Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by cmn32480 on Thursday June 14 2018, @09:48AM   Printer-friendly
from the Calexit-will-return-in-Avengers-4 dept.

Radical plan to split California into three states earns spot on November ballot

California's 168-year run as a single entity, hugging the continent's edge for hundreds of miles and sprawling east across mountains and desert, could come to an end next year — as a controversial plan to split the Golden State into three new jurisdictions qualified Tuesday for the Nov. 6 ballot.

If a majority of voters who cast ballots agree, a long and contentious process would begin for three separate states to take the place of California, with one primarily centered around Los Angeles and the other two divvying up the counties to the north and south. Completion of the radical plan — far from certain, given its many hurdles at judicial, state and federal levels — would make history.

It would be the first division of an existing U.S. state since the creation of West Virginia in 1863.

Also at CNN and The Hill.

Previously: Proposal to Divide California Into Three States Could Land on the November Ballot

Related: Secessionists Formally Launch Quest for California's Independence
California Secession Leader has Russian Ties
Calexit: the "Bad Boys of Brexit" Throw Their Weight Behind Move to Split State


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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @04:47PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @04:47PM (#693000)

    In case you haven't been paying attention, these areas of California - the more conservative ones - are really quite poorly represented both at the state and national level.

    They suffer from horrible, unconstitutional laws/restrictions about firearms, as just one example, despite being in rural areas where you actually do need rifles/shotguns for varmints. Hell, I'd never consider moving to California for this reason alone.

    And yes, they're heavily taxed. Remember the rallying cry 'No taxation without representation?'

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 14 2018, @05:36PM (1 child)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 14 2018, @05:36PM (#693032) Journal

    In case you haven't been paying attention . . .

    I don't live in California. So your explanation, and others' here are helpful.

    they're heavily taxed

    If they are unfairly taxed, then IMO they have a genuine grievance. But, somehow, I suspect that any taxes would be considered too heavy.

    They suffer from horrible, unconstitutional laws/restrictions about firearms

    People in more densely populated areas suffer from horrible mentally ill people with firearms.

    Now if only the two groups could get together and come to some reasonable compromises. I suspect at least one group is unwilling to do so. But I don't know for a fact. There are clearly some individuals who simply should not have firearms. If you live in a rural area, you might not meet very many of them. Or might be one of them, but that is pure speculation.

    --
    Don't put a mindless tool of corporations in the white house; vote ChatGPT for 2024!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @05:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @05:15PM (#693588)

      It's not just all about guns.

      It's about urbanites and suburbanites forcing life decisions on rural communities, without knowledge or experience or exposure to the problems of those communities, but often with a lot of self-righteous, activist-driven opinions.

      Do guns enter into that discussion? Sure. So do everything from construction regulations to water management.

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 14 2018, @07:52PM (3 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday June 14 2018, @07:52PM (#693139)

    > being in rural areas where you actually do need rifles/shotguns for varmints

    Most Dems are ok with single-action long guns and shotguns. The varmints are not a valid reason to want to sell everyone a glock or an AR...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @06:14AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @06:14AM (#693353)

      Semi-automatics are justified for fast-moving varmints.

      I guess you could use very fast repeater actions such as pump or lever, but you might as well use semi-automatics.

      Or, you know, just go banning things because it feels good, but let's not pretend that culling feral hogs with a single shot rifle is a good plan.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 15 2018, @06:24AM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday June 15 2018, @06:24AM (#693355)

        You're a shitty hunter. Your ancestors would like to smack you over the head, and leave you to die of starvation.

        Do you bother to wonder how hunters and farmers deal with big wild game in the majority of countries where semi-auto long guns, and even pump-action shotguns are forbidden, and all you get to own is a breech loader?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @05:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @05:13PM (#693583)

          Speak for yourself. I've tracked shy game and hit them with longbow. I'm a well-practised countryman.

          However, I'm also not an idiot, and I don't reach for bad solutions when good ones are available.