‘Six Californias’ will go before voters

‘Six Californias’ will go before voters

Six CaliforniasIts debut on a California ballot might still be two years away. But this month, supporters successfully verified the quixotic, Silicon Valley-powered Six Californias initiative obtained the necessary signatures to receive an up or down vote.

As the Los Angeles Times reported, the Six Californias movement needed approximately 808,000 signatures by July 18. Venture capitalist Tim Draper, who masterminded the proposal, put almost $5 million of his own money toward achieving the figure.

Last week, Draper, a political independent, announced in a press conference that his street teams had amassed 1.3 million signatures. Amid a flurry of questions, he also acknowledged the two-year run-up to 2016 will provide Six Californias advocates much-needed time to sway public opinion, which stands at 59 percent against a state breakup.

Adding an extra layer of drama, the rival group One California petitioned Secretary of State Debra Bowen to investigate voter fraud surrounding the collected signatures — alleging that signature gatherers in at least a few instances intentionally misrepresented the goal of the initiative. That’s a misdemeanor in California.

Political crosswinds

Alone, a few thousand discarded signatures won’t strip Six Californias from the ballot. But even if it passes, the Golden State’s dismemberment would have to receive a stamp of approval both from the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

It’s not just supporters of Draper’s six statelets, however, who are hoping the secession scheme comes before voters. Capturing widespread rural and conservative discontent, the plan has attracted the admiration of some Republicans for its spirit, if not its practicability.

Although California’s Republican members of Congress are almost all reluctant to embrace the Six Californias plan itself, more than a few sympathize with the frustrations behind it. GOP Reps. Jeff Denham and Doug LaMalfa, both of the Golden State, told The Hill that Californians’ different needs call for different ideas. For Denham, “dividing up into states would be something to look at.” But, said LaMalfa, “I would think that if you are going to divide California, it’s ambitious to do three states or just two.” 

Crafting the pitch

Without resounding support from sitting state officials, Draper and company have the luxury of choosing for themselves how they intend to appeal to voters. Fittingly for a proposal that relies on sectional interests and identities, Six Californias likely requires more than one rationale to maximize support.

In a new report issued by the California Legislative Analyst, for instance, the plan is shown to leave two of the new states richer, and four poorer. That might be a problem for some voters. But for at least some in northern California, the prospect of a short-term economic hit is more appealing than the alternative.

Jefferson Declaration Committee spokesman Mark Baird told the Washington Times that “the short-term economic hit would be far preferable to the state’s slide into a morass of ever-greater debt, taxes and regulation.”

In interviews, Draper himself takes a more cheerily libertarian approach to framing California’s challenges with sectionalism. Rather than berating Bay Area Democrats for capturing state policy, he talks up what classic libertarian theorists such as Robert Nozick call “exit options.”

‘Our government’

As Draper put it, six states would give Californians “a chance to make it our government. We can make it more local, better representation, closer to us. It also creates a choice. If some people feel that their government isn’t working for them – and I know a lot of people in very poor regions feel that the status quo is not working for them – this would be an opportunity for them to easily move to another state without leaving the beautiful weather we get here.”

It’s a logical rethink of long-familiar, but often inconsequential, Republican arguments in favor of “devolving” power from Washington and “returning” it to states. As residents of red and blue states alike have discovered, state governments can sow just as much partisan and policy opposition as the federal government.

Ostensibly, it’s easier to bring about change in government at the state level than it is to alter the federal landscape. But in states that are deep red or, like California, deep blue, any kind of fundamental political change requires a longer time span than many residents are willing to accept.

7 comments

Write a comment
  1. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 23 July, 2014, 13:30

    “One California” is correct–those signatures were obtained by the signature gatherers lying about what the petition was for. I was a voter approached by a signature gatherer and was told the petition was to stop CA from being divided into six pieces. Nevertheless, the signatures will have to be checked by the Secretary of State’s Office.

    Reply this comment
  2. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 23 July, 2014, 19:48

    This is a wasted thread just like pensions…..your rulers will never let you doomers govern even a blacksmith shop in Bishop or Long Pine.

    Reply this comment
    • Bill Gore
      Bill Gore 25 July, 2014, 08:21

      That’s Lone Pine, my trailer rental buddy, and ya better slow down next time your scooting up to your time share in Mammoth, ’cause the place is an ‘iron jaws of death’ speed trap…..

      Reply this comment
  3. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 24 July, 2014, 13:47

    Don’t count your chickens yet! The Secy of State must receive the ballots and conduct the signature checks before the measure can go on the ballot. Most initiative proposals have failed in the process of gathering the adequate number of signatures, and this initiative is so screwy that it doesn’t take a genius to realize that something stinks to high heaven here–the signature gatherers lied about what they were doing! This situation should be thoroughly investigated before the initiative is declared, “qualified”, by the Secy of State!

    Reply this comment
  4. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 25 July, 2014, 18:34

    Who cares whether its Long Pine or Lone Pine! Isn’t anybody besides me upset that we have a scam taking place right in front of us, and nothing is being done about it–a complete farce on the part of this tech-billionaire! He should be ashamed–there are plenty mouths in CA that he could feed, instead of his own ego!

    Reply this comment
  5. Queeg
    Queeg 26 July, 2014, 22:39

    Saw,

    Fantasies are popular with the young and dumbed. Conspiracies consume doomers. Reality is ignored because it hurts.

    Political competition never will happen in California.

    Reply this comment
  6. David Feldman
    David Feldman 28 July, 2014, 10:34

    If you think CA government is inefficient, unresponsive and wastes taxpayer money, just wait til you have every incompetent state agency multiplied by SIX! Six FTBs! Six BOEs! Six legislatures and six governors – now there’s an improvement. What is this guy thinking?

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*


Tags assigned to this article:
secessionTim DraperJames PoulosSix Californias

Related Articles

DOJ to state agencies: pay up

March 17, 2010 By KATY GRIMES The California Department of Justice wants to be compensated by California’s state agencies for legal services.

Bullet train roundup: CEO out as project faces lawsuit and federal threats

The chief executive of the California High-Speed Rail Authority – former Caltrans director Jeff Morales – is resigning in June from the

Bloviating rather than budgeting

SEPT. 1, 2010 By KATY GRIMES Speeches, speeches and more speeches, took precedence over cries for “jobs, jobs, jobs,” at