Earlier this summer, the Tim Draper-backed plan announced that it had obtained enough signatures to get on the ballot, grabbing national headlines about whether such a plan had any realistic chance of getting voter approval.

But in its ruling Wednesday, the state’s high court unanimously blocked the initiative “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.”

The lawsuit was filed by The Planning and Conservation League, an environmental group, which argued that the measure amounted to an amendment to the California Constitution, meaning it would require the two-thirds approval of the Assembly and the state Senate to get on the ballot.

“Proposition 9 was a costly, flawed scheme that will waste billions of California taxpayer dollars, create chaos in public services including safeguarding our environment and literally eliminate the State of California – all to satisfy the whims of one billionaire,” Howard Penn, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, said in a statement. “We are thankful for the opportunity to save Californians from having to vote on a billionaire’s folly.”

The “Three Californias” plan proposed splitting the state up into California, Northern California and Southern California in an attempt to improve things like the state’s infrastructure and education system.

Under the plan, Northern California would go from the San Jose area and extend to the Oregon border. Southern California would start in Fresno and cover most of Southern California, including the Inland empire and San Diego, and California would include Los Angeles County and extend up the coast to Monterey County.

In addition to the legal hurdles, the proposal came with many question marks, like the transactional costs of actually breaking up the state’s university systems, public works projects and other governmental services.

However, the state Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t completely end the effort, as the justices noted that the measure may be able to qualify for a future ballot, depending on a final ruling on the legality of the proposal.

“The whole point of the initiative process was to be set up as a protection from a government that was no longer representing its people. Now that protection has been corrupted,” Draper said in a statement posted on Facebook. “Whether you agree or not with this initiative, this is not the way democracies are supposed to work. This kind of corruption is what happens in third world countries.”

The initiative received around 600,000 signatures — almost double the amount needed to qualify for the November 6th ballot.

“Three Californias” is backed by Silicon Valley billionaire Tim Draper and would divide the Golden State up into California, Northern California, and Southern California.

“Californians deserve a more effective education system that isn’t failing our families, more reliable infrastructure that isn’t fracturing our communities, and more sensible taxes that aren’t stifling our opportunities,” the Cal 3 campaign site reads.

Northern California would go from the San Jose area and extend to the Oregon border. Southern California would start in Fresno and cover most of Southern California, including the Inland empire and San Diego, and California would include Los Angeles County and extend up the coast to Monterey County.

“No one can argue that California’s government is doing a good job governing or educating or building infrastructure for its people,” Draper told The New York Times last year. “And it doesn’t matter which party is in place.”

While the group faces heavy hurdles in actually swaying voters, as a recent SurveyUSA poll shows voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the move, if it passed, the change could have a sizable effect on the national election map, and perhaps be a boost to the GOP in the electoral college.

For example the potential “Southern California” includes Fresno, Tulare, Madera and Kern counties, all of which voted for President Trump in 2016. Additionally, the historically conservative Orange County is in that theoretical state.

But it would also likely result in four more Democratic senators from California and Northern California.

Even if voters were persuaded to backing it, the intuitive would still need the approval of the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

The plan still comes with numerous question marks — like the transactional costs of actually breaking up the state with respect to how university systems, public works projects, and other governmental services would be divided and structured during a transition into three separate states.

“California government can do a better job addressing the real issues facing the state, but this measure is a massive distraction that will cause political chaos and greater inequality,” tweeted Steve Maviglio, a consultant for the opposition effort NoCABreakup. “Splitting California into three new states will triple the amount of special interests, lobbyists, politicians and bureaucracy.”

But supporters cite those same issues as reasons for breaking up the state in the first place, arguing that California has become too big to succeed.

“The California state government isn’t too big to fail, because it is already failing its citizens in so many crucial ways,” Peggy Grande, a spokesperson for Citizens for Cal 3 campaign, said in a statement. “The reality is that for an overmatched, overstretched, and overwrought state-government structure, it is too big to succeed. Californians deserve a better future.”

Although Louis Marinelli has launched a campaign to represent the San Diego area in the state Assembly, he has also helped found the California National Party, an independence movement angling to put its scheme before voters this November. Marinelli told Vice the name was “inspired by the Scottish National Party,” with its Yes California campaign serving as “a nod to Yes Scotland, the unsuccessful campaign in support of a ‘Yes’ vote in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.”

For now, Yes California has not done much to raise expectations to Scottish heights. “So far, the metrics are not encouraging,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “Last year, the group raised $10,000, Marinelli said. So far, only 300 people have signed up as volunteers on his website.”

A string of failures

Californians’ rogue experiments with independence have a habit of attracting more notice than support. With his Six Californias initiative, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper “spent $5.2 million on signature-gathering, but couldn’t come close to the needed number of voter autographs,” the Los Angeles Daily News recalled. “It was the worst failure in the modern era for any proposed citizen initiative with respectable financial support.” Only the longstanding effort to carve a rural statelet from southern Oregon and Northern California has kept up a trace of momentum; advocates “took their proposed secession plan to the Legislature early this year, where it got a modicum of press coverage but was never taken seriously,” according to the Daily News.

The breakaway movement, which would create a state of Jefferson, has played neatly into the hands of observers for whom secession is virtually synonymous with Confederate-style backwoods values. “Cut off from the seats of power by geography, alienated by the state’s left-leaning politics and tendency toward regulation, enduring stubbornly high unemployment, facing the decimation of traditional industries such as logging, and harboring few prospects for economic growth, these disaffected citizens — overwhelmingly white and mostly conservative — share many of the concerns about central state overreach as the militia members who recently took control of a wildlife refuge in Oregon,” as the New York Daily News recently noted, allowing that Jeffersonians “are committed to a political solution rather than an armed rebellion.”

Turning left

Yet the nascent movement for an independent California has underscored how secession has become increasingly attractive to progressives rather than reactionaries. “I think a lot of the reasons why there’s so much gridlock in Washington is because California is there with its own set of values,” Marinelli told Newsy. “We could do universal health care, which is something I’d be for. We could go to universal education.”

Even on common defense, Marinelli implied that an independent California should pass on interventions unpopular with California’s left-leaning electorate. “We’re going to continue to do commerce with the Americans and be a part of the Americans in other areas, such as military involvement when our goals are aligned,” he said. “Fundamentally, we have a problem with the United States,” he told the Times. “Ideologically they are very different from us — their agenda, their militarism, their imperialism and colonialism. The United States is always at war. We don’t want to bomb other countries.”

“Marinelli supports a single-payer health care system, reproductive rights, public financing for political campaigns, a path to citizenship for immigrants who are in California illegally, and criminal justice and police reform,” according to the Times. “He thinks the Pledge of Allegiance is propaganda,” the paper added, and, in an ironic twist, “believes that California does not receive its fair share of federal dollars.”

Crafting regulation

According to Inside Bitcoins, Dababneh’s bill “broadly defines a ‘virtual currency business’ as any activity involving the storage of digital currency on behalf of others; the exchange of fiat money for digital currency and vice versa; and even the exchange of one type of digital currency for another. It applies to all businesses and organizations who perform these activities in relation to a California resident.”

Whereas other states, such as New York, have ensured an open comment period on similar legislation, AB1326 has skipped that step, raising the ire of longtime Bitcoin advocates and users. Capturing the sense of frustration in the air, Techdirt warned that “the bill would reverse decades of how Silicon Valley has lead the world in innovation — by switching from a world of rapid innovation and permissionless innovation, to one in which any startup even contemplating doing anything with Bitcoin would have to go plead their case to clueless regulators in Sacramento.”

Nevertheless, the call for state and federal regulations has become forceful enough that AB1326 may be able to ride its coattails into law.

Going mainstream

As digital currency like Bitcoin has caught on, lawmakers have often found themselves playing catch-up. Legislators nationwide have come under growing pressure to address the regulatory environment around so-called “cryptocurrencies,” which have been used in novel ways to skirt the law. Across the California border in Nevada, for instance, Bryan Micon, operator of the website Seals with Clubs, was charged in Las Vegas Justice Court with “one count of operating an unlicensed interactive gaming system,” reported the Las Vegas Review Journal.

“Defending Nevada’s worldwide reputation as the gold standard of gaming integrity is a paramount concern to tens of thousands of Nevadans employed by the industry and the 41 million tourists who visit the state each year,” said state Attorney General Adam Laxalt, according to the Review Journal. “Laxalt added that the charge, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine, marks the first prosecution of a poker site that used the digital currency.”

At the same time as digital currency has propelled events in criminal law, big finance has strengthened momentum for regulatory reform by pushing into the market. As IEEE reported, “Circle, a Boston-based Bitcoin startup, announced last week that it had completed a U.S. $50 million round of funding.” Investors included Goldman Sachs, marking “the first time that a major U.S. bank has taken the plunge into the Bitcoin startup scene,” according to IEEE.

California innovation

Adding to cryptocurrencies’ relevance in Sacramento, Tim Draper, the venture capitalist known for his Six Californias ballot initiative, recently led a $1 million-plus round of investment in Hedgy, a Bitcoin company with the potential to ensure the currency remains viable well into the future. In order to prevent currency debasement, access to the worldwide supply of Bitcoin was slowed by its creators through the use of a “mining” system. Users hoping to acquire Bitcoin without buying any already in circulation must prospect for it, a time-intensive undertaking increasingly expensive to maintain.

“Because of the increasing cost of mining, some miners are wary of continuing operations,” as VentureBeat explained. “What Hedgy serves to do is give miners certainty that the price of Bitcoin won’t drop so rapidly that they actually lose money on mining. … The elder Draper is very keen on cryptocurrency and on building out a [financial technology] scene on the west coast; he recently launched an incubator called Fintech Connection that resides at Hero City in San Mateo, California.”

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.

The initiative is advisory. So even if it passes, the idea still would have to be passed by the California Legislature, then the U.S. Congress.

Obstacles are: 1. California politicians like being kingmakers in a huge state. Almost any statewide politician or big-city mayor has ambitions to become president. The current governor, Jerry Brown, ran for president thrice — and could do so again in 2016.

2. The rest of America already thinks one California is too many. Folks in Wyoming and West Virginia look West and see six Jerry Browns, six Nancy Pelosis, six Barbara Boxers, six Dianne Feinsteins.

But for Californians, a divorce would be a boon. There’s not much in common  between Orange County and San Francisco, so why shouldn’t they split? That way, Orange County could become a surving version of New Hampshire: no state income and sales taxes.

And San Francisco could imitate the French welfare state, with top state income tax rates of 75 percent (on top of the 39 percent federal tax rate: total income tax rate: 114 percent. Don’t ask about the math.)

Now we’ll all get our say, if not our wish, in 2016.

But the state’s great economic and geographic diversity has also created some divisions. Northern and Southern California often act as two separate states, only bound together by their shared statewide officials. Blue collar workers in the Inland Empire likely have little in common—politically, economically, or socially—with tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley.

These divisions, in part, have inspired Silicon Valley investor Tim Draper to submit his “Six Californias” ballot proposition to state Attorney General Kamala Harris. The five-page proposal would divide California into six separate states.

Starting at the bottom, the new state of South California would be composed of Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties.

Next to South California would be West California. The state would contain Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties.

Central California would encompass Alpine, Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Kern and Kings County, along with Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. Central California would be the only newly created state without a coast.

Silicon Valley—where the proposition’s author hails from—would have Alameda, Contra Costa, Moterey, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties.

The final, most northern part of California, would be divided into two states. Just north of Central California and Silicon Valley would be Northern California. The state would be composed of several countries, including: Amador, El Dorado, Marin, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba.

And the final, most northern state, would be Jefferson. The theoretical state would be made up of Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, and Trinity counties.

Reasons

So why go through the trouble of dividing up California into six states?

As the initiative measure points out, California is about six times the size of the average state in the United States. And the state is also twice as large in square miles as the average of all 50 states. According to the proposition, these factors have left the state virtually ungovernable.

“The citizens of the whole state would be better served by six smaller state governments while preserving the historical boundaries of various counties, cities, and towns,” the report concludes.

And Draper, being an entrepreneur, thinks that this system could force the six different states into competition with each other. Current residents could move to another California, choosing between the states based on quality of life, tax rates and regulations. Those in the conservative Inland Empire, for example, would no longer be subject to the taxes imposed on them from Sacramento.

On its face, the legislation seems far-fetched. But if a majority of Californians embrace the idea, it’s entirely possible that the state could become six. But with wealthy backers–and a state more divided than ever–it’s very possible that the idea could game steam. But having popular support isn’t the only challenge it faces.

Even if Californians ultimately decided it was best to split up the state, the legal challenges that accompany it are myriad. The proposition notes that “legal processes for the division of the State will take time.”

“TechCrunch has learned about noted technology investor Tim Draper’s plan to split California into six separate states, including a Northern California slice appropriately named “Silicon Valley.”

“Draper shared his vision with TechCrunch tonight. He says he’s submitting a polished version to the state’s Attorney General in the form of a ballot proposition proposal within the next 48 hours. ‘Six Californias‘ already has a campaign website up and is eager for an army of volunteers.”

The six states would be: Jefferson (blue color in the map above), North California (purple), Central California (Red/Orange), Silicon Valley (Yellow), West California (Green), South California (gold).

It makes sense. Why should liberal Silicon Valley/San Francisco have to put up with conservative Orange County, and vice versa? California is the most diverse place in the history of the globe. Yet different people are forced to live under the same, unified political structure.

If it passed, a bigger problem would be getting it through the U.S. Congress. Most other Americans already have problems with one California and wouldn’t cotton on to having five more. The division would give ex-California 12 U.S. Senators instead of two, and increase its clout in the Electoral College.

Assuming the Draper map is what would happen, it probably would favor Republicans. The state’s most liberal areas would be situated in Silicon Valley and West California. The other four new “states” would include fairly conservative areas. So at least a couple of the new “states” might elect U.S. Senators and governors, and favor the GOP in the presidential races.

So Democrats would be against the initiative.

Politicians

Another problem is that the state’s top politicians would be against it because currently anyone who is the California governor or senator of a state of 38 million people automatically is a possible contender for president or vice president. Jerry Brown started running for president right after he was elected governor in 1974. Almost three decades later, he’s still not ruling out a run.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though the U.S. Constitution prohibited him from running for president because he was born in a foreign country, was maneuvering to amend the Constitution to let him run when his governorship imploded, making him a pariah.

Chop that 38 million people into six smaller portions, and the ex-state’s clout drops fast.

But you never know. The state currently is ungovernable. It isn’t “back,” as Brown contends. The national economy recovery, pathetic as it is, only has delayed the state’s financial meltdown.

When the meltdown occurs, then might be the ripe time for a multiple divorce.