California Supreme Court blocks proposal to split state in 3 from November ballot
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.
See also: Billionaire Tim Draper Abandons Push to Split California Into Three
Asked if he would continue fighting for the measure, Draper said in an email to Bloomberg News that "the same six lawyers are going to make the decision. What would be the point? They have just proven that California has a runaway government and the people have no say."
Draper, a venture capitalist, sought the initiative because he said the world's fifth-largest economy is "nearly ungovernable" under the current system. Asked if there was anything else he planned to do to make the government more accountable, he said he was "still recovering from the shock."
Previously: Proposal to Divide California Into Three States Could Land on the November Ballot
Ballot Measure to Split California Into Three States Will Appear on the November 2018 Ballot
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:18PM (15 children)
Funny how breaking the state into three the proposed way just happens to make three blue states and adds two Democrat senators to the US Congress. Definitely not an act of gerrymandering in and of itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:21PM (2 children)
Did I say two senators? I meant four.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:35PM (1 child)
And you were horribly wrong in both cases.
Coastal CA is very Blue. Any state formed more than 30 miles from the ocean would be Red. Very Red. Breaking up CA would add R senators, not D ones.
/TMYK
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday July 27 2018, @04:53PM
I haven't looked at it in a couple weeks but I recall thinking that three CAs would end up with a republican advantage in the electoral college but a democratic advantage in house and senate.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:24PM (3 children)
the very fact you think red/blue is the reason shows perhaps a lack of understanding.
I saw the map and thought "money".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:21PM (1 child)
The divide has nothing to do with money, unless it's to make sure enough of it, and the people who control it, ends up in all three states.
This is gerrymandering. Silicon Valley is not "Northern California". Cut the state along ideological lines and let the coastal democrats and rural republicans go their own ways. This proposal just found a way to alienate rural voters in three states instead of one.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @04:32PM
California is controlled by democrats who are don't wish to let the republicans leave. Think of the advantages:
1. Democrats always control the vote outcome.
2. Electoral vote totals are based on population.
3. The population happens to include many angry miserable republicans. Ha, ha! Their electoral votes go to people they hate.
If the state were split, national politics would change. Of course, this does not mean that democrats would lose more often. It means that the democratic policy positions would change as required for getting elected in the new reality.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:28PM
Exactly. There was a grass-roots movement back in the 1940's, where the northern part of California was going to secede from the state. The division line made some kind of sense - the more conservative north, breaking away from the liberal south. Whether one agreed with it or not, it made some kind of sense, for the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_%28proposed_Pacific_state%29 [wikipedia.org]
This three-part division wasn't anything the people thought up, or wanted. It was entirely corporate driven. No people were going to benefit, only corporations, and the top 1% would have derived anything "good" from it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:33PM (7 children)
It's not gerrymandering since the voters will retain (or increase) their voting power. The problem with gerrymandering is how a minority gains power over a majority by playing around with district borders. The Democrats already have the polarity majority so if this move happens to restore their control over the House it's the exact opposite of the current gerrymandering.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:46PM (3 children)
Actually the mere possibility of gerrymandering means that the voting system is broken. A sane voting system will give consistent results independent of arbitrary changes of voting district borders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @08:12PM (2 children)
Yeah, I can't name any other systems either. Nice pipe dream you have there, though.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:06PM
Actually, he pretty much did. His system, i.e. "No matter how you draw the district boundaries, it doesn't affect the results." is essentially straight system wide voting, with anyone can vote for any candidate. No matter what the implementation details, that would be the essence of it.
FWIW, I even see the merit to a version of it that I call "subscription voting", where basically there aren't elections. Anyone can show up to vote, and they have a list (how to validate?) of people that have given they their "proxy". They key is that anyone at any time can invalidate their proxy and switch it to someone else. And that any one person can only give their proxy to one member of the legislative house. This would *probably* be legal on a state level, but on a federal level it would be in violation of the constitution, and the courts might even decide that on a state level it didn't constitute "a republican form of government".
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:10PM
You have not thought about it very hard then, nor have you done even a basic search to find out how other countries arrange their electoral systems.
It will no doubt surprise you to find out that countries that have properly democratic electoral systems actually have their electoral boundaries set by an independent commission.
I know you in the US are resigned to your system of two state-sanctioned parties and their pretence of opposition, but it's actually not hard to keep politicians out of setting electoral boundaries. it's no coincidence that gerrymandering is an American term.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:18PM (2 children)
The increased voting power comes at the expense of a decrease in voting power for the other 49 states once California gets six senators instead of two.
It's gerrymandering on a national level.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:03PM
Who said we have to recognize whatever splinters off from California as a new state?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @07:10PM
Reducing the ratio of voters:congress critters decreases the ability to gerrymander effectively because then smaller changes in demographics are needed to screw up your carefully plotted scheme.
If that reduces the power of people who already wield a disproportionate amount of power relative to their population is not a bug, it's a feature.