Three Californias?

[bernorange 8346]

Quote

California’s 168-year run as a single entity, hugging the continent’s edge for hundreds of miles and sprawling east across mountains and desert, could come to an end next year — as a controversial plan to split the Golden State into three new jurisdictions qualified Tuesday for the Nov. 6 ballot.

If a majority of voters who cast ballots agree, a long and contentious process would begin for three separate states to take the place of California, with one primarily centered around Los Angeles and the other two divvying up the counties to the north and south. Completion of the radical plan — far from certain, given its many hurdles at judicial, state and federal levels — would make history.

It would be the first division of an existing U.S. state since the creation of West Virginia in 1863.

...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html

It's a bold strategy Cotton.  We'll have to see how that works out for them.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

So, they finally diagnosed the problem ?  Mass statewide Schizophrenia syndrome .

[Texas73 420]

I'd like to east Texas and west Texas to separate from the state of Texas. The mostly rural counties in those areas vote 80-90% Republican and are the reason Texas is not blue. The I35 corridor and Houston are the highly populated area so the number of Congress representatives would be Democrats.

The pitfall is there would be 4 Republican senators and 2 Democrats so maybe not a good idea. Texas will turn blue when my generation, the baby boomers die off. 

[Jive Turkey 12562]

 

[Degenerate Gardner 4081]

Good luck with that.  They'll never agree on who has to take Fresno.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Degenerate Gardner

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

So are we for Gerrymandering or against it? This seems like the ultimate Gerrymander. 

[DanRydell 799]

It would be interesting to have a Court rule on the meaning of Article IV, Section 3 and whether, "without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress" applies only to, "nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states", or also to, "but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state".

Quote

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.

 

[bernorange 8346]

I was intrigued by your point, so searched a bit and found this:

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-iv

Scroll down to the section on the Admissions Clause.

Quote

...

This Clause affords Congress the power to admit new states.  Most of the discussion at the Constitutional Convention focused on the latter, limiting, portion of the Clause—providing that new states can be carved out of or formed from existing states only with the consent of those existing states. Some Convention delegates objected to this provision on the ground that, because several of the existing large states laid claims to vast swathes of western territories and other lands, those states would never consent to form new states in those territories, and thus the large states would only become larger and more powerful over time. But the prevailing sentiment at the Convention was that a political society cannot be split apart against its will. 

While the consent requirement garnered the most discussion at the Framing, it has come into play only a handful of times in American history, such as when Massachusetts consented to the formation of Maine. Most intriguingly, Virginia was treated as consenting to the formation of West Virginia at the outset of the Civil War, even though it was actually a breakaway, pro-Union province of Virginia that declared itself to be the lawful government of Virginia and then purported to give “Virginia’s” consent to the creation of the new state of West Virginia—which was to occupy that same breakaway corner of Virginia.

...

 

[Orca of Peace 109]

so another win for Trump?

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, Orca of Peace said:

so another win for Trump?

You serious, Clark?

4 more Senators from California would not be a win for Trump.

[DanRydell 799]

Yeah, at least textually, I think the "nor" implies that it relates back to the prior clause as well.

Texas already has consent to create four new states within its broders from the Joint Resolution admitting Texas in 1845, so it could subdivide at will unless and until that consent is withdrawn.

Edited June 13, 2018 by DanRydell

[David Dennison 18606]

Yay! More Democrats!

[DixonHur 11074]

Senate this, Representative that...the real question is will weed still be legal!

[Orca of Peace 109]

25 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You serious, Clark?

4 more Senators from California would not be a win for Trump.

they could all be Republicans since CA is Red in a lot of places. 

[David Dennison 18606]

Just now, Orca of Peace said:

they could all be Republicans since CA is Red in a lot of places. 

And that's why the California legislature will never sign off even if this referendum passes.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

34 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

Yeah, at least textually, I think the "nor" implies that it relates back to the prior clause as well.

Texas already has consent to create four new states within its broders from the Joint Resolution admitting Texas in 1845, so it could subdivide at will unless and until that consent is withdrawn.

very questionable if the Texas annexation resolution allows it to trump the Constitution which does not allow a state to decide this on their own.    I suppose Texas could argue that if not allowed to split that Texas has the right to become independent but that is a whole other level of craziness.

 

 

[Ghost of LL 15348]

35 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

Yeah, at least textually, I think the "nor" implies that it relates back to the prior clause as well.

Texas already has consent to create four new states within its broders from the Joint Resolution admitting Texas in 1845, so it could subdivide at will unless and until that consent is withdrawn.

The use of "nor" does indicate a relation back to the previous independent clause.  But that semi-colon is problematic.  If read the other way, then West Virginia shouldn't be a state.

But I tend to think your interpretation is correct; West Virginia is a state; Texas has pre-authorization from Congress to subdivide; California would need congressional approval to subdivide.

[NaTeWHO 848]

I think the bigger concern for Democrats is if even 1 out of 3 goes red it would take away a portion of the 55 electoral votes. Any Democratic POTUS candidate would no longer be guaranteed that big chunk of 55.

[David Dennison 18606]

1 minute ago, NaTeWHO said:

I think the bigger concern for Democrats is if even 1 out of 3 goes red it would take away a portion of the 55 electoral votes. Any Democratic POTUS candidate would no longer be guaranteed that big chunk of 55.

Great point and another reason why the California legislature would not approve the plan.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

It ain't happening. Too many hurdles. 

[DanRydell 799]

I do think there’s some wisdom to the idea that states shouldn’t exceed a certain population before being broken up.

But the politics of the Senate and Electoral College make subdivision politically impossible, at least for the timebeing.

[Loco 3752]

I'll take state gerrymandering for $1000

[DanRydell 799]

very questionable if the Texas annexation resolution allows it to trump the Constitution which does not allow a state to decide this on their own.    I suppose Texas could argue that if not allowed to split that Texas has the right to become independent but that is a whole other level of craziness.
 
 

The resolution doesn’t trump the Constitution. The resolution itself is the consent of Congress required by the Constitution.

[Loco 3752]

Just now, DanRydell said:

I do think there’s some wisdom to the idea that states shouldn’t exceed a certain population before being broken up.

But the politics of the Senate and Electoral College make subdivision politically impossible, at least for the timebeing.

not a bad thought, I think there should also be a minimum.  So just like 3 mid west states?   Wy-Ida-dakota, Alaska-tana, New-braska-sas...

[FondrenRoad 4378]

14 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

they could all be Republicans since CA is Red in a lot of places. 

Not based on that map.  Southern California would likely be swing, but the other 2 would be super blue.  LA and SF would dominate the politics of the other 2 even more than they do for the whole of CA.  CA may be red in a lot of places, but the only red place with people is Orange County, and it didn't vote Trump, and isn't overwhelmingly red like Alabama towns.  Bakersfield is red too.  Fresno is split.  And all of those are going to SC along with San Bernardino and San Diego which are blue, but also not overwhelmingly so.  If you moved San Diego to LA's state, SC would be red, but you can't do that with the OC in the way and any possible red state made from CA parts needs the OC.

I think CA and the country may benefit from a split, but 2 way seems more natural.  A TX split would be beneficial in the long run as well.  NY too.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

9 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

I do think there’s some wisdom to the idea that states shouldn’t exceed a certain population before being broken up.

 

It is odd that Rhode Island has the same Senatorial influence as Texas, but I believe that's how the founders wanted it. Not sure they envisioned California with a population of 40 million people though.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

It is odd that Rhode Island has the same Senatorial influence as Texas, but I believe that's how the founders wanted it. Not sure they envisioned California with a population of 40 million people though.

The founders wanted it because it was the only way to get the less populated former colonies to agree to join the US.   

The only way that Congress will allow CA to split into 3 states is to allow a conservative state split similarly.   You won't see Puerto Rico ever become a state unless the Dems control Congress by a large margin.  Assuming PR wants to become a state.

[DanRydell 799]

It is odd that Rhode Island has the same Senatorial influence as Texas, but I believe that's how the founders wanted it. Not sure they envisioned California with a population of 40 million people though.

Yeah, the largest state at founding, Virginia, was only 10-12x larger than the smallest state, Delaware (10x larger in terms of white males, 12x larger by total population).

California is now 67x larger than the smallest state, Wyoming, and is 10x larger than 20 states.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

It is odd that Rhode Island has the same Senatorial influence as Texas, but I believe that's how the founders wanted it. Not sure they envisioned California with a population of 40 million people though.

Why pick on Rhode Island. There are 7 states with fewer people than it.  All of those have the same senatorial influence as Texas.  Right now though, Texas still pretends its more Wyoming than California when it votes and has more of a rural than urban character.

Edited June 13, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[RDCanecutter 26239]

Estupid gringos. There are already three Californias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californias

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Why pick on Rhode Island. There are 7 states with fewer people than it.  All of those have the same senatorial influence as Texas.  Right now though, Texas still pretends its more Wyoming than California when it votes and has more of a rural than urban character.

I grew up in Connecticut. We always pick on Rhode Island.

Because fuck them.

[RDCanecutter 26239]

Was it your steady habit?

[Rip76 4909]

2 hours ago, Texas73 said:

I'd like to east Texas and west Texas to separate from the state of Texas. The mostly rural counties in those areas vote 80-90% Republican and are the reason Texas is not blue. The I35 corridor and Houston are the highly populated area so the number of Congress representatives would be Democrats.

The pitfall is there would be 4 Republican senators and 2 Democrats so maybe not a good idea. Texas will turn blue when my generation, the baby boomers die off. 

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The founders wanted it because it was the only way to get the less populated former colonies to agree to join the US. 

Excellent point. And I assumed they envisioned Westward expansion & this being an ongoing concern with States entering the Union.

[David Dennison 18606]

Just now, Rip76 said:

Keep telling yourself that.

Keep telling yourself that it won't. Texas is the next California.

[Ollie Slatt 289]

There was a push for this 5-6 years ago . . . except then it was for six separate states.  I have always suspected that this was a push from republicans to break up electoral votes and gain some senators.  But ironically, I think the new more republican states would get screwed in this deal.  "South California" would just be a shitty state altogether, and both South California and the new "California" would have major water problems and lose their ability to steal water from Nor Cal.  

From a cultural standpoint, there are major differences between different parts of California.  It is kind of funny that folks in the state of Jefferson, the San Joaquin Valley, and wealthy coastal areas are all in the same state.  You could say the same about Texas, but the differences in California seem much more severe.  

 

 

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, Texas73 said:

I'd like to east Texas and west Texas to separate from the state of Texas. The mostly rural counties in those areas vote 80-90% Republican and are the reason Texas is not blue. The I35 corridor and Houston are the highly populated area so the number of Congress representatives would be Democrats.

The pitfall is there would be 4 Republican senators and 2 Democrats so maybe not a good idea. Texas will turn blue when my generation, the baby boomers die off. 

Nah.  You take all of East Texas and you gift it to Louisiana.  That way aggy can be in the SEC where they want to be.  Give El Paso to NM.  Give the panhandle plus Lubbock to OK.  The rest remains Texas.

[Ollie Slatt 289]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Keep telling yourself that it won't. Texas is the next California.

Its all about urbanization.  Eventually enough people will move to cities / go to college to offset the rural population.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Ollie Slatt said:

There was a push for this 5-6 years ago . . . except then it was for six separate states.  I have always suspected that this was a push from republicans to break up electoral votes and gain some senators.  But ironically, I think the new more republican states would get screwed in this deal.  "South California" would just be a shitty state altogether, and both South California and the new "California" would have major water problems and lose their ability to steal water from Nor Cal.  

From a cultural standpoint, there are major differences between different parts of California.  It is kind of funny that folks in the state of Jefferson, the San Joaquin Valley, and wealthy coastal areas are all in the same state.  You could say the same about Texas, but the differences in California seem much more severe.  

 

 

 

Nah.  The difference between West, East, and South Texas are just as severe.  In the past, you could lump Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio in with one of those 3 regional categories, although all of them were always more like gateways between 2 regions rather than being wholly in a region themselves.  Still, they shared political and cultural characteristics with their regions.  Nowadays, they've opened an additional urban/rural divide much like CA has.

[RDCanecutter 26239]

Y'all better not fuck up my Mos Eisley cantina in Laredo.

[Sbbruin 21697]

This is a cute discussion, but there is a greater likelihood half of California will break off in the Big One and float out to see.  Oh wait...

[RDCanecutter 26239]

16 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

This is a cute discussion, but there is a greater likelihood half of California will break off in the Big One and float out to see.  Oh wait...

What's gonna happen, see, is that California will stay the same, but everything from Maryland and Delaware down through Georgia will become one state, kick around the name "East California", but then settle for "Narnia". Narnia will be a pretty cool state, with good and bad, sure, but whenever its inhabitants talk about it, they will reflexively mention that if it were a country it would be the world's 6th largest economy. (California is 5th, if you didn't know.)

Narnia!

[Aqua Buddha 14489]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

The use of "nor" does indicate a relation back to the previous independent clause.  But that semi-colon is problematic.  If read the other way, then West Virginia shouldn't be a state.

But I tend to think your interpretation is correct; West Virginia is a state; Texas has pre-authorization from Congress to subdivide; California would need congressional approval to subdivide.

Great podcast on Revisionist History about this very thing.

[relapse98 634]

2 hours ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Good luck with that.  They'll never agree on who has to take Fresno.

FresNoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Aqua Buddha 14489]

 

Why would San Diego be a part of "Southern California?"  You take them out and that's the poorest state in the country.  "California" will then be the richest state in the country and it's not close.  Expect big tax cuts now that they've detached the Central Valley.  "Northern California" would still be dominated by the Bay Area.

Don't kid yourselves on the Republican/Democratic breakout.  That's 6 Democratic Senators right there.

[Superhero 8738]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Yay! More Democrats!

LA Democrats are tolerable. At least they're somewhat practical.

SF Democrats are the ones you should be afraid of. Free housing and $20/hr jobs for EVERYONE!!!

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

49 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Y'all better not fuck up my Mos Eisley cantina in Laredo.

Name? Wouldn't happen to be Lalo's Sportsman's Club, would it?

[Texas73 420]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Nah.  You take all of East Texas and you gift it to Louisiana.  That way aggy can be in the SEC where they want to be.  Give El Paso to NM.  Give the panhandle plus Lubbock to OK.  The rest remains Texas.

I'm good with east Texas going to Louisiana and the panhandle to Oklahoma but I support Beto so I want to keep El Paso.

[Aqua Buddha 14489]

3 minutes ago, Superhero said:

LA Democrats are tolerable. At least they're somewhat practical.

SF Democrats are the ones you should be afraid of. Free housing and $20/hr jobs for EVERYONE!!!

 

"We need housing for the poor but not anywhere close to where I live."

[DanRydell 799]

 
Why would San Diego be a part of "Southern California?"  You take them out and that's the poorest state in the country.  "California" will then be the richest state in the country and it's not close.  Expect big tax cuts now that they've detached the Central Valley.  "Northern California" would still be dominated by the Bay Area.
Don't kid yourselves on the Republican/Democratic breakout.  That's 6 Democratic Senators right there.

The goal of the plan was to make each state roughly 13 million people so you’d have to find another 3-4m people to move from California to Southern California if you flipped San Diego.