

Silicon Valley's Plan to Split California into 6 States Just Might Succeed - ero5004
http://www.wired.com/2014/07/silicon-valleys-plan-to-split-california-into-6-states-just-might-work/

======
locopati
This will never happen even if it does pass the ballot measure vote. By the US
Constitution (Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 [1]), new states require both the
consent of the state legislature (which currently has Democractic majority)
and the US Congress (which currently is completely disfunctional). Never mind
the internal fights that would happen over water rights. I think you are more
likely to see California ruptured by science-fiction level earthquakes before
this happens.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_New_states)

~~~
jinushaun
California is not as blue as some people like to believe. I don't think
California democrats would want to create three to four new red states.

------
dragonwriter
Its not really a plan to split California into six states, its a plan to
_propose to the federal government_ splitting California into six states, and
to amend the State Constitution to permit each county a broad power to nullify
state law within the county until and unless that partition occurs [1]. This
is particularly critical to note because if the federal government were to
reject the partition plan (which seems quite possible if it were to pass
California voters), the changes to the State Constitution would remain.

[1] See Section 4 of the initiative [2], amending Article XI of the State
Constitution.

[2] at:
[https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/13-0063%20(...](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/13-0063%20\(13-0063%20\(Six%20Californias\))).pdf

------
chiph
This proposal has interesting aspects regarding percentage of representation
in the US Senate. Over time, as the US population grew, each persons
representation percentage has fallen. California had 1.4 million people in
1900, and 38 million people in 2012.

In 1900, each person had 0.000148 of a Senator. In 2012 that is 0.00000526 of
a Senator. With the new states, that goes up approximately six-fold to
0.0000316

The Constitution says there are 2 Senators per state. So, splitting California
up means 10 additional seats in the senate for the people living there, so
that each person's proportional representation goes up - i.e. it's easier to
get the ear of your senator because you are competing with fewer people for
his attention.

Not sure what would happen in the US House -- I think the number of
Representatives is set at a fixed number (435) by law. So the results of the
next census would be .. interesting.

~~~
notacoward
There are two things the federal government is extremely unlikely to do.

* Let any part of what is now California cease being part of the union.

* Assign twelve senators to what is now California.

There are only two ways to avoid both pitfalls.

* California remains one state.

* The US Constitution is amended to allow only two senators for six states (which used to be one).

Any proposal for splitting California without including that constitutional
amendment is effectively a call for secession, and is likely to be treated as
such by the federal government.

~~~
chiph
>> Let any part of what is now California cease being part of the union.

That's an interesting point. If five new states are created, do they have to
petition the United States to become part of the Union?

>> Assign twelve senators to what is now California.

The other states will likely object to this, as it will be a reduction in
their own voting power in the Senate. Aside from the "joining the Union" part
though, I don't think they have any say in it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> If five new states are created, do they have to petition the United States
> to become part of the Union?

For five new states to be created by removing territory from an existing
state, the split would have to be approved by Congress; the new states don't
have to be admitted to the Union separately from Congressional permission for
them to create them in the first place -- allowing them to be created would
admit them to the Union.

------
_delirium
People are mostly focusing on the political effects of splitting CA, but I
think this particular set of boundaries is not a good one from a practical
perspective, even if CA were somehow to be split. They look drawn almost
solely on the basis of voting patterns. On the basis of commute patterns,
economic ties, etc., they make little sense. For example, the proposal splits
the LA metro area between two states, which I don't think will improve things
for LA residents. For one thing, Metrolink would become an interstate
commuter-rail system, which will just add another layer of bureaucracy in the
way of getting anything done. And as a former resident of the Inland Empire, I
don't see why it should be attached to San Diego when it is clearly part of
the LA metro area; putting a state line right through the middle of the 10/210
corridor is silly.

------
firecooler
John Titor, is that you?

