California Might Split Into 3 States. The US Should Only Keep One of Them.

 

This November, California voters will decide if they want their once Golden State split into three. Wracked by high debt, ridiculous taxes, and severe economic disparity, this plan is intended to give residents more control of their state government.

The ballot measure was drafted by Tim Draper, a Silicon Valley VC gazillionaire responsible for two past efforts to divide Cali six ways. His modified plan for an unholy trinity is considered an improvement since each new state would be more economically sustainable.

“Three states will get us better infrastructure, better education and lower taxes,” Draper said. “States will be more accountable to us and can cooperate and compete for citizens.”

On Tuesday, elections officials projected that Draper got more than enough signatures to make the ballot.

The new map would create a centrist Southern California, including much of the agricultural heartland, Riverside, and San Diego; a leftist state called California, running up the coast from LA to Monterey; and an essentially communist state called Northern California above them both. (A better name for the latter would be “Woke-ifornia.”)

If voters support the new map, both houses of the California Legislature would need to confirm it. Then it would go through the courts, the US Congress, and whoever sews new stars on the flag.

Quickly looking at the map, the problem for conservatives is quickly apparent. Instead of offering two bat-guano leftist senators, we’d end up with at least four and as many as six. No bueno.

Nevertheless, I support the plan wholeheartedly. Voters should split Cali thrice, have Sacramento give its blessing, and ship the paperwork to DC. At that point, Congress should endorse it … but only allow Southern California to remain in the union.

Let’s be honest: Californian progressives aren’t too happy with this whole American experiment. They regularly flout federal law while floating secession fanfic like #Calexit. The Supreme Court should cite “irreconcilable differences” and let the wayward spouse follow its heart. (Read all about it in the steamy Kamala Harris memoir, Eat, Love, Don’t Pray.)

Meanwhile, the pro-military San Diegans, uber-rich OC-ers, and salt-of-the-earth inlanders can finally escape Sacramento’s boot.

Perhaps the best part of this plan is that the cast-off Calis can finally prove to us dummies that anti-American socialism really works — it just hasn’t been tried yet.

One last note to surrounding states: We’re gonna need a wall. A big, beautiful wall.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 76 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  1. Member

    I still like this version better, where New California leaves on their own.

    Image result for map of proposed new california

     

    • #1
    • June 13, 2018 at 4:42 pm
    • 18 likes
  2. Thatcher

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: One last note to surrounding states: We’re gonna need a wall. A big, beautiful wall.

    … and a moat. With alligators.

    • #2
    • June 13, 2018 at 4:45 pm
    • 20 likes
  3. Contributor

    Of course there are down sides, but none of them will prevent most of the people I know here in Orange County and especially in my hometown on Los Alamitos from voting for this split.

    • #3
    • June 13, 2018 at 4:46 pm
    • 6 likes
  4. Member

    They should put San Francisco in the same state as Los Angeles… because Northern Californians will still not get representation because of the Liberals in the Bay area.

    Then I think it might be two moderate to one liberal state, and that would be an improvement.

    • #4
    • June 13, 2018 at 4:50 pm
    • 8 likes
  5. Thatcher

    How about we give the cast-offs to Mexico?

    • #5
    • June 13, 2018 at 4:52 pm
    • 1 like
  6. Member

    Sacramento used to be rather conservative – in past decades, we were considered a good representation for middle-America in terms of product testing. But when we went to a full time legislature, brought on by the mongrel horde of Coastal elites  er, Population Centers, then lobbyists and Power-Mad Union Czars took up permanent residence in my hometown – and drove the rest of us out. So, really it isn’t so much the boot of Sacramento, as it is the boot of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

    The simplest, albeit, illegal, solution, is to trade in our current 40 Senators representing approximately 931,000 people, for 58 Senators representing 58 Counties – bicameral representation. If the Great Compromise was good enough at the Federal level for the founders, I fail to see why it wouldn’t be good enough at the state level.

    58 County representatives would lead to actual representation for rural areas, and, truthfully, gridlock, which would be a Godsend: why, after 167 years, does the state of California need to pass close to 2000 bills per legislative session? One would think that we might have addressed the majority of legislative concerns by now. It would also address part of the redistricting issue – at various points in the last 15 years, my Assembly representative, and another time, my senator, were from Lodi in San Joaquin County – TWO counties away from my home in El Dorado Hills, in El Dorado County.

    Also, please, never Cali. It’s the vulgar language of hipsters, transplants, and the lazy. No native Californian refers to it as Cali, unless they are the spawn of Transplants from the last 20 years.

    • #6
    • June 13, 2018 at 5:08 pm
    • 12 likes
  7. Inactive

    If the referendum passes, and is approved in Sacramento, Congress should pass a resolution expelling all Representatives and Senators from Old California on the grounds that their state no longer exists and force all three states to reenter on their own terms. If this resolution fails none of the new states shall be eligible for admission; Old California will continue to be recognized as a single unit.

    All state and federal officeholders formerly representing Old California must either stand for reelection in their new home states or retire, and new state constitutions must be drafted before the new states will be recognized.

    Basically, I think we should let them do it, but if this is a ploy to pack the Senate as some people suspect, Congress should not make it easy for them.

    • #7
    • June 13, 2018 at 5:15 pm
    • 7 likes
  8. Member

    Antisocial-Introvert (View Comment):
    One last note to surrounding states: We’re gonna need a wall. A big, beautiful wall.

    No, North Korea. Trade them for the nukes.

    • #8
    • June 13, 2018 at 5:16 pm
    • 3 likes
  9. Member

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: One last note to surrounding states: We’re gonna need a wall. A big, beautiful wall.

    I endorse this message.

    • #9
    • June 13, 2018 at 5:26 pm
    • 3 likes
  10. Member

    If this idea were to succeed, would other states be able to take advantage of the idea as well – like, New York? I’ve heard upstate New Yorkers are not happy with New York City being able to pretty much run everything in the state.

    • #10
    • June 13, 2018 at 6:07 pm
    • 4 likes
  11. Member

    I thought the name for the northern part was supposed to be Jefferson. Maybe that was the name in an earlier plan. 

    • #11
    • June 13, 2018 at 6:15 pm
    • 3 likes
  12. Member

    Kim K. (View Comment):

    I thought the name for the northern part was supposed to be Jefferson. Maybe that was the name in an earlier plan.

    Yep, one of many.

    • #12
    • June 13, 2018 at 6:18 pm
    • 5 likes
  13. Member

    Outside of SF, NorCal isn’t really leftist. I mean, we have the whole State of Jefferson thing.

    • #13
    • June 13, 2018 at 6:19 pm
    • 6 likes
  14. Member

    Endorsed … until Neil Stephenson’s glorious vision of sovereign neighborhoods finally catches on.

    • #14
    • June 13, 2018 at 6:30 pm
    • 2 likes
  15. Member

    Doesn’t our constitution require each new state to have a republican form of government? It’s questionable whether any of the three would qualify. 

    • #15
    • June 13, 2018 at 6:38 pm
    • 5 likes
  16. Member

    Losing Orange County, which I live about 15 minutes from, is enough for me to vote “no”. What a political nightmare my state would be, LA County people controlling everything. 

    • #16
    • June 13, 2018 at 6:40 pm
    • 2 likes
  17. Member

    Kim K. (View Comment):

    I thought the name for the northern part was supposed to be Jefferson. Maybe that was the name in an earlier plan.

    Slave Owner.

    Un PC Comrade.

    • #17
    • June 13, 2018 at 6:41 pm
    • 2 likes
  18. Member

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Kim K. (View Comment):

    I thought the name for the northern part was supposed to be Jefferson. Maybe that was the name in an earlier plan.

    Slave Owner.

    Un PC Comrade.

    I thought he owned a chain of DryCleaners.

     

    Movin’ on up…

     

    • #18
    • June 13, 2018 at 6:55 pm
    • 11 likes
  19. Member

    Since a State can not change its own borders this is all rather irrelevant. I doubt congress would move to redraw the US map. It is a silly idea. Why not just demand that we fuse the two Dakotas and Carolina together while we are breaking up the big states. Maybe what we should do is redraw all the states to achieve population parity between them. 

    Leave it to California to allow direct democracy to just prove how stupid the voting public really is. 

    • #19
    • June 13, 2018 at 7:18 pm
    • 4 likes
  20. Member

    The last map drawn this mischievously was at the Treaty of Versailles. It will lead to an immediate war over water between the three Californias, which Southern California will win in a walk due to their common-freaking-sense which gives them the insurmountable advantage of being able to tell their butts from second base. Unfortunately, living on the border between California and Southern California my second base will be buried under rubble as the Blitzkrieg sweeps through the Orange Curtain toward the harbor and thus unable to witness the reunification and subsequent referendums about doing it all again. Dammit.

    • #20
    • June 13, 2018 at 7:21 pm
    • 7 likes
  21. Inactive

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Since a State can not change its own borders this is all rather irrelevant. I doubt congress would move to redraw the US map. It is a silly idea. Why not just demand that we fuse the two Dakotas and Carolina together while we are breaking up the big states. Maybe what we should do is redraw all the states to achieve population parity between them.

    Leave it to California to allow direct democracy to just prove how stupid the voting public really is.

    There is a Constitutional provision for regions seceding from already existing states. It has to be agreed to by the seceding region, the government of the original state, and Congress, but it’s possible.

    • #21
    • June 13, 2018 at 7:25 pm
    • 7 likes
  22. Thatcher

    Didn’t I hear someplace that Putin is making noises about Alaska? Maybe he’ll take part of California and forget about Alaska. He can even have Pelosi and Moonbeam as a free added incentive.

    • #22
    • June 13, 2018 at 7:31 pm
    • 2 likes
  23. Member

    So three guaranteed Democrat strongholds instead of one? Not sure why any conservative would vote for this.

    • #23
    • June 13, 2018 at 7:38 pm
    • 3 likes
  24. Member

    Would each new state get 2 senators? If so, let’s break up Mississippi and Alabama into 10 states each.

    • #24
    • June 13, 2018 at 7:54 pm
    • 5 likes
  25. Member

    Never mind. For a host of reasons, it’ll never happen, no matter the outcome of the vote.

    • #25
    • June 13, 2018 at 8:39 pm
    • 1 like
  26. Member

    Quietpi (View Comment):

    Never mind. For a host of reasons, it’ll never happen, no matter the outcome of the vote.

    It’ll do them good to know we’re thinking about them, though.

    • #26
    • June 13, 2018 at 9:25 pm
    • Like
  27. Member

     

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Would each new state get 2 senators? If so, let’s break up Mississippi and Alabama into 10 states each.

    I suspect the plan also counts on an increase in Electoral College representation, too.

    • #27
    • June 13, 2018 at 9:57 pm
    • Like
  28. Member

    kylez (View Comment):
    LA County people controlling everything. 

    As opposed to now, where they share control with the Bay Area people?

    • #28
    • June 13, 2018 at 11:05 pm
    • 1 like
  29. Member

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    So three guaranteed Democrat strongholds instead of one? Not sure why any conservative would vote for this.

    Do you really think so? The eastern part of the state, the agricultural part of the state and much of Orange County is still fairly conservative. Now, it’s California Conservative, but it’s vastly more conservative than San Fran or LA. At least one of those states would be moderate borderline conservative and would have a chance at a Republican governor, congressmen/women, or state representatives. There would be less of an ideological stranglehold. I’m not often someone who thinks that this would be a good idea, but looking at the state… I wonder.

    The only problem is, it gives the liberals the joy of watching the more conservative new state deal with international border issues as caravans of illegal immigrants come marching through to their Sanctuary. 

    • #29
    • June 13, 2018 at 11:09 pm
    • Like
  30. Member

    Joseph Eagar (View Comment):

    Outside of SF, NorCal isn’t really leftist. I mean, we have the whole State of Jefferson thing.

    Except for the Emerald Triangle, there’s not much of an economy in the State of Jefferson. Back when it was first proposed, there was this quaint but evil industry called “logging” that was pretty robust.

    Also, given that Jefferson is includes a lot of Northern California and part of Southern Oregon. That means that both states’ legislatures would have to be on board.

    • #30
    • June 13, 2018 at 11:40 pm
    • 1 like
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3