no relationship with the vulgar Angelenos.

And, southern Californians don't care.

(longtime former resident).

[The Mouth]

91. Well, if they weren't always trying to steal our water :-)

[vercetti2021]

90. Do it in Texas instead

Split the top and bottom. That way south Texas would be liberal, while north Texas would be conservative.

Better believe I'd get the fuck outta Amarillo if that happened. Dallas or Austin I'd go.