'Six Californias' Opponent Says Time to Take Initiative Seriously

Here's an idea: Split California into six -- count 'em -- six states.

Why?

Why not!

The campaign to do just that -- split the state in six -- took a step forward today, as Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper submitted more than 1 million signatures to place the question on the November 2016 ballot.

KQED's Scott Shafer reports:

The theory behind the measure is that California, with 58 counties and 38 million people and counting, is just too big. If passed and enacted, the Golden State would be split into six states, each with their own government and their own U.S. Senators. San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco would become part the state of Silicon Valley. Marin, Napa, Sonoma and Solano counties would belong to North California.

Draper sunk $2 million into the effort.

"Six Californias gives us the opportunity to reboot and refresh our state government," Draper said Tuesday. "The opportunity to improve our schools, our roads, our waterways, our prison system and our economy."

Even if this measure qualifies for the ballot, it still faces huge obstacles. Even if voters pass the plan, it would still need a majority of votes from both houses of Congress and the president's signature.

Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio, part of OneCalifornia, a bipartisan committee formed to oppose the measure, had some choice words for the proposed initiative Tuesday: "I think Californians need about two seconds to dismiss this idea rather than two years. On its face it's unworkable; it's an extravagant waste of time, money and energy."

Maviglio also said the initiative will make the state a laughing stock on late-night TV.

When asked why he was taking the effort seriously, Maviglio said, "Mr. Draper is a billionaire. He paid three dollars a signature to get this on the ballot, and he probably has unlimited funds to do TV advertising. So you have to take anything seriously in the political arena."

Maviglio said that now that the signatures have been handed in, others would come on board the No campaign. "Everybody should start to take this seriously," he said.

One group who really doesn't like the idea: The Courage Campaign, a human rights organization based in L.A. Their statement:

The proposed ballot measure to divide California into six new states needs to be called out for what it is -- a craven attempt to divide California along strict socioeconomic lines that will create stratified pockets of wealth and homogenous political districts, where conservatives and the super wealthy can be safe from scrutiny or the will of the people.

Californians are united in their opposition to this radical and divisive attempt to turn our great state into a series of ghettos and gated communities and will reject it come 2016.

A February Field Poll showed 59 percent opposed to the measure, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Draper was on KQED's Forum to discuss the initiative in January. You can listen to that appearance here.

In January, the Legislative Analyst's Office looked at the idea and calculated per capita income, tax base, Medi-Cal enrollment and prison population, among other things, for each of the proposed six states. In terms of personal income, "Silicon Valley," which would include San Francisco, comes out on top and "Central California" on bottom.

And for those who like the current borders, the LAO provides a little summary of how they came about:

The current borders of California are specified in the California Constitution and a few other state laws. These borders resulted from: (1) an 1848 treaty with Mexico that ceded California to the United States and (2) the decision of delegates at California’s 1849 constitutional convention to set the state’s eastern boundary near the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and along the Colorado River. Congress and President Fillmore agreed to admit California to the union as a “free state” as part of the Compromise of 1850. Proposals to split California into two separate states were not approved at that time.

On Tuesday, KQED's Mina Kim talked to Joe Mathews, co-author of "California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It," about just what is going on here:

Mathews, who very much dislikes the initiative process, actually recommended voting for Six Californias in this March post on Fox & Hounds. Not because he thinks it's a good idea or has a chance of becoming a reality, but because he believes it could spark a necessary conversation. He writes:

Draper has put forward an idea that can’t possibly happen, since it would require Congress to go along. And the other 49 states are never going to give California 10 new senators. And the Democratic party is never going to allow California and its giant haul of electoral college votes to be split.

So voting on Draper’s measure is, as legal matter, harmless. Indeed, its harmlessness makes it the perfect vehicle for sparking a conversation about California’s size, scale and lack of democracy.

California is, as Draper and other would-be splitters and secessionists have pointed out, far too big, both in number of people and size. Government is at once too big and too small. Too much power (albeit badly hamstrung power) is centralized in the state government in Sacramento. Other power is scattered among thousands of local governments -– there are far too many –- that don’t have enough power and scope to do much of anything at all except spend money (and, in too many cases, steal from the public).

But California life is actually lived at the regional level. Our major regions have the size and character of U.S. states –- far more than California itself, which is more like a country than a state. But we don’t have all that much in the way of regional government –- and we should. Indeed, we need to strip power from the state government and devolve it to the regions -– while at the same time consolidating local governments into broader, more powerful regional bodies.