Proposal to split California into three states makes November ballot

So California might decide they want to be 3 states, and the rest of the US just has to accept it? I don't get it, why does California think they have so much power?

Not saying I support it, but Cali is basically the size of at least 4 states compared to the east cost.
 
Do I really need to explain this?
You said...



So if the electoral college wasn't winner take all, then the state size wouldn't matter. Already sort of discussed in the thread. In other words, your problem is with the electoral college not so much the size of the state.


What you need to explain is how exactly you came to the conclusion that I had some sort of problem.
 
So they finally got this on the ballot, I didn't vote on Tuesday, I don't really vote anymore last time I voted was for Obama the first time around and California Governor Jerry Brown, what do you guys think of this? Good or bad move?


HT_Calif_3_split_180613KA_hpMain_13x7_608.jpg

California residents will get a chance to vote on a measure to divide the Golden State into three separate states, election officials said Tuesday.

Proponents of the CAL 3 initiative submitted more than 402,468 valid signatures as of Tuesday, making it eligible for the Nov. 6 general election ballot, according to the California Secretary of State’s office.

The office did not say exactly how many total signatures were submitted, but backers said the petition drew more than 600,000 from residents across the state’s 58 counties, dwarfing the 365,000 signatures required to qualify for the ballot.

Adding the initiative to the ballot would be the first step in a long process that would ultimately require approval from Congress.

Draper proposed similar measures in 2012 and 2014, but those efforts failed after election officials invalidated many of the signatures collected.

“The unanimous support for CAL 3 from all 58 of California’s counties to reach this unprecedented milestone in the legislative process is the signal that across California, we are united behind CAL 3 to create a brighter future for everyone,” Draper said in a statement in April after the signatures were collected.

Draper says the spilt would create three separate governments, boost education and infrastructure, and lower taxes, but critics claim it could do more harm than good.

“It’s not like you’re starting from scratch, you have to blow up everything,” Steven Maviglio, who helped defeat Draper’s previous effort, told local reporters earlier this year. “There are so many fundamentally flawed aspects to this.”

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/proposal-...er-ballot-085603479--abc-news-topstories.html

California Supreme Court blocks proposal to split state in 3 from November ballot
By Gregg Re | Fox News



The California Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked a proposal that would split the state into three from the November ballot.

The court wrote that it took the step “because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity and because we conclude 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.”

Last week, an environmental group sued to have the measure removed from the ballot. To substantially alter the state's governance under the California constitution, the group argued, a constitutional convention would need to be called -- and that requires a supermajority of both houses of the state's legislature.

A ballot initiative, the group said, was constitutionally insufficient.

“In seeking to remove this initiative from the ballot, we are asking the court to protect the integrity of both the initiative process and our state constitution,” Carlyle Hall, an attorney representing the environmental group, the Planning and Conservation League, said in a statement. “Proponents should not be able to evade the state constitution simply by qualifying a measure as one thing, when it is so clearly another.”

The California Supreme Court has held that while amendments to the California state constitution through ballot measures are appropriate, more significant "revisions" of the constitution require action from the legislature. For a measure to count as a "revision," the California Supreme Court has ruled, it "must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution.”

But the sponsor of the “Cal 3” initiative to split California into three states -- in the name of increased government efficiency -- asked the state's Supreme Court last week to dismiss the lawsuit calling for the proposal to be pulled from the November ballot.

Tim Draper, a venture capitalist who spent more than $1.7 million supporting the initiative, told the court in a letter that there wasn't enough time to properly consider the legal challenge to his effort.

He also claimed the measure was appropriate for the ballot process, and claimed splitting up California would make the state easier and more efficient to govern.

"I have been given just a day or two to respond to a complex, multi-faceted attack on my Constitutional right to initiative," Draper wrote. "This Court's long history of jealously guarding the exercise of initiative power should not be cavalierly disregarded now, especially on such a truncated timetable."

The court was under pressure to decide the issue quickly, because the California November ballot reportedly was set to go to the printer in early August.

Wednesday's order is not a final ruling on the constitutionality of the ballot measure, but experts said the judges would not have removed the measure from the ballot if they did not feel strongly that it was unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court said it will determine the merits of the measure's constitutionality in the future.

Passing at the ballot box would have just been the first hurdle for the initiative. The measure, after passage, then would direct the governor to ask the U.S. Congress for the ultimate approval to split the state into three — likely a tall order.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-split-state-in-3-from-november-ballot.html
 
we conclude 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.”


Sounds correct. Have a fucking plan before you call for citizens to vote on it, even if it’s a stupid one anyways
 
we conclude 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.”


Sounds correct. Have a fucking plan before you call for citizens to vote on it, even if it’s a stupid one anyways
Having something concrete for your people to vote on seems to be the more prudent course of action, yes. The more ambigious question of, "Should California break up into 3 separate state entities?" certainly leaves a lot of details open to interpretation, the realities of which might alter the preferences of Californians about whether to stay together or break apart.
 
More bureaucracy/wasteful spending would be my short answer.
Do you believe voters in the state(s) would get better representation in the electorate or no? I genuinely don't know.
 
The liberal part will need to be rescued by American tax payers before the end of the first year
 
Having something concrete for your people to vote on seems to be the more prudent course of action, yes. The more ambigious question of, "Should California break up into 3 separate state entities?" certainly leaves a lot of details open to interpretation, the realities of which might alter the preferences of Californians about whether to stay together or break apart.

Exactly
 
That’s because LA and Bay Area make up a huge percentage of the population. If those percentages have their own “California” the remaining two states would be very possibley red.

PoliticalGeogFigure-4_web.png

I like how they colored the uninhabitable San Clemente Island blue.
 
Back
Top