California's Supreme Court Won't Let Citizens Vote for Statewide Divorce

Proposal to break Golden State into 3 yanked from the ballot.


Cal 3 map
Cal 3 Map

California's Supreme Court has yanked from the November ballot an initiative asking Californians if they want to break the state into three parts.

It's rare for the state's Supreme Court to take initiatives off the ballot once they've been cleared by the California Secretary of State's office. Typically, the court waits until after an initiative actually passes to go through the trouble of assessing its constitutionality.

The balkanization proposal, from Silicon Valley millionaire Tim Draper, qualified for the ballot in June. Draper proposed creating new states called Northern California and Southern California, with a strip along the central coast (including Los Angeles) maintaining the original California name. Each of California's biggest metropolitan areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego) would end up in a different state.

Enthusiasm for breaking up California threatens the state's political power structure. The Planning and Conservation League, a powerful state environmental lobbying group, sued to keep Draper's initiative off the ballot. They argued that such a dramatic change to the state requires rewriting the California Constitution, and that action needs the support of two-thirds of both halves of the legislature before going before the voters.

Yesterday afternoon, the California Supreme Court concurred unanimously. In a brief order they determined that the "potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election." The court instructed California Secretary of State Alex Padilla to yank the initiative from the November ballot, for now at least.

Draper is unhappy about the ruling, declaring that "This kind of corruption is what happens in Third World countries."

The Los Angeles Times notes that the California Supreme Court also agreed to consider and rule on the constitutionality of the initiative itself, which could either resurrect it or kill it entirely. Experts predict the court will kill it.

It's unfortunate but also telling that, in the end, citizens of California may only decide how they are to be ruled if the rulers themselves permit it. The Planning and Conservation League has a strong stake in keeping the state intact. They claim credit for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), one of the most powerful and most frequently abused anti-development laws ever crafted. It's invoked up and down the state by everybody from NIMBY types to labor unions to block developments they don't like using environmental concerns as a pretext. Breaking up California would most certainly gut CEQA's reach. It would also reduce Sacramento's power and influence, so we should not expect state lawmakers from population centers like Los Angeles and San Francisco to risk losing statewide influence.

Splitting up the state was a longshot in the first place. The Supreme Court decision may just put it entirely out of reach.

Bonus Link: Ilya Somin analyzes the court's logic over at The Volokh Conspiracy here.

NEXT: Taxpayers Spent Nearly $250,000 on the Trump Sons' Business Trips

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. Regarding the alt-text joke: Not only did that actually happen, it actually worked. The court ordered the school district not to close the school.

    1. That sounds like a fun article, have you done it?

    2. That may not be as absurd as it seems on the surface – when a District can’t fund the operation of a school site, it also often can’t fund tearing it down, and if it wants to sell the land it has to do so using a formula that values that land far below market rate, and they have to offer charters first refusal thus giving a leg up to their most direct competition.

      The pragmatic outcome is that a public school closure in a slummy area often means an abandoned campus that quickly fills up with homeless people and drug dealers.

      1. Hell, i live in a nice neighborhood, and there’s a school in it that’s been closed for almost two decades that the city still hasn’t figured out what to do with.

        1. But the ones in the nice neighborhoods just fill up with racoons, rats, and pot-smoking teenagers, so that’s almost like returning them to Nature.

          1. There’s also pigeons, possums, and feral cats in there. It’s practically a brand new Eden.

            1. Ah, possums – the other white meat.

              1. Many years ago, while running some coon hounds, I saw a pair of eyes down at the end of a field. When I got there I found a rotting dead dog and a possum crawling out of the body cavity. If you are what you eat, then dog must be the other, other white meat.

        2. Huh, I didn’t know you and Crusty go that far back.

      2. Ok, but running the school sounds more expensive than boarding it up.

        1. It is. That’s why Districts are happy to just board them up and leave them, and why communities will often spring into action when they hear about a planned school closure. They often really don’t care about the school itself – they just don’t want the blight.

          This is Reason #1,268 why the public school system should be abolished.

    3. similarly as William reacted I’m flabbergasted that a housewife ready to benefit $4424 in a month on the web .
      unique site… >>

  2. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

    1. Did you guys read the Supreme Court of California’s decision, though?

      “The proposed names for the three states are totally lame. We are taking this off the ballot until the organizers come up with something more original.”

      1. “Very well. Cal, Ifor, and Nia.”

      2. Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia?

      3. 1. The Peoples’ Republic of California

        2. The Democratic Peoples’ Republic of California

        3. The Socialist Democratic Peoples’ Republic of California

        They can toy around with which label goes where however they wish. But they should have to share their current senatorial representation of two among themselves. The infighting over that should keep them occupied enough that maybe they’ll leave the rest of us alone for a while.

      4. Really it should just be East Cal and West Cal. They’ve divvied it up wrong. Coastal v The Rest.

  3. So… while I agree the people should be able to do this and that they are, in essence, rescinding their consent to the state government (thereby, in theory and in terms of justice at least, nullifying the judge’s decree that they can’t do this)…

    What DOES the state constitution have to say about such a proposal? Is there any “legal” (by that I mean textual laws) standing for the judge’s ruling?

    1. The initiative was non-binding. As I recall, all it would do is recommend a split. As such there is absolutely no point in blocking this initiatitve unless someone is scared that people would notice that Californians really didn’t like California government.

      1. Man, that makes this serious bullshit then.

      2. The left coast utopia?


  4. Is it possible for this to go to the USSC or is that pretty much it?

  5. The Los Angeles Times notes that the California Supreme Court also agreed to consider and rule on the constitutionality of the initiative itself, which could either resurrect it or kill it entirely. Experts predict the court will kill it.

    As lc1421 accidentally pointed out earlier, the Constitution only allows for the breakup of existing states via legislative action at both the state and federal levels, so a simple ballot initiative was never going to accomplish much.

    1. loveprostitution made a good point?

      Did he have to invoke Hillary and Obama to do it?

      1. Lefties and Commiefornia were mentioned.

      2. Like i said, it was an accident. He thought the section of the Constitution he was quoting supported the ballot initiative, when in fact it did the opposite.

        1. The only accident that I have made recently was convincing Tony to fuck your mom.

      3. The only time loveprostitution makes a good point is when he sharpens the bottom of his cane to “teach them neighborhood colored kids some manners.”

    2. the Constitution only allows for the breakup of existing states via legislative action at both the state and federal levels

      But it does seem like one of the two parties would have to initiate the action. My understanding of the proposal was that we would vote to express our interest in breaking up the state, which would then initiate action (or inaction) by Congress.

      1. Ideally, sure. Good luck getting any legislator to support the diffusion of his own influence in such a way.

        1. Good luck getting any legislator to support the diffusion of his own influence in such a way.

          Indeed. Very hard to see the upside for anyone who would actually be in any position to make this decision.

    3. Tell that to West Virginia.

      1. The Civil War was generally a pretty weird time for Constitutional adherence.

        1. So, all CA has to do is wait for the next one?

          1. Wait? Isn’t it already under way?

            1. Nah. The secessionists this time around are terrified of guns, so it’s kind of a non-starter.

              Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

              1. the race cannot start until the starting gun is fired. If it never is…. no race.

                Doomed from the git go

            2. If we’re in a shooting war, I would have expected it to at least show up in the Morning Links.

  6. I wonder if they could get it on the ballot as an advisory referendum. I could care less what California ends up doing, but I’d be interested to see the aggregate opinion of voters.

    1. These measures always fail because NorCal doesn’t want SF.

      1. It’s a double-bind. They want the tax revenue, but they don’t want the people who come along with it.

      2. Yeah, seems like the Bay area belongs with “Cal”.

      3. NoCal’s problem is that without SF there just isn’t enough of them.

        1. What about Oakland?

          1. Oakland is smaller than Frisco and almost as Leftist.

        2. Frisco has a population of only -900,000 and is #4. Fresno City (I’m a Raisin Grower in Fresno County) is near State center at -600,000 and is #5.
          The Great Central Valley is about 2,250,000+. It is not a Leftist region and we are hated by the coastal/western strip, Frisco to LA because of it. For us, splitting off from the state along with the adjoining Sierra Nevada range and curling down to link up with Los Angeles County (sans LA Metro area) on down to the Mexican border would make sense. The current plan is NOT acceptable to us as it would cut off my model at the City and/or County of Madera, immediately to our North. This was proposed to weaken our non-Leftist body politic that would represent us in the House and more importantly, the Senate.
          We live under the thumb of the Leftist North, Central and Central South Coasts. Our water is pilfered by LA and Frisco. What is left is administered by the Social Democrats and their Environmentalist/Political auxiliaries, literally drying up our HIGHLY productive Ag industries.
          A LOT of your produce comes from our Valley (Fact: Our Farmers receive very little in National subsidies and for the most part, don’t want them as it’s monetary Crack.).
          The proposed Split will only worsen our plight, continuing our subjugation.
          Peace, Prosperity and Liberty, out.

      4. The conservative regions of California have to be stuck with a Lefty area to maintain control.

        Otherwise it would result in 2 new conservative states and the original Lefty state.

  7. “It’s unfortunate but also telling that, in the end, citizens of California may only decide how they are to be ruled if the rulers themselves permit it.”

    It’s not just Californian citizens. There was this thing called the Civil War, you know.

    1. More or less correct.
      Please see my previous Comment.

  8. Split up California, but the coastal portion should include both LA and SF, to isolate the leftists as much as possible.

    1. Certainly the proposal as written is a little dumb. It would be interesting to see how much support there is conceptually, but the lines need to be drawn very differently than they are in this proposal.

      I though I do appreciate the government-themed logic by which going north from 2/3 or more of California will land you in Southern California.

    2. This is something I was curious about as well… By splitting it up the way proposed would simply triple the idiot effect on national politics, nothing more.

      The urban collectivists will each dominate their fiefdom just like they do, together, now for all of Commiefornia.

      1. But with three times as much representation in the Senate.

        1. and RIGHT THERE is the real reason this is being floated.

      2. The design of the split was so that most Conservatives would end up in Southern California- basically, after Los Angeles County (where California ends and S Cal starts) you get Orange County and San Diego- traditionally conservative. At the national level, you get net +2 Liberal senators (2 N Cal and 2 Cal vs 2 S Cal). But at the State Level, you get millions of Californians freed from the dominance of SF and LA.

        1. I think the net Senators is the same. Instead of 2 D, you get 4 D and 2 R.

          The real goal of this was to liberate the inland from the coasts, while giving SF its own fiefdom.

          I am not sure what this does for LA’s water security, though. SF gets its water from the Sierra Mtns, but LA gets it from the Colorado which doesn’t run through the proposed “Cal.”

          1. I am not sure what this does for LA’s water security, though. SF gets its water from the Sierra Mtns, but LA gets it from the Colorado which doesn’t run through the proposed “Cal.”

            This strikes me, too, as something that wasn’t thought through all the way. “California” has no significant water source at all, really, other than the Los Angeles river, which was 100% tapped about a century ago.

          2. LA gets water from the Sierras via the Los Angeles Aqueduct.

            1. LA gets water from the Sierras via the Los Angeles Aqueduct.

              Which would no longer be in the same state under this proposal.

              1. True enough, but how is that different from the water California currently gets from the Colorado River?

                1. It’s not fundamentally different, but it further aggravates LA’s situation. People in CO are already a little annoyed that they can’t water their lawns in the summer because Phoenix and LA need their golf courses.

                  Currently, the State of CA owns a significant part of (and thus water rights to) the CO River watershed, up to and including the right bank for a good part of its run.

                  This new “State of CA” that only includes LA and Santa Barbara wouldn’t even have the whole watershed of the Los Angeles River, and thus would have no claims on any significant water sources at all, while having a population in the millions. They would be entirely at the mercy of whatever agreements could be worked out to access resources that they would have no fundamental legal rights to.

                  This is why early surveyors recommended against significant settlements in the LA Basin.

                  1. I didn’t say it was a simple issue. Los Angeles purchased land in the Owens Valley in the early 20th century in order to acquire the water rights. I would be surprised to hear that splitting up the state would invalidate those claims.

                    1. I would be surprised to hear that splitting up the state would invalidate those claims.

                      I wouldn’t think it would, but the Owens Valley would be in a different state from LA. Maybe they tax any water resources that cross the border, for example. Maybe the state court system in the new state decides to re-examine the lawsuits and decides some of the sales were done under duress. Who knows?

                      I’m not saying it would be the end of the world for LA, or even an unworkable situation. But it does leave them in a vulnerable situation.

                  2. I think the real lesson here is that people aren’t meant to live in California.

                    No water. Frequent fires and earthquakes. Let’s build a bunch of huge cities!

                    1. Compared to Louisiana and Florida, I think we do pretty good.

                    2. No water. Frequent fires and earthquakes. Let’s build a bunch of huge cities!

                      That’s not an unfair characterization of Southern California, but California is a big place. Parts have more water than they know what to do with, and most of the state isn’t effected by earthquakes.

                      And while we get fires and earthquakes, other states get hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and deadly snowstorms. Almost no plants or animals in CA are poisonous, even in the ocean.

                      You pick your trade-offs.

                    3. But beautiful weather, other than the fires.

                  3. Nuclear energy and desalinization plants should have been built for the coastal regions long ago.

        2. The proposed Southern state is not solidly conservative these days, it’s pretty purple and arguably blue leaning. The Democrats have won the presidential vote there in three straight elections, Clinton by almost 10 points. She even won Orange County by 8 points.

          The Republicans would have done well in the off-year 2010 and 2014 elections but those environments (midterms under a Democratic president) are probably the only times they could reliably win.

      3. Hard to say. It would be interesting to see.

        Easily the farthest left leaning area of the state is the SF Bay Area, which IIRC has about 6M people. As part of a generally blue urban CA it supports the hegemony, but isolated in otherwise largely red Northern CA it may actually have less clout (although reinforced by Sacramento, which is roughly another 500k). Sacramento is blue in a much more Maryland way, and often views the Bay Area as kooky.

        “California” would be reduced to LA and Santa Barbara, which is so much as to say “Hollywood.” That’s going to be a hard blue, but not in quite the same way as SF or Sac.

        San Diego has always tilted pretty red as big cities go (the city that gave us Pete Wilson), and Orange County and the Inland Empire even more so (although that’s been changing) – the Southern California portion would be decidedly purple, if not actually leaning fully to the red.

        1. The red parts of NorCal don’t have nearly enough people to offset the Bay Area. NorCal would be more left-wing than the overall current state of California is.

          1. The red parts of NorCal don’t have nearly enough people to offset the Bay Area.

            But is that assuming that the Bay Area is uniformly blue? Honestly asking, since you seem to follow these demographics much more closely than I do.

            My understanding is that San Mateo County leans pretty red, as do eastern Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Stockton seems pretty red to me, along with Yuba City and all those Valley ag-towns. I think especially if you pushed the border down so that Fresno and Bakersfield were in the same state as the cities in the northern Valley (which would make more sense considering the large-scale water transfer systems that the Valley relies on), would you be approaching a fairly even balance?

            1. The bay area is solid blue. San Mateo was 237k-57k.
              Fresno went to Hillary. Kern (Bakersfield) was the biggest county in California to go Trump, by about 30k votes. Alameda County alone had over 400k net to Hillary. There’s no way to gerrymander any red bit other than having a state smaller than Wyoming in the way northwest.

              San Joaquin (Stockton) and Stanislaus both went Hillary. Counties like Tulare and Mariposa have 10-20k votes total. Correction – Tulare has ~100k votes, went to Trump by a net of 10k.

              San Diego went net 250k+ to Hillary, OC was about 100k to Hillary, and Riverside was the closest, only about 40k to Hillary. The 13 largest counties in California, including the bigger inland counties, all went to Hillary.

              1. I don’t think counting up votes for HRC is that good of a proxy. As lots of people pointed out during 2016, she was much more “traditionally Republican” in so many ways that Trump wasn’t. Trump and HRC split people along what were not traditional party lines, and that is what has much of the political class stirred up and confused these days.

                As an example, the Central Valley trends strongly red and tends to despise Sacramento and the Bay Area for its political bullying, but the Valley also relies very heavily on the migrant farm labor from Baja and interior northern Mexico, and they tend to often be skeptical enough of “immigration crackdowns” that I could see otherwise red-leaning ag folks swallowing their bile and pulling for HRC just because of Trump’s promises to cut off the supply of farm labor (and with the understanding that most of HRC’s further left positions are her “public positions,” not her “real positions”).

                Consider also that being on the Pacific Coast, trade with China may be more important to a lot of interests here than it is on the East Coast.

                This is so much as to say that while the Bay Area is pretty solidly blue, it is not as blue as (often begrudging) support for HRC would indicate.

                1. Fresno, San Joaquin, Stanislaus all went Obama in 2012 as well. Yolo is strong Democrat.
                  If you add up the 2012 margins of Kern, Tulare, Butte, El Dorado, and Shasta (the biggest red valley counties) they don’t even match the margin just from Sacramento.

                  1. I think the county where they have the best case for a distorting effect from an unusual 2016 election is not in NorCal or the Central Valley, but Orange County. HRC won by 8 points in 2016 in the OC. While it has been getting less red, it’s still voted Republican by at least 5-10 points in other elections. Also a big shift in San Diego, where the margin went from 7.5 to 20 points from 2012 to 2016. These counties have a lot of the type of voters (urban, college-educated, middle-to upper class) who might be inclined to ordinarily vote Republican but couldn’t get on board with Trump. If you look at the nearby IE counties (Riverside and San Bernardino) the changes were much smaller, less than 5 points in each case. These counties have a lot more working class, non-college white voters who were more likely to enthusiastically support or at least get on board with Trump. He still lost (and did worse than Romney), largely because those counties have become majority-minority, but his relative performance (relative to 2012) compared to the OC and San Diego was much better.

                2. The other person is right. HRC vs Trump amplified Democrat support a little more than what it actually is in a normal election (though at the same time, Trump has taken over the GOP so for now at least he is normal), but a typical election isn’t that much different.

                  Obama hit 60% or higher in every Bay Area county in 2012. Even Barbara Boxer in 2010, where Fiorina had the best result of any Republican in a major statewide race since Arnold won in 2006, got 60% in almost every Bay Area county (there were 1 or 2 where she came close, but still won easily).

                3. take a look at how the senators and congresscritters from the different parts of the state vote… you’re fooling yourself if you think anywhere but that strong-ag central valley is “conservative”/ WHY are Stockton going broke? They voted the public service unions in, then their councilbeasts sold out to the unions. San Diego and Orange are rabidly left.
                  Another measure, look into which counties readily issue the Mother May I Cards for folks to carry their own self-defense weapons about with them. Look at the numbers of active Cards per 100K populaation. THAT will tell you most of what you need to know.
                  Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Clara,SanFRancisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Sonoma, Marin, the county with Palo Alto, Berkeley, all are nearly impossible to get your Mother May I Card unless you are a SOMEBODY. DiFI has hers, There just a few hundred in all of Los Angeles Coutny with how many millions? In Tulare with 100K or so folks, there are nealry 4000 Mother May I Cards.

                  As the Peruta case made its way forward, Orange and Sacramento counties grudginly begaon to issue the Cards.

                  The politics of each of those counties is solidly reflected in the percentage of the population possessing the Mother May I Card.

    3. This is the best course of action.

  9. The naming is stupid and confusing. Call them different things, dammit. Or at least don’t have northern, southern, and “regular.” Call the “regular” one something else. Fuck, call it Los Angeles and get it over with.

    1. Maybe the State of Asshole would be more appropriate.

      1. Names would be on a follow-up ballot. I vote for:

        Skin Toast, and

      2. I do find the idea of addressing packages to “Los Angeles, Asshole” to be rather amusing.

        1. the answer is obvious, settled in the late 70s. The inland state is to be called Otisburg.

          1. As I recall, that didn’t actually work out very well – – – – – – – –

        2. Properly marketed, this could be a solution to their revenue problem. Of course, the idiots would immediately spend 4X the added revenue on some grand peoples’ boondoggle, so… oh, well.

    2. I think what would make more sense would be to call it “Central Coast” and have it basically span from Ventura to Monterey Bay. That part of CA is pretty cut off from the rest, geographically, anyway. Everything south of the lateral ranges could be one state, the Valley and the Bay another, and maybe a fourth (or fourth and fifth) for the mountains (or even just give NV more land to the West).

      Not sure how that would work politically, but it’s what makes sense to me geographically.

      1. Speaking as someone from the Central Coast, there’s nowhere near enough people there to get their own state unless the state was heavily fractured. The area you describe is about 5% of the state’s population.

        1. The area you describe is about 5% of the state’s population.

          That’s still 1.5M people, which is more than a lot of states. And it would still have Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, and maybe Monterey (although I could see putting the state line somewhere between SLO and Monterey).

          They would have the best vineyards, a fair amount of other agriculture, and would probably still have some of the highest property values in the country.

          1. Oh yeah, and the oil.

          2. My point isn’t that it’s too few people to have a state, it’s that it’s too few to ever get carved out of California by itself.

            1. I agree – there would be no point to that. I think CA needs to be at least five states, or at least some East Coast states need to start consolidating. It may be an effect of growing up in CA, but IMHO if you can regularly drive through several states in one day, those aren’t states, those are counties.

        2. since when is there a minimum population to become a state?

          1. I didn’t say there was. I’m talking about practical reality. The Central Coast would never get carved into its own state, because there aren’t enough people there to have the influence necessary to make that happen (and that’s assuming most people there would want that, which I think is far from a given). It would get tagged onto another state.

  10. I recommend Hole’s “Celebrity Skin” as national anthem for the Democratic Socialist Oligarchy of California, aka Arizona Bay.

    Fuck you squirrels.

    1. “Democratic Socialist Oligarchy of California, aka Arizona Bay”

      That’s it–you win the thread.

  11. I am pleased this ballot initiative was killed. I never viewed this as a break up of the State in so much as a way to add 2 more Democratic States. The fact that the 3 most populous, Democratic cities are each placed in each of the new States is all the evidence one needs to see this is nothing more than ensuring we always have a Democrat President and Legislature.

    1. I never viewed this as a break up of the State in so much as a way to add 2 more Democratic States.

      If that were true, I would have expected the Democrats to support it, which they didn’t.

      The fact that the 3 most populous, Democratic cities are each placed in each of the new States is all the evidence one needs to see this is nothing more than ensuring we always have a Democrat President and Legislature.

      Or, it could be a way to ensure that each of the three states has a port and a solid tax base.

    2. Don’ t think SoCal would be very Democrat-friendly. It has most of the central valley, which accounts for most of the GOP voters in Cali, and San Diego is much more conservative than LA or SF.

      1. As I said above – SoCal isn’t solidly blue (which was enough for the Dems to oppose the measure, combined with just how hectic splitting things up would be) but it’s not a red state by any means. The Dems have won the presidential vote there 3 times in a row. San Diego is much more conservative than LA and SF but in the last 10 years it has leaned towards the Democrats. Same thing with the IE, and even the OC went for Hillary in 2016. Much of the Central valley is actually not in that state, and the Central valley parts would be a small part (maybe 10-15%) of the state’s population. And even there, the largest of those counties (Fresno) has narrowly voted Democrat 3 times in a row in presidential elections (largely due to the large Latino population).

        This proposal was crafted to not really please anyone. Polling indicated about an 80-20 split against it, and even Republican support was only around 25-30%.

  12. Why don’t they just secede?

    1. The Feds have lots of guns, and the idiots willing to use them.

      It has to get REALLY bad for a state to secede from the Feds, especially given the government schools hammering it into people’s heads that secession is only for racists.

    2. Can you imagine the soaking they would take in any Calxit deal now? We have a president who is a master negotiator.

      1. Not to mention all the military bases in Cali. Would the US have to pay “rent” for these if Cali secedes?

        1. Nope. The feds just keep all federal lands and military bases, and protect the right of free travel through the new foreign country for US citizens. Sort of Gitmo writ large.
          The fun part would be all the Federal employees and contractors with security clearances. BOOM! No longer US citizens, no clearances. Instant spike in jobless claims in a new country with no bank account.
          Oh, yeah, and no FDIC, so no banks, no direct deposits, no ATM, debit and credit card clearance system. Some kind of fun. Come on California, secede!

          1. I highly doubt US citizenship would be revoked (at least instantly).

            1. Instantly with secession; a nation with we have no treaties or reciprocal agreements. US Citizens living there would have to choose to swear allegiance to the new country, or leave immediately. (If allowed to leave by the socialist regime) Without an agreement to allow dual citizenship, they could not keep US citizenship.
              Of course, it would not happen instantly. During the time before the vote, true Americans would pack up and leave, as they are already doing. I am sure the Marines can defend Pendleton, Miramar, Twentynine Palms, Barstow, San Diego, and Bridgeport if they want to.

    3. Would secession result in military action these days?

      1. Depends on how successful is achieved, I suppose.

        Fact is, leading up the Civil War we weren’t just politically segregated, we were geographically segregated. There were many states where not a single county went to the losing candidate in 1860.

        In modern elections, there tends to be a small handful of started that are that unanimous. Even such strongly partisan states as California and Texas consistently have many counties that go against the rest of the state.

        So a modern secession attempt would see a lot more *internal* resistance then in 1860.

        So a big question would be “how does the seceding government treat dissenters?”. If Texas violently suppresses Austin, or California burns the inland empire, that raises the likelihood of violent reprisal from the US by a lot.

        If it’s more like Alaska saying “peace out, bitches” and there’s no big resistance within the state? Violent reprisal is a much harder sell.

        1. Hey–Austin has it coming, dammit! Fuck all y’all!

  13. Most Californians who are sick and tired of it and can’t afford to live there have left or are in the process of doing so. That leaves the wealthy coastal progs, their mostly-immigrant servants, and those who are dependent on state services. California is now essentially a feudal state.

    1. The problem though is so many of them bring their same shitty, loser attitude to the nice new place they move to. New arrivals from California are utterly despised in most of the places they flock to.

      1. We have the same problem with NYers moving in where I live.

    2. Man, that would be a great lead scroll for a film

  14. “This kind of corruption is what happens in Third World countries.”

    Mexifornia is well on its way to becoming a third world country.

    1. Having spent time in both CA and OK, you may be surprised to hear which one felt more like a third-world country to me.

      1. I’ve spent time in both places also, and I never saw a pile of human shit on a sidewalk in Oklahoma, ever.

        1. Hmm. We must have seen different parts. I’ve also found the tooth-to-person ration to be much higher in CA.

          1. They ration teeth in California?

            Geez. Life under socialism really does suck.

          2. You dont need teeth in other parts of the USA because you can get straws to drink your food.

            1. Point, set, and match

  15. If they let it through there would have been many imitators. Upstate NY would love to dump “The City” and Cuomo. And frack away to full employment.

    1. The individual people of Upstate might want that, but I’m led to believe that Albany is pretty addicted to the sweet sweet tax revenues that pour out of the City.

      1. Eh, that’s true pretty much everywhere. Rural areas resent the influence that high populations give cities, but they love the money that comes from them.

  16. “This kind of corruption is what happens in Third World countries.”

    Encourage hundreds of thousands of third worlders wander in illegally and stay to vote and guess what? You get a third world country.

  17. I’m disappointed, but oh well.

    That said, I think we still need one or more Constitutional amendments that outline a formal process for states to secede, break apart, and merge. Even if no State wants to take advantage at this time, we should have the process defined so that we don’t have folks scrabbling about trying to figure it out when tensions are even higher then they are now.

    Or to put it another way… When legal divorce is an option, you have fewer spouses killing each other to get out of an undesired marriage. So even if you don’t want a divorce right *now*, it’s good to know what the steps are should that change.

    1. The existing process is pretty straight forward.
      Declare your independence and see if the rest of the country cares or not.
      Just be prepared for both cases.
      If they care, you will need an effective military force. You know, guns, knives, explosives, and all that stuff you have banned. Because the National Guard will be still guarding the USA. And the US Military, all over the place in your new nation, will be the only trained fighting force in the new country. See, your cops are not gong to be able to deal with actual resistance.
      If they don’t care, you will need a monetary system, a judicial system, and a bunch of other things that California knows little about. Not to mention a few new industries to replace all the DOD work and defense manufacturing. Oh, yeah, and funding, because there may no be an ‘exchange rate’ from US dollars to your seashells, or bark bits, or whatever.

  18. I don’t see how the initiative made it as far as it did.

    You can’t have something that effectively declares “upon passage the State of California ceases to exist” and call it an amendment to the State Constitution. Nor can any such ballot measure magically create two other States that have never petitioned for admission into the Union.

    Typical California leftists making it up as they go along.

    1. That’s not what the ballot measure was intended to do.

      It was basically an order to the government that, if passed, the government should work with Congress to *try* and split up the state. There was 0 expectation that the measure, alone, would do anything, even if successful.

      1. Really? My understanding is that, among other things, the initiative defines which counties are to end up where.

        Something a single State initiative simply cannot do.

        1. Per the US Constitution it would seem the proper order would be for California to cease to be a State (which I do think permissible by CA ballot initiative), revert to Territorial status, then the Territory could re-organize itself into a single, or multiple entities and such entities would then petition for statehood.

          1. Only as long as the US is willing to accept territorial responsibility.
            Something I think would have trouble getting passed.

        2. That understanding is correct, but your larger understanding, that this proposition was expected to accomplish anything on it’s own, is wrong. It has been known from the start that this was a first step, but even if successful there would be more steps to follow.

          Think of it like the Brexit vote. The vote indicated the intent of the voters, but it requires further government action to realize that intent.

    2. I’m no expert on California politics, but I’m not sure these were leftists trying to split the state apart.

      1. I get what you are saying, my use of the term was intended as descriptive, not categorical.

  19. One wonders if the California Supreme court justices have a personal interest in not breaking up the state.

    1. Really? Are they human? Then they have personal political interests. All authorities have them. If they didn’t in the beginning, they acquire them when they put on “the ring of power”. Even T.J. fell under the spell. Don’t blame them. Blame all who create the concentration of power by supporting a coercive political paradigm. When people stop it and create a new non-violent, voluntarist paradigm based on reason, then we will have a civil society.

    2. YEAH! They’re Leftists all!

  20. The Ballot initiative was a bullshit Democrat Federal Power-grab, with the added benefit of undermining any legitimate secessionist/representation beefs.

  21. Better choices:
    San Francisco, San Diego, and Los Angeles secede from California and join with Hawaii to create a workers paradise called Oceania. They may even invite Portland and Seattle to join with them.
    Same number of states, so no senate issues. Happy liberals in Oceania, happy individualists in California. Everybody keeps their US citizenship, access to the financial services and the ‘third rail’ programs.

    1. How can it be called Oceania? There is already an Oceania.

  22. the best and ONLY way to separate the state into the free state of jefferson and the rest is Kalifornexico or commieforniastan is
    here is the BEST solution for that.
    take a 50 mile wide swath from the center of the golden gate bridge to the east limit of sacramento and everything south of the san gabriels , west of the 15 freeway and call it Kaliforniastan. call whats left the great state of Jefferson. Jefferson will be free. you know what Kaliforniastan will be.
    Screw that 3 state split! all it will give you is three states that will be ruled by communist/socialists and ILLEGAL ALIENS.

    1. Using large letter to emphasize things in comment really just makes you look like an angry old man with no power yelling at the internets.

  23. This is stupid. If they want to vote on it let them. Why should judges be able to decide on something like this? Typical government and judicial overreach. It will never pass anyway.

  24. Each of California’s biggest metropolitan areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego) would end up in a different state.

    and this IS the real issue… it will end up forming three new states, each run by one huge metropolitan area and its leftist libarals, and the remaining residents continuing under the tyranny of the three cities, now each running their own little fiefdom rather than the voters together colluding on running the rest of the state collectively. The only signficant REAM benefit to those behind this will be the certaintly that two more states will havitually elect a total of four more senators, thus shifting the balance of power in that body. They haven’t figured out how to get the balance shifted legitimately so they dream up this stunt.

    I saw a map of a suggested five way split.. same story. As long as any existing major metropolitan area gets tacked onto a new state, that entire state will flood, or at least drift, left……

    1. You mean the Frisco Bay Area, not Frisco. Nit picking yes but it’s the perspective.

  25. King George denied the right of the colonial serfs to secede, Lincoln denied the right of the South to secede, and now the tyrants in CA deny the right of their serfs to secede. Tyrants act alike. They know what’s good for their power.

    The question is: Have the serfs learned anything from HDT or Gandhi? Do they know how to apply non-violent resistance and get to serve a smaller master? Does it matter? Yes. This could be a template for the peaceful dissolution of the US Empire.

    Someone should write a political primer: Fifty non-violent ways to leave your master.

    Is it too soon to start planning the breakup of N.CA into East & West? Oh yea baby, I smell freedom!

  26. This is fine that the initiative was removed from the ballot. The initiative was a wasted effort as it didn’t solve any of California’s problems. The initiative only created two new states, leaving all three states with the same problems they would have had before the division. Nothing solved, so no point in proceeding with any more wasted funds on this nonsense initiative.

    Note that the sentiments of the State of Jefferson were completely ignored by this initiative. If Jefferson wants to be it’s own state, it needs to 1) Elect Constitutional sheriffs in each county involved; 2) Have those sheriffs expel all federal officials and California (and Oregon) officials from their respective counties; 3) Write their constitution and elect new state officials for State of Jefferson; 4) Establish Congressional districts based on 2010 census and elect Congressmen and Senators to send to Washington DC; 5) Refuse to recognized the federal government until Jefferson Congressmen and Senators are recognized and seated in Congress.

    That’s the only way that the State of Jefferson will come about – Just do it. It will never come about in accordance with the US Constitution, as the state legislatures in California and Oregon would never agree to losing territory, ie part of their tax base. Only solution for State of Jefferson is to just DO IT and be damned what Salem, Sacramento and Washington DC say about it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.