Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ameribbean expat
"INITIATIVE MEASURE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO VOTERS

SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

A. California is the nation's most populous state, nearly six times larger than the average population of the fifty states. However, much of the state's population is concentrated in certain urban and coastal areas, particularly in Southern California.

B. California is the nation's third largest state by geography, over two times larger than the average of the fifty states, with enormous and diverse economies, including agriculture, energy, technology, and entertainment.

C. As a consequence of these and other socio-economic factors, political representation of California's diverse population and economies has rendered the state nearly ungovernable. Additionally, vast parts of California are poorly served by a representative government dominated by a large number of elected representatives from a small part of our state, both geographically and economically.

D. It is not surprising that efforts to divide the state have been · part of its history for over one hundred years. In fact, voters overwhelmingly approved the splitting of California into two states in 1859, but Congress never acted on that request due to the Civil War.

E. The citizens of the whole state would be better served by three smaller state governments while preserving the historical boundaries of the various counties, cities, and towns. _

SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

A. The people, acting as the legislative body of the State of California pursuant to their reserved legislative power provided by the California Constitution, hereby:

(1) Establish new boundaries for three new states within the boundaries of the State of California;

(2) Establish a procedure for the transformation of the single State of California into three new states; and

(3) Provide the legislative consent for the formation of three new states to Congress as required by the United States Constitution.

SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE CONSENT FOR THE CREATION OF THREE NEW STATES WITHIN THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES OF CALIFORNIA.

Article 3.1 of Chapter 1 of Division 1 of Title 1 ( commencing with Section 173) of the Government Code is added to read:

§ 173(a) Upon enactment of this section, the legislative consent required by Section 3 of Article IV of the United States Constitution for the creation of three (3) states within the current boundaries of the State of California, as provided by Article 3 of Chapter 1 of Division 1 of Title 1, is given by the people.

(b) The boundaries of the three (3) new states shall be as follows:

(1) A new state, named Northern California, or a name to be chosen by the people of that state, shall include the territory represented by the boundaries of the following forty ( 40) counties: Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba.

(2) A new state, named California, or a name to be chosen by the people of that state, shall include the territory represented by the following six ( 6) counties: Los Angeles, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura.

(3) A new state, named Southern California, or a name to be chosen by the people of that state, shall include the territory represented by the following twelve (12) counties: Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mono, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Tulare.

( c) On January 1, 2019, the Governor shall transmit a copy of the certified election results enacting this Article to Congress, with a request that Congress act upon the consent of the people within twelve (12) months.

§ 17 4( a) Upon enactment of this section the California State Legislature shall provide for the division and transformation of California. If the State Legislature fails to reach resolution of such matters within twelve (12) months of congressional assent to the division of the state, the debts of the State of California shall be distributed among the newly created states based on the population of the new states proportionately to the whole population of California at the time of Congressional action, and the assets within the boundaries of each newly created state shall become the assets of that new state.

(b) The legal relationship between the counties and the State of California shall continue until the organization and establishment of a separate government in a newly created state, including the adoption of a Constitution by convention or popular vote within each newly created state.

SECTION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS

(a) If any provision of this Act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

(b) This Act is intended to be comprehensive. It is the intent of the People that in the event this Act and measures relating to the same subject shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this Act. In the event that this Act receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Act shall prevail in their entirety, and all provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void."

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/17-0018%20%28Three%20Californias%29_1.pdf

16 posted on 06/12/2018 7:11:16 PM PDT by TaxPayer2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: TaxPayer2000

no

You’ll have one state with all the state’s monetary assets, and two states with nothing much.


18 posted on 06/12/2018 7:14:54 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (01/26/18 DJIA 30 stocks $26,616.71 48.794% > open 11/07/16 215.71 from 50% increase 1.2183 yrs..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: TaxPayer2000
With those proposed borders it would go from 2 democrat senators to 4 democrat and 2 republican senators at best.

So it wouldn't be horrible senator-wise.

21 posted on 06/12/2018 7:22:31 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson