'CalExit' Secession Petition Gets Approval to Circulate

How long can anger over Trump's election sustain activism?


California Flag
Barbara Munker/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom

Looks like we'll see how mad Californians actually are about Donald Trump becoming president. The secretary of state has cleared the CalExit petition to collect signatures from voters.

As we noted back in November, CalExit is the hashtag for a movement for the Golden State to secede from the union and become its own country. While the movement existed prior to Trump's election, it got a huge burst of publicity in the outrage and protests in left-leaning cities who were not happy about Hillary Clinton's loss.

The CalExit folks now have 180 days to get more than 500,000 signatures for their initiative to get on the ballot in the fall. It's actually a two-parter. The first part would ask voters to repeal the part of the state constitution declaring that California is an "inseparable" part of the United States and a follower of the United States Constitution. If that initiative passes, it would then place another measure on the ballot in 2019. That initiative would be the one to decide whether Californians actually want to secede from the union.

When this first started getting massive media attention, I was pretty sarcastic about the effort, so let me be very "Yes, I'm a libertarian" clear: Californians should have every right to decide whether they want to remain part of the United States. I was previously a supporter of the right of the citizens of the United Kingdom to decide whether they wanted to remain part of the European Union.

Having said that, though, I have seen little to change my mind that the people who are pointing to CalExit as a possibility have little grasp of either the demographics of the state, nor its actual finances. It is oblivious to the fact that the non-coastal parts of California are similar to the non-coastal parts of the rest of the United States (more conservative folks who voted for Trump). It is oblivious to the reality that the state's financial crisis is due to overspending within California and not because they're sending money to D.C. (Gov. Jerry Brown just announced that the state is sliding back into deficit spending again).

It would be fascinating if CalExit passed, and then the citizens within the state said, "Well, why stop there?" and continued seceding to create their own little quilt of Luxembourg-style countries. After all, citizens within the state, particularly those in Northern California, have been trying to secede from California to create their own states. They feel as left out by a state government dominated by coastal progressives who don't care how their favored policies and regulations affect the economies in less-well-off parts of the state.

But let's not get overexcited at the possibilities yet. The Los Angeles Times notes that the committee pushing the initiative hasn't raised any funds and its volunteer numbers have dropped since people were so very angry in November and December. There's also the matter that America (and American voters) would have to agree to let California leave.

If nothing else, secession organizer Marcus Ruiz Evans showed he's at least familiar with what Reason Hit and Run commenters are likely to respond whenever we write anything here about the state of California.

"America already hates California, and America votes on emotions," he said. "I think we'd have the votes today if we held it."

Maybe he's a lurker here.

NEXT: Stage and Screen Adaptations Launch in Lightweight Week of Television

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Scott Shaqattack continues to rule the alt text.

    1. And with this:

      If nothing else, secession organizer Marcus Ruiz Evans showed he’s at least familiar with what Reason Hit and Run commenters are likely to respond whenever we write anything here about the state of California.

      “America already hates California, and America votes on emotions,” he said. “I think we’d have the votes today if we held it.”

      Maybe he’s a lurker here.

      He wins our hearts.

      1. *Swoons

      2. America already hates California, and America hates California because California votes on emotions,” he said. “I think we’d have the votes today if we held it.

        Proggy projection corrected.

        1. Which state votes on pure rationality?

          To paraphrase what someone here once said back when I was a wee lurker, there almost isn’t such a thing as an emotionless decision: people with damage in the parts of their brain that do emotional response have trouble making decisions because they can’t bring themselves to care.

          1. I would change “Americans” to “All People Everywhere.” Otherwise, I agree completely.

      3. I wish he wouldn’t lurk so I could encourage him in real time.

  2. Forever Plzplzplzplzplz.

  3. This will be great. They can print all the Californian Pesos they want to monetize their pension obligations, and we can make them pay in real money for their water.

    1. Proggie pesos.

      1. The Peoples Republic of California wouldn’t use money infidels. You see the people of California (except the nasty ungood conservatives) have evolved to a higher plane of evolution. Everything would be free and state owned. Poverty would be eliminated overnight. Cancer would finally be cured (because the pharmacutical companies wouldn’t be hiding the cure to keep their profits). White privledge would no longer exist (white people would be required to get a reverse Michael Jackson). Everyone would be free to do productive things like write poetry at starbucks instead of being wage slaves.

        1. It’ll be just like Star Trek!

          1. Alien sex?

        2. So I’d have to get de-vitiligo? Like Uncle Ruckus (no relation)?

        3. Cancer would finally be cured (because the pharmacutical companies wouldn’t be hiding the cure to keep their profits).

          And also, all that shit that’s a known carcinogen only in the state of California wouldn’t concern us anymore.

    2. With Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown’s pics on the currency.

  4. Dooooooooooooooo it

  5. The federal government owns 46% of the land in CA. Do they get to keep it?

    1. Wait, I’m remembering something from history class. I think this same issue came up before once when a state seceded from the union, I think like 150 years ago? Does anyone know how they resolved that back then?

      1. A firm handshake and a wish of ‘fare thee well’?

      2. OOOH I saw this in a movie! I feel like they played dodgeball or something.

      3. Go back 205 years to the Hartford Convention.

      4. Yeah, secession can only be solved by invasion. Just like the EU and Britain last year.

      5. There’s not much of an issue other people are willing to kill and die for, so California would just be let go if they really want it.

      6. Do you think we would actually go to war to stop them today? Are you ready to have a draft and take up arms against Californians?

        1. No, but I will donate money for the fence we will need.

        2. No war will take place to keep CA. We will simply cut the umbilical cord and shut the borders off to OR, NV, and AZ.

    2. If you like your land, you can keep it?

    3. Same issue with Quebec. The St. Lawrence Seaway is owned by the Feds. Never mind that the Cree in the North have land claims and want nothing to do with separation and Montreal threatened to secede from an independent Quebec. And, get this, in the event of such action, Quebec says they will ask for the Canadian military to bring order in their favor.

      They haven’t thought things trough. They just say, ‘Oh no, none of that will happen’ and ‘It’s in the interest of the rest of Canada to deal with an independent Quebec.’

      I can just imagine all the sticky considerations with California v. border states and the Feds.

      1. Will iPhones and Teslas suddenly be subject to Trump’s 35% tariff? Ooohhh.

      2. The U.S. will have to build a wall to keep Californians out.

    4. Most of it is in the State of Jefferson. You get to pay for all the federal workers who are bitching about how big the government is.

        1. …or in places that are likely to be counter-revolutionary. Besides, I’d actually like the state to be composed of places that actually have people living in them. Although beautiful, you all can have the deserts.

          You’re welcome.

          1. “counter-revolutionary”
            But if you throw away the kulaks whose property will you confiscate to sustain the ‘revolution?’

          2. I think that’s sort of what Russia said about Alaska.

          3. For a moment I agreed, but then I realized you’re AmSoc with an I, so it’s no longer surprising I agree with AmSoc.

            But yeah, totes willing to take the deserts as long as they leave with the areas that are worse than the wasteland.

    5. Auction it off to private owners beforehand and pocket the cash – then listen to the screams when NeoCA ‘nationalizes’ it all back.

    6. As a state that has mostly voted for powerful central government that would be a very interesting question. I wish it would go through just to see what happens.

  6. Please. So many Corporations would flee and the liberals would flock. It would be absolutely satisfying to watch them crash and burn, then try to come back because “we have no money for our retarded programs”.

    1. Do we get to go to war with them in order to annex the ports of San Diego, Long Beach, and San Fran?

      1. We’ll trade them flint water for them. War averted.

      2. The tradeoff is worth it. We can negotiate some sort of treaty if it becomes important. In the meantime, Oregon will get new ports and we can trade from there.

      3. Set up an agreement with Tiajuana to jointly build and run a deepwater port. NAFTA already has a mechanism in place to get the goods from TJ to the rest of the US – which you’d have to negotiate with NeoCa to get.

        1. I agree that is a good solution, but it doesn’t net me cheap beachfront property in Arizona.

          1. I’m not fething Lex Luthor.

          2. Wait until the big earthquake.

      4. Why? We’d still have Seattle.

      5. That’s the part we want them to take!!

      6. Port of New Orleans, Galveston, Seattle, Miami and the 13+ other eastern and southern coast ports would be built up to take the traffic lost to CA exit.

    2. I live in California, and I promote the plan for this very reason. It’ll make the rest of the country better when the progressives all flock here. I’ll happily move out.

      1. I don’t know how you’re going to get past the CA border guard. All that barbed-wire and machine guns pointing inward are there for your protection comrade.

        1. That and to keep all the scientists and engineers from fleeing to the west, or east as the case may be.

          1. So true – the benevolent tech overlords like Schmidt, Page, Brin, and many others live and dead who restrained the movement of engineers and tried to cap compensation sure as hell aren’t going to let them leave the new tech workers paradise.

          2. I hear there are plenty of tunnels into Mexico.

    3. Or maybe, free of all the wreckers, they’d finally be able to create secular heaven on earth, where everybody has exactly the average amount of everything, and every radio station is NPR.

  7. How long can anger over Trump’s election sustain activism?

    4?8 years, depending

  8. Maybe the whole state should just move to Canada

    1. Why do you hate Canada so?

      1. Yeah, what’d we ever do to you? Other than that whole “burn your White House down” thing back in the early 1800s, I mean . . .


        1. We’ll forgive you i you do it again, but only if you do a more thorough job.

          1. I dunno . . . tar pitch is waaayyyy more expensive now than it was back then . . .

            1. Why do you think so many of us want the pipelines bring Alberta tar sands south?

              God you Canadafucks are stupid!

        2. You know Americans can’t take a joke.

    2. We don’t want them.

    3. Since they love illegal immigrants shouldn’t they just all move to Mexico?

  9. California seceding would likely drive those on the right in the state to leave (assuming they can afford to do so) and those on the left in other parts of the country to move to California. Sounds like a good deal to me.

    1. why leave when you can stay and declare yourself an illegal alien? The state can’t ask about your immigration status, you can still have a driver’s license, pay in-state tuition, commit a bevy of crimes and stop paying your taxes.

    2. I’m going to guess that you don’t live in California.

      1. Yes. I would never live there even if you paid me.

    3. I’m thinkin’ Trump’s putting his wall in the wrong location.

    4. Those on the right couldn’t leave without being hypocrites about immigration – either they’re immigrating illegally or they’re doing it legally and not staying behind ‘to fix the problems with their own country’.

      1. That presumes that secession would by operation of law negate the American citizenship of all those Californians who held it prior to secession.

        1. If ti didn’t then all those Americans would be traitors who have, by their actions, refuted their citizenship.

          1. So, I live in AZ instead of California so I got no skin in this game.

            But if they didn’t vote to succeed, and then other people succeed around them, I wouldn’t consider the people who were against it traitors by proxy.

  10. America California already hates California America, and America California votes on emotions

    I haven’t heard of any “California out of US” protests anywhere outside of California, after all.

    1. Beat me to it, and better said. I hereby remove RC from my ‘non-hateful lawyers’ list.

      1. Removed the non-hateful lawyers list? Let’s see, carry the 1 . . . that means I’m a hateful lawyer?

        Thanks, Baked. You really know how to flatter a guy.

        1. Well yes, but hateful lawyer is a double negative, so I think you’re okay?

  11. I’ll sign it. Can I sign it? I’m not a citizen, but since when has that stopped anyone in California?

    1. *joins applause*

    2. *slow to rigorous clap*

  12. Oh, can they leave Napa? Don’t really want to be stuck with only Pinots from Oregon.

    1. We can compromise – we will annex the Russian River Valley.

      1. Works for me

    2. Free trade between free nations? I’m for peace and prosperity. What are you guys for?

        1. I think “Hate & Hostility” has a more poetic ring to it.

      1. Make that a tad more granular

        I am for free trade between free individuals. California absolutely has my blessing if they want to leave.

    3. The best wines come from Lodi and the Central Coast. Napa is just the prettiest wine country. Lodi looks like Kansas, but brought the world Zinfandel. And “White Zinfandel,” for which they will live forever in infamy.

      1. Yes, but most of my memberships are in Napa, and I don’t want to pay Trump’s excise tax.

    4. As long as I can get Tempranillo from Spain, who needs California.

  13. As long as they vote by county, I’m all for it.

    1. For the longest time, I thought the lead singer for that song was a black woman. Now I know that it was a proto-PUA.

  14. I hope the petition succeeds. Seriously.

    I have seen little to change my mind that the people who are pointing to CalExit as a possibility have little grasp of either the demographics of the state, nor its actual finances

    Why should they suddenly acquire this knowledge with secession on the table, when they have been blissfully ignorant of it every time they vote on anything else?

    So, if both petitions pass, what happens next? Is this just pure PR, or do they have any force and effect?

    1. Without California, the Democrats will lose a third of their house seats and two senators. Then the US really will be a one party state (there is absolutely no way a Democrat will reclaim the White House or take either chamber of Congress without California, unless they ditched mindless progressivism).

      On the plus side, California’s inevitable debt default and economic downturn will finally force leftists to confront their economic illiteracy.

      1. At that point the Republicans split into a conservative party and whatever Paul Ryan and John McClain are.

        That would just rest the parties to about 1982.

        1. John McClain

          He’s a cowboy. Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker.

        2. It will be Trumpists against the old conservatives. Battle royale. No survivors

      2. California will have the 6th largest economy in the world. There will be no default once we stop paying for the US Empire upkeep.

        1. Obviously you’re not even vaguely familiar with California’s finances. Without the 50% federal matching funds in its Medicaid system, California’s financial position would be even ruinous than it will be in the next fiscal year.

          Additionally, they will not remain the sixth largest economy without free trade with the rest of the country. If they become their own country we should just impose tariffs on them and they’ll buckle within a decade.

          1. JS, CE is the perfect example of why NOTHING will EVER “finally force leftists to confront their economic illiteracy.”

            They will never do that. EVER.

          2. Obviously you’re not even vaguely familiar with any state or the federal government’s finances. Do you think the state’s finances would be static except for the loss of federal funds? Do you think that as a country California would continue to tax its residents at (mostly) single digit income tax rates even as its residents no longer have to pay US income taxes? I’m not saying the state would manage itself into financial security but you’re missing the big picture.

        2. You do realize you would have to spend for your own defense, your own energy as noted by Forbes as of April 2016, water which comes from Colorado, plus how many of your cities are going bankrupt genius?

          “beyond power rates 45% above the U.S. average, California has another problem that makes it less of a model than some proclaim. California now imports 33% of its electricity supply from fast growing neighbors, with about 65% of that coming from the Southwest and 35% coming from the Northwest”

          Sure there won’t be a default. Sure Greece of the West

          1. We are already the Greece of the West. What do the US and EU have that Greece and CA don’t? Power to print money.

            The water doesn’t come from CO – it comes from the CO river at the CA border. A lot of that water originates in CA. Everything north of the lateral ranges gets 100% of its water internally, which includes the vast majority of the state’s agriculture.

            CA is also one of the most naturally defensible spots on the planet, and has been the home of an awful lot of US weapons-tech.

            CA certainly has some problems to work out, but a sovereign CA is not unthinkable by any stretch.

            1. The water doesn’t come from CO – it comes from the CO river at the CA border.

              Because rivers can’t be dammed or diverted.

              1. No kidding–does any Californian really think Colorado and Arizona wouldn’t chomp at the bit to take control of 4.4 million acre feet of water? Not to mention the All-American Canal would be easy as pie to destroy in a water dispute.

            2. CA is also one of the most naturally defensible spots on the planet

              LOL–you really think the state’s population centers would survive a series of tactical nukes along the San Andreas fault? Those ICBMs in the Great Plains don’t have to be pointed at Russia or China, you know.

          2. NIMBY-ism comes home to roost.

        3. I wish you and your state well.

      3. Once that happens, expect to see Washington and Oregon try to secede and join California as the new nation (or international union) of Pacifica. Then after that New England will decide to rejoin the old country and become the province of West England.

      4. Don’t forget water issues. They get a lot of water from the Colorado river.

        1. There are precious few water parks in Tucson. The additional water being rerouted to our state will hopefully aid in fixing this travesty.

    2. Let’s hope is a hard CALEXIT.

    3. I’ll vote for it.

  15. Wait, how will their high-speed rail have funding?

    1. You know what, fuck it. We’ll pay for it, just go.

  16. Secession is America’s founding principle. Let them go peacefully, create their socialist utopia, and sink into oblivion.

    1. Secession is America’s founding principle.

      It would be a self-contradicting argument to assert otherwise.

      1. Secession is America’s founding principle.

        Jeebus. Secession isn’t a principle, its an action. The founding principles are:

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

        1. This sounds vaguely familiar to me.

          In law school, my first Con Law professor referred to the Declaration as a legal brief. Here’s why we can, legally, kick you out. Sounds reasonable to me.

          1. the “here’s why we can kick you out” wasn’t a reference to an action, it was a reference to a principle in natural law.

          2. But according to SCOTUS, as I understand it, it’s just a political document and has no standing in law.

        2. +1 Jefferson.

          1. +1 State of

          2. -2 Washington

        3. I have very little interest in quibbling over words. The “right to secede” could certainly be considered a founding principle, or stated better, a principle of Natural Law. Please allow me to quote the passage that is actually relevant to this point:

          When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

          Shooting at red coats is an action. Asserting one’s right to X, Y or Z is an action. The justification for this assertion is a certain “principle” rooted in Natural Law. I don’t see what’s controversial about that.

          1. One last nail

            prin?ci?ple (pr?n?s?-p?l)
            n. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
            n. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
            n. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.

        4. deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

          Which is as pro-secessionist a principle as any I’ve seen.

        5. You left out the part about That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

          1. Looks like a principle to me. A country formed by secession, asserts in it’s founding document that it’s right to secede is rooted in natural law. I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything in that which doesn’t positively scream “this is a principle”.

  17. OK, this is highly unlikely to pass, of course. And if it does, it will not be allowed to go forward. But I still see this as a useful exercise to get people thinking about things – the question about federal lands above, for example.

    But the thing that really strikes me about this is that progs may end up inadvertently advancing things that libertarians like.

  18. I have it on good authority that secession=slavery.

    1. States’ rights was a term used by slave-owners to justify their slavery! And by the Pauls to justify enslaving the gays!

      See this poll from Cato showing that 91% of Americans are crypto-libertarians!


        I have a hard time taking CATO seriously.

        1. I was doing my Hihn impression (Hihnpression?). Does it need work?

  19. I like the idea of California being gone.

    On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of the US bordering on Calizuela. After they shitfuck their economy so badly that they create a refugee crisis, we’re going to need a much longer wall to keep them from moving into all the other states en masse and ruining them with their terrible economic ideas. They’re already slowly taking over the western US and it’s not good, but Calizuela rupturing would accelerate that process for sure.

    1. You don’t need a wall. Cut off a couple of major highways and CA becomes practically inaccessible from the rest of the country.

      1. Or just let them secede only in their largest moron-controlled cities and no further.

        Greater San Franzuela could rupture, but it could be feasibly walled off. 😀

    2. Americans will be sneaking into California for jobs. Employment is booming here.

      1. Government jobs funded by deficit spending and tourism from the other states.

        To borrow AmSoc’s retort above, you’re welcome.

      2. Bay Area, absolutely. Overall it’s been worse than say, Texas. Central Valley has been down hard for the last several years. Remember Neel Kashkari brought attention to that two years ago during the gubernatorial campaign. And poverty is significant because of cost of living, causing tech wealth vs. no wealth conflict.

      3. You have the 11th worst unemployment rate in the country.

  20. Dig up William M. Gwin…if at first you don’t secede, try, try again.

    “In a confidential letter to one of his generals on January 8, 1865, Grant fretted over the “great danger” posed by Gwin, “a rebel of the most virulent order.” According to Union intelligence, Gwin had established a colony in Sonora, where he began attracting Confederate-sympathizing Californians….”

    And Gwin wasn’t the only Californian with Confederate sympathies:

    “California harbored an active secessionist element, especially in the southern part of the state. [Union General Irvin] McDowell’s predecessor in the Pacific department predicted that 32,000 “restless and zealous” secessionists stood ready to detach California from the Union at a moment’s notice.

    “Although no such force materialized, smaller insurrections periodically plagued California. In Los Angeles, Southern sympathizers ? who probably constituted a majority in the city ? paraded Confederate insignia and defiantly sang “We’ll Hang Abe Lincoln from a Tree.” Closer to Sacramento, a former member of Quantrill’s raiders launched a guerrilla campaign in an attempt to plunder funds for the Confederate treasury. The California raiders’ success was far from spectacular ? a stagecoach robbery, a series of failed heists and two deadly shootouts ? yet their actions deeply unsettled California’s Unionist population.”

    1. Closer to Sacramento, a former member of Quantrill’s raiders launched a guerrilla campaign in an attempt to plunder funds for the Confederate treasury. The California raiders’ success was far from spectacular ? a stagecoach robbery, a series of failed heists and two deadly shootouts

      That’s how war is done in CA. We had a civil war in the 1830s over whether to secede from Mexico. There were two “battles” at Cahuenga pass where some serious fisticuffs were engaged in. People were injured. Then surf came up and they forgot what they were fighting over.

  21. Why do costal liberals think they should be allowed to leave the US but still snear at Southerners whos ancestors tried to do the same ?

    I wish them luck as long as they don’t try and force those who want to stay to go with them.

    1. That’s exactly what they want to do.

      1. I’m not sure how else you’d do secession. Let each land owner decide if they are in the independent state of CA, or still part of the US?

        1. County by county?

          There’s no fucking way I’d let those assholes be in charge of me without the US Constitution.

          I’ll vote with my guns.

          1. Might as well go full Ancapistan and let everyone subscribe to the government of their choice.

          2. I’ll vote with my guns.

            Something something hopefully there’s only 10 of them something something

        2. The states are already technically sovereign. The counties, etc., aren’t. A sovereign state can secede; a city, county, etc. can only declare independence and try to establish sovereignty.

          1. Um…..West Virginia?

        3. In my libertopia, border parcels can switch at will, once per election cycle.

          Wouldn’t take too long for California to shrink drastically.

            1. I started actually reading the Constitution and wondering how to clean it up. I hate the census, but it has two rationalizations: keeping House districts similar in size, and knowing how to apportion handouts.

              The first is solved by two methods: one, reps cast as many votes in the House as they got in the last election; note this is for them, not all votes in that election, so politicians have a real incentive to get as many votes as possible, so parties will be less likely to nominate kooks.

              Second method is the border parcel shifting. It applies to voting districts of any kind. National border parcels could even secede or join. I thought about restricting shifts to districts with fewer votes, which would tend to harmonize sizes, but I think that’s unnecessary — let districts vanish, who cares?

              1. More incentive for voter fraud to puff up the vote count.

    2. In case that’s not a rhetorical question, the answer is and was and will ever be that the principals involved will always be more important than the principles.

    3. those same liberals sneered at Northern Californians for wanting to separate from the south. But now its a brilliant idea now for the whole state to leave the U.S.

      1. The important thing is for them to be in charge whatever the final result happens to be. Northern Californians can’t secede because them the California government would not be able to tell them what to do. No part of California would be allowed to secede from California.

  22. It is oblivious to the reality that the state’s financial crisis is due to overspending within California and not because they’re sending money to D.C.

    But that particular illusion would be mightily dispelled by a CalExit . . .

    In all seriousness, I think a CalExit would do a lot to balance CA politics. The stranglehold of the Dems on CA politics has a lot to do with widespread distaste for the national Republican Party. If California were to become independent, it could actually develop an internal political opposition that would bring some balance back to what is now essentially a one-party state.

    1. That’s a good point.

      I’m actually kind of surprised that we don’t have more regional or state level political parties. I guess support from the national parties is just too useful to give up.

      1. There’s also the gutting of the states’ power to consider. Why bother with the states when you can do one-stop shopping?

    2. Pretty sure CA is a net gainer on taxes to DC v money received from DC.…..g_by_state…..e_by_state

      1. Yes, but the legislature and governor have long shown ability to expand to soak up all available revenue. They might be rolling in the dough for the remainder of the current session, but next session would be a new budget and new revenues to suck up.

      2. Even if their talking point were true, that’s what redistribution looks like in action. It’s either a pathetic mental disconnect or the height of dishonesty to claim that the government needs to be more redistributive but then whine that the government is redistributive.

      3. According to those figures, California gets ~$51B more from DC than they pay in taxes, the third greatest gain of any state. Of course that’s comparing 2012 revenue with 2013 expenditures (since that’s what your linked charts show), but I can’t imagine the situation varied enough year-over-year to radically change the calculation.

    3. Yeah just like Argentina, Right wing Peronismo and Left wing Peronismo.

  23. Those darn crazy Neo-Confederates! Um, that is who we’re talking about, right? I have it on good proggie authority that only racist redneck Neo-Confederates would try to secede from our glorious Union.

  24. Hmm, I’m not really upset, Scott. Just resigned. I’ve been saying since 2004 that the West Coast, who haven’t supported right-wing wars and the Politics of right-wing fundamentalism, should go its own way. Why should we pay taxes– now exceeding 600 billion dollars down the DoD rathole– so that we can go bomb poor peasants in the ME?Shouldn’t people who routinely wear their opposition to the two party duopoly on their sleeve get behind something that is actually radical and stands the really good possibility of finally breaking the back of the American military-industrial complex? What kind of radicals are you guys at Reason anyway?

    1. “who haven’t supported right-wing wars”

      You mean the wars that those right wing Democrats voted to authorize as well the one’s that right wingers Obama and Hillary Clinton got the country involved in?

      1. Hillary Clinton is from Arkansas, which is a shithole, and now lives in NYC. Good for her.

        1. Hillary Clinton is from Illinois.

        2. Hillary Clinton is also a left-winger war hawk. Very much even more of a hawk than McCain.

        3. Arkansas, which is a shithole

          Mmm, you can just smell all the concern for the poor.

    2. Shouldn’t people who routinely wear their opposition to the two party duopoly

      Stop voting overwhelmingly Democrat despite claiming that there’s no functional difference? Or is that what your ‘opposition to the two party duopoly’ is – you want a one party monopoly?

      And, did you read the article? Because you’re asking stuff here that either was answered in the article or has nothing to do with the article? You’re not trying to have a conversation with Rusty, you’re just spouting some semi-random crap.

    3. Hey, I agree with AmSoc on something for once. A free California would be an improvement.

      1. A free California would be an improvement

        Right, which is why he votes for the opposite every chance he gets.

        1. Who said anything about a “free” California?

          1. The California government would be free from the U.S. Federal government. The citizens from the Cali government, not so much.

      2. For the rest of the country.

    4. Right, you can stick to what socialists are good at – waging war on their own citizens.

      But then I suppose, just like Venezuela, you’ll still end up blaming your neighbors for your problems.

    5. Why should we pay taxes– now exceeding 600 billion dollars down the DoD rathole– so that we can go bomb poor peasants in the ME?

      Tell us again how much you love Obama bombing brown people Amsoc.

    6. Yes your right. We would be much better putting money down the rabbit hole keeping off the homeless off the streets in San Fran than actually helping them right. I hear it’s a great place if you don’t mind all the excrement around.

  25. Calizuela

    I like “The People’s Republic of Californistan”, myself.

    1. Little known CA historical trivia:

      The word “California” is likely a Spanish corruption of “Khalifa.”

  26. Random thought: how much will Mexico pay to get California back?

    1. Hmm. I feel a deal coming on!

      We give them California, and they build the wall along the southern and our new western border!

      Bonus for Oregon and Washington: their ports will pick up an assload of business.

      1. I’m sure the unions in New Orwa will fuck it up quick enough.

  27. So.. if this happens.. Team Blue loses 55 electoral college votes in every election.. and this is going to be a good thing, from the perspective of hard left Californians? I mean, the practical effect seems to be providing Team Red with a gigantic advantage in the remaining 49 states?

    1. Yeah, but anyone upset by the hard swing to Red state policies elsewhere could move to Cali.

    2. They don’t lose all 55. By my calculations, Trump carried states with 245 House districts, so of California’s 53 House seats, something like 34 of them would go to states Trump carried. Democrats would have still gotten the other 19. (And of course they would have lost the two EV for the Senate seats.)

    3. Trump won the combined popular vote in the other 49 states.

  28. If we leave then libertarians in the rest of the country will get to have their hero, Donald Trump, in office for another 4 years. That would be ok, no?

    1. Would it? Are you asking us? Or are you high?

    2. Trump a libertarian hero? Does not compute.

  29. ‘CalExit’ Secession Petition Gets Approval to Circulate
    How long can anger over Trump’s election sustain activism?

    Until a Clinton is back in the white house.

    1. chelsea is old enough to run for the next office

  30. The CalExit folks now have 180 days to get more than 500,000 signatures for their initiative to get on the ballot in the fall.

    Few questions.

    1. Where do you go to sign the petition?

    2. Do you have to live in CA to sign the petition?

    3. If so, how do I change my state of residency and is there a minimum amount of time before I can change it back.

    4. Can we build a wall along the CA-US border and make CA pay for it?

    5. What about all the people *outside* the cities that might not want to leave the US but would be perfectly happy if SD/LA/SF/Sacramento when their own way? Is there an option for partitioning the state?

    1. We’re hoping that people like you will help us live in a secular, peaceful, and prosperous country. You can help us by writing your backward, reactionary congressmen and tell them that you’re happy to let us leave. It’s a push-pull project and we want reactionary bigots involved.

      1. Well shit, then I’d have to oppose secession then wouldn’t I? Because we already live in a secular and prosperous country and it’d be pretty peaceful if the Democratic Party hadn’t spent the last 8 year doubling down on the previous idiot’s idiocy.

        So, who’s the greater idiot in this situation? W for arrogantly assuming his ‘Top Men’ knew what was what in the ME or Obama who, after seeing the complete cock-up made by the previous administration – indeed running on the platform that he wouldn’t make the same mistakes – then proceeding to carry out and expand on the very plans that he criticized his predecessor for?

      2. Man, you really do not want to win national elections ever again, do you?

        1. Why would it matter? California would be the nation.

          1. P(California gets independence) < 0.01 P(CA leftists acting like entitled shits|CA doesn't get independence) >> 0.01

            I think you can see the problem…

            1. +1 Conditional Probabilities

    2. 2. Do you have to live in CA to sign the petition?

      My guess is there’s some racist way of identifying if you’re a legitimate CA voter.

  31. The Hartford Convention during the War of 1812 continues refreshing my memory.

  32. I think the problem is not so much CA as a whole but the Bay Area and LA-let them form their own city-states like Singapore or Qatar. The northeast metro corridor can do the same thing. I don’t see why this should be a problem, if they want to raise taxes through the roof and regulate everything into oblivion, let them.

    1. Taxes would be lower once we cut off DC.

      1. Considering California receives $51B more from DC than they pay in taxes, I wonder how this would be…

        1. Through magic.. see, Californians are a net drain on the US, but they like to think that they’re a net boost to the country financially. Since the math doesn’t work out, they close their eyes and wish really hard…. and then just lie about it.

    2. I think city-state are a real interesting idea. Look at the electoral map by county. It begs for city-states.

  33. I’m fine if they want to leave, but we’re going to have to find another territory to annex or split one of the states. We just can’t have an odd number of states and it would cost too much to replace all the flags.

    1. DC! Puerto Rico! Mexico! Canada! 53’s prime, right? That’ll be fun on a flag.

      1. PR’s too smart to go for full statehood. They like their current position just fine. They have more autonomy than the actual states.

    2. We can always make one of the territories a state like Puerto Rico or Canada.

      1. Just repeal the DOI and annex the UK.

  34. There are plenty of reasons to vote for CalExit besides Trump. California would be better off and the USA would be better off after a split. Becoming a pure lefty state would be tough, but a fair price to pay for exiting the Empire and hopefully, federal taxes and SS (although I hear they plan to keep Soc Sec).

    1. I’m really warming up to the idea of selling California to Mexico! The southern part of the state would be thrilled, the Bay Areas’ already a sanctuary city, the corruption won’t really be any worse, the cities already have Spanish names, the U.S. gets a very nice check.

      The Art of the Deal indeed!

      Libertarian bonus – Trump reimplements NAFTA for the tech, the Teslas, and the movies!

  35. SO progs mocked Texit relentlessly, and laughed when California wanted to split up. Can’t have those backwards redneck areas slip away for our leftist control!

    So now they lose one goddamned election and lose their fucking minds. Go fuck themselves

  36. The intra-Californian secession people should reach out to them — if the same agreement takes Cali out of Trump’s US, and takes Red Cali out of Cali (turning it into a couple of new states), you could probably get a majority to support it statewide.

  37. whats ironic is if it wasn’t for California,Trump would of had the popular vote and electoral vote by a far larger margin.
    I guess these Californians want the U.S. to be GOP controlled for ever

    1. Eh, the party dynamics would change after such a split. Eventually, the remaining Democrats in the U.S. would adapt, and so too would the remaining Republicans in California. I wouldn’t be all that surprised if there was a political realignment in California following independence, since there would be little reason for the two major state parties to remains so closely aligned with the parties of a now-foreign nation.

    1. Shhhh, don’t point out the obvious.

    2. In a week you’ll be the Federal Territory of California, administered by Military Governor Kratman.

      There’s not enough popcorn on Earth to cover off the entertainment possibilities.

      1. Real Genius would beg to differ.

        And lasers have gotten way better since then.

  38. I wonder how Apple, Facebook and Google will feel about no longer being in the headquartered in the US of A. Although they might be portable with their global entrenchment. What do you think?

  39. I am governor Jerry Brown…
    Soon I will be President
    – Dead Kennedys

    Yeah, if he gets his own fucking country.

  40. So, Trump gets elected & butt hurt Californians want to secede. I’m all for it actually…just as I was for Texas seceding when Rick Perry mentioned it a few years ago. W/the way our politics are tacking, we will inevitably Balkanize w/in 10 years unless something changes. That said, California’s a fiscal train wreck, so it’s funny that they expect to survive on their own. Nevermind that the effort’s a bit ironic given that California’s been denying secession efforts by its own northern counties for years, & its leftist are undoubtedly among those who mocked Texas for talking about secession under Obama.

  41. Damn, where can I go to add my signature for this? Guess I’ll have to start going to Walmart again. People with stupid-ass petitions like this generally stand outside the doors there. I’d love to help set Commiefornia on the path to leaving the US before I move the hell out of here.

  42. I’m generally in favor of secessions, but I’m not sure how Cali could pull this off in a way that would satisfy the people in favor of it. California could absolutely be a self-sustaining entity, but not the way its currently run. You’ll have water issues which, besides affecting quality of life, will cripple the agricultural industry. CA hasn’t been the dominant tech state in a while, and the taxes they’ll need to implement in order to sustain their welfare state in the absence of federal money will drive the companies that are based there away. Plus, they’ll lose the fed income and related jobs from the various military bases moving away.

    1. “California Walmart”

      someone come up with the sexual act that’s the new name for.

  43. But the thing that really strikes me about this is that progs may end up inadvertently advancing things that libertarians like.

    And then blame the libertarians for it.

  44. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone.Work for three to eightt hrs a day and start getting paid in the range of 5,260-12,830 dollars a month. Weekly payments.54u
    Find out more HERE

  45. The five stages, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance

    Stage 1 were all the dreams of legal chicanery that would somehow keep Trump from the Presidency
    Stage 2 will be a lot of huff and puff protesting while Trump steamrolls the Progressive Theocracy, and they won’t be able to do a thing about it
    Stage 3 will be a lot of propaganda about bringing the country together, by which they mean Trump giving up the advantages of the government power he has, and compromising with and throwing bones to the Left. And the steamroller will steamroll.
    Stage 4 “America is Over” – welcome to my life for the previous decade. You can have it. I’m done with it. There is hope!

  46. Where can I donate?

  47. I’ll be signing and voting in favor of this petition. (I would have voted for Trump if it mattered.) If California does eventually secede, I’ll move.

  48. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!

  49. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

  50. One huge liberal country, taxing all the wealthy so they emigrate and then trying to live on what’s left.
    I’d like it just so it can be one huge education to the rest of the liberal/statists that want the California model.

  51. I would love to see Calexit succeed. It will be a better country without them

  52. This may have already been suggested, but it is my hope that ALL true conservative Californians vote to succeed and then leave the state. This means that the 55 electoral college votes will also disappear leaving the liberals out of any positions of any serious say or control in US government forever. Done! Bye-bye and good riddance. For the sake of disclosure I am a OC resident about to depart from CA with my family, my business and my assets. I can only hope I get to at least vote for succession before I depart.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.