Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the fault-lines dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:43PM (11 children)

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:43PM (#711734)

    I wonder how many people would be bothering to push for this if we just fixed the electoral college.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:29PM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:29PM (#711752) Journal

    I wonder how many people would be bothering to push for this if we just fixed the electoral college.

    Less? Keep in mind that a significant fraction of the voting population doesn't want the electoral college fixed. Little states would become far less relevant in presidential elections.

    • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday July 24 2018, @05:30PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @05:30PM (#711786)

      Good point. Also it's unclear who, exactly, would benefit from califorexit.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Tuesday July 24 2018, @06:01PM (6 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @06:01PM (#711805) Journal
    "Fix" it?

    First prove it's broken.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @07:38PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @07:38PM (#711857)

      The electoral college is allowed to make anyone they choose president.

      Yes, the people choose the electors (in a round about fashion), but the electors choose the president, and there are very few rules on how they do so. Those rules that exist are state rules punishing electors that go against their mandate, but the elector can still vote for whomever they wish, regardless of what people want.

      Is this sufficient proof?

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Tuesday July 24 2018, @08:04PM (2 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @08:04PM (#711872) Journal
        "The electoral college is allowed to make anyone they choose president."

        Working as designed, so no, that's not proof at all.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:17PM (1 child)

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:17PM (#711984) Journal

          When the claim is that the design is broken, "Working as designed" is not proof that it isn't broken. OTOH, I'm not certain to what extent that claim is correct. In order to judge that, I'd need to compare it against the proposed fix.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:27PM

            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:27PM (#711990) Journal
            And the 'proof' advanced would need to directly challenge the design itself, rather than simply pointing at it.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:58AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:58AM (#712072)

      Simple. It's derived in large part from the formula for # of reps which is supposed to be proportional, but because it's really 1+(state pop/country pop)*335, the small states have an double advantage from both their Senators and their minimum 1 rep.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday July 25 2018, @01:21AM

        by Arik (4543) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @01:21AM (#712078) Journal
        This was also working as designed. Remember, the federal government was created by the States. The smaller States gave up just as much as the larger States, to form it, and would never have done so had representation been based on population. It's not. The people are not (directly) represented in the federal government, never were, never were supposed to. The States are the constituents.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 2) by istartedi on Tuesday July 24 2018, @07:01PM

    by istartedi (123) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @07:01PM (#711828) Journal

    They'd still be trying. It's not about the Electoral College. It's a resource grab by mining and timber companies. The northernmost state in this scheme would be poorer than Alabama and have an easily corrupted legislature. Bye-bye redwoods, and they'll sell the water too.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
  • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:25AM

    by crafoo (6639) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:25AM (#712052)

    There's nothing wrong with it. Working as intended. The last result may have not been what you wanted, but that alone is not sufficient reason to go around telling people we need to all get together and flip the table over.
    To be clear, the last thing I ever want is a straight-up democratic election of our president. It would be a disaster.