Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:32AM (26 children)

    As much grief as I like to give the west coast, that looks like the proper decision. The state question should have required the legislature to convene a constitutional convention for this purpose rather than trying to end run the state constitution. See, folks, that is what it looks like to support things being done according to the law rather than getting what you want via a clearly illegal ruling.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:00PM (23 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:00PM (#711674)

    Problem: The legislatures gerrymander to force the majorities the interests of the minorities.
    Solution: Make gerrymandering illegal.
    Problem: Only the legislatures can do that.
    Solution: Have a ballot making gerrymandering illegal.
    Problem: The court said such a ballot is illegal.
    Solution: Break apart the state to three to make gerrymandering impossible.
    Problem: The court said such a ballot is illegal.
    .
    .
    .
    Solution: Pick up arms and kill the judges and legislatures.

    Am I missing anything?

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:18PM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:18PM (#711677)

      Solution: Break apart the state to three to make gerrymandering impossible.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:21PM (#711678)

        Did I say two senators? I meant four.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:35PM (1 child)

          by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:35PM (#712784)

          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

            by Sulla (5173) on Friday July 27 2018, @04:53PM (#713747) Journal

            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)

        by opinionated_science (4031) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:24PM (#711679)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:21PM (#711699)

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @04:32PM (#711772)

            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

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:28PM (#711730) Journal

          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]

          In October 1941, the Mayor of Port Orford, Oregon, Gilbert Gable, said that the Oregon counties of Curry, Josephine, Jackson, and Klamath should join with the California counties of Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Modoc to form a new state, later named Jefferson.[6]

          He was motivated by the belief that these heavily rural areas were underrepresented in state government, which tended to cater to more populous areas.[7]

          On November 27, 1941, a group of young men gained national media attention when, brandishing hunting rifles for dramatic effect, they stopped traffic on U.S. Route 99 south of Yreka, the county seat of Siskiyou County, and handed out copies of a Proclamation of Independence, stating that the State of Jefferson was in "patriotic rebellion against the States of California and Oregon" and would continue to "secede every Thursday until further notice."[8]

          The state split movement ended quickly, though not before Del Norte County District Attorney John Leon Childs (1863–1953) of Crescent City was inaugurated as the Governor of the State of Jefferson on December 4, 1941.[9]

          The first blow was the death of Mayor Gable on December 2, followed by the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7. Those in favor of splitting the state focused their efforts on the war effort, which crippled the movement.

          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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:33PM (#711681)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:46PM (#711684)

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @08:12PM (#711877)

            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

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:06PM (#711977) Journal

              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

              by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:10PM (#711980)

              Yeah, I can't name any other systems either. Nice pipe dream you have there, though.

              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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:18PM (#711698)

          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

            by Fnord666 (652) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:03PM (#711741) Homepage

            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.

            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

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @07:10PM (#711834)

            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.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:47PM (1 child)

      by theluggage (1797) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:47PM (#711685)

      Solution: Pick up arms and kill the judges and legislatures.

      Problem: your new revolutionary council overloads turn out to be just as human and corruptable as the old lot, except they can now openly use, well, force to force their interests on the majorities.

      Remember folks - you don't have to be a psychopath to want to rule but - hell, who are we kidding, of course you do! Choosing a government is always about finding the least bad candidate, not the best. Even if you find the perfect benevolent dictator for life, they'll have kids. Or get assassinated (probably by their kids). Even imperfect democracy at least gives you a fighting chance of getting rid of a bad leader without letting the dogs out.

      People are a problem.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:37PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:37PM (#711732) Journal

        Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
        That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
        With carrion men, groaning for burial.

        Written by some shakey old dude, long ago.

        Who let the dogs out?
        Who, who, who, who, who?
        Who let the dogs out?
        Who, who, who, who, who?

        Sung by some shakey younger dudes, more recently

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:11PM

      Logic, I approve. Next time maybe we'll know better than to use (only) geographic districts. There is no possible way they will ever be fair.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:25PM (#711704)

      Solution: Find a number of people willing to be single-term legislators who agree with the anti-gerrymandering sentiment. Elect them, have them pass the law, and then bow out gracefully at the ends of their terms.

      The shock value of "bow out gracefully" might be enough to do in a few of the more hardened partisans on all sides - which could be chalked up as an added benefit.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:26PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:26PM (#711750) Journal

      The court said such a ballot is illegal.

      There are legal ways to do that. Those should be tried first.

      Further, this is a silly and immature argument since you don't show that you have a problem or that you have fixes to the problem. For example, if we make gerrymandering illegal, but have great ambiguity in the law as to how gerrymandering is defined or fixed, then that allows the courts to gerrymander instead of the legislative branch.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @04:30PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @04:30PM (#711770)

      Problem: The legislatures gerrymander to force the majorities the interests of the minorities.
      Solution: Make gerrymandering illegal.
      Problem: Only the legislatures can do that.
      Solution: Have a ballot making gerrymandering illegal.
      Problem: The court said such a ballot is illegal.
      Solution: Break apart the state to three to make gerrymandering impossible.
      Problem: The court said such a ballot is illegal.
      .
      .
      .
      Solution: Pick up arms and kill the judges and legislatures.

      Am I missing anything?

      Your storyline is misleading at best (if not outright deceptive). If the goal is to eliminate gerrymandering, there are far more ways which are far less invasive, dramatic, and extreme to do so.

      For example:
      1) Ballot to change how districts are delineated.
      2) Convene a constitutional convention to amend the California Constitution to change how districts are defined.

      Neither of those would require a literal act of congress by the federal government, and solve your gerrymandering problem.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:10PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:10PM (#711978) Journal

        I think he's objecting that the current boundaries are so gerrymandered that a fair result along your proposed route is impossible. I'm not sure he's wrong, but I'm rather certain that his proposed approach would yield a worse result.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @06:32PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @06:32PM (#711821)

    Just have a vote for a new constitution and claim the old one is void. Worked for the original California 1849 constitution which was neither amended or repealed.