>>> Californians will have decisions to make this November including whether we should split the state into three different Californias each with its own government a representation in Washington DC. The Cal3 initiative is on the ballot for November. When we talk about the idea, the implications, and the chance it has a passing is KQED reporter Guy Maserati of the California report. First of all, tell us about the details of this initiative. Where would San Diego fall in the division of three states ? >> it would end up in the new Southern California states. This will stretch in the central valley and running through the inland California and looping back around and picking up San Diego. This would be separate from the state that would remain California which would be Los Angeles and the central coast. And then there would be a Northern California state which would be SANTA CRUZ up to the Oregon border. >>> Who are the proponents of this and why do they want to create three Californias ? >> It is one major proponent Tim Draper and early investor in Skype. His political involvement in the past has been donating to Republican candidates Arnold Schwarzenegger Meg Whitman. He's got involved in this effort. And a precursor to this effort to create six Californias that never made it onto the ballot. He feels that California residents are not getting represented in an appropriate way. And to create smaller states he feels will get a bit more direct representation. Critics say you look at these plans, it is easy to say that he is siphoning off the wealth of California, the coastal wealth defined in Los Angeles and San Francisco away from the central valley and the inland states that would end up in their own Southern California state I mentioned before. >>> How far back do we have to go to find other examples of states splitting themselves up? >> Pretty far back. I looked into this. The last example would be in the 1860s when West Virginia was carved out of Virginia. That was different. Virginia seceded from the union. The Virginian legislature did not get to vote on it at the time. You have to go back earlier to 1820 when Maine was led into the union. It split from Massachusetts. That was a move that was widely supported by people in the main territory. It was also given the green light by the Massachusetts legislature. Almost 200 years. >>> It seems unlikely to split California to three states that it will come to fruition. What other hurdles that would have to overcome. >> There are plenty of hurdles politically and legally. There is a huge question legally of whether a revision like this to the California Constitution can be put on the ballot to the citizen initiative process. The Constitution says that large revisions have to be initiated by the legislature or by the constitutional convention. And then of course politically, this would have to overcome odds and pass on the ballot. Also passed Congress. I think there is not much incentive for either party in Congress to allow California to split into three states. Republicans could be concerned about having six senators from the area that is currently California and Democrats would be concerned about possibly breaking up this 55 electoral vote lock they rely on in California. >>> Congress in California approved the separation of Maine because it benefited them but that would not be the case here . >> yes Mains entrance was balanced out with Missouri's entrance. You had Freestate mane and a slave state Missouri. There is no incentive now on the national level to do this for either party. I think that illustrates the difficulties of these kinds of splits. You have to have both real local support. Also the stars aligning on the national level. >>> What authority would San Diego and have to say yes would like you to know we don't if it did pass. It sounds like we might be lumped in with parts of the states we were not happy with. >> The proponents say this initiative will go before the state. At the state passes it to break up the states. That is a constitutional issue of whether a state can be formed against its will. Voters in San Diego overwhelmingly voted against this measure. They might not matter if voters elsewhere pass it and there is this creation of Southern California. That is a huge constitutional issue. It might be the case that this new state of Southern California if it is created within have to vote within itself to approve of its creation. >>> What chance do you think this has of passing ? >> I don't give it a big chance. You had the political establishment lining up against it, the business establishment the Chamber of Commerce in California lining up against it, and then the logistical issue that it would create on an individual level for Californians. The entire way that people are admitted to UC's, the way people can easily fight between San Francisco and San Diego without a passport. Little things like that kid that's good that can be accentuated by the no campaign that will make an uphill climb for Tim Draper. >>> This will be discussed at a lot of dinner tables in November. Thank you for explaining everything, guy. >> Thank you.
With a complicated path to reality and the state's political and business establishment lined up firmly against it, the proposal to split California into three separate states appears to be the longest of political longshots.
But the move would not be completely unprecedented.
The states proposed by Cal 3 proponent Timothy Draper (Northern California, Southern California, and California) would be the first states formed out of an existing state since West Virginia was carved out of Virginia in 1863. But Virginians didn't have complete say in that decision; the Commonwealth had seceded from the Union in 1861.
For a more apt example, you'd have to look back to 1820, when Maine was admitted to the union by splitting from Massachusetts, where the legislature approved of the move.
Maine's statehood lays bare two overwhelming hurdles to the Cal 3 proposal: meeting a legal standard for popular support, and gaining the required political support in Congress.
Those are far from the only roadblocks that the initiative faces. The idea would first have to be approved by voters in November, and potentially by the state Senate and Assembly, although the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized initiative votes as a constitutional substitute for the legislature.
There's also the issue of whether a major 'revision' to the state constitution can be initiated by voters.
But let's say the measure remains on the ballot and is approved by voters. Would each of the newly created states then need to approve of their own existence?
That wasn't a problem for the residents of early-19th century Maine, who felt the Massachusetts state government didn't do enough to protect the area from the invading British during the War of 1812.
"The effect of actually having the government in Boston not defend the District of Maine in time of war really changed public perceptions in Maine," said Colin Woodard, author of "The Lobster Coast: Rebels, Rusticators & the Struggle for a Forgotten Frontier," a history of early Maine. "That culminated very quickly into a successful vote for statehood."
The Cal 3 proponents are hoping for a similar sentiment from voters in California.
“All Californians deserve more from their state, and with Cal 3, more regional responsiveness and more meaningful results will create a promising future for everyone," initiative spokesperson Peggy Grande said in a statement on Tuesday, when the measure was approved to appear on the fall ballot.
A majority of Californians could approve the Cal 3 idea even if, for example, the residents of the new 'Southern California' (covering the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, and San Diego) vote against it.
To create a new state, Article IV of the U.S. Constitution requires "Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned." It's an open question whether that includes the consent of the new states being formed.
"Arguably the legislative body of each of those new states might have to weigh in as well," said Vikram Amar, Dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, who has been following Draper's proposal.
If it makes its way through the legal minefield at the state level, the Cal 3 measure would head to Congress for approval.
In Congress, the effort to split California would be viewed through a national political lens.
That worked in Maine's favor in 1820, when Congress used the bid for statehood to maintain the balance of free and slave states. The Missouri Compromise allowed the entrance of free-state Maine into the union, balanced with the creation of new slave-state Missouri.
"Maine presented a solution to a problem on the federal stage, whereas California splitting into three states wouldn't," said Woodard.
Republicans in Congress would likely be horrified by the idea of six senators coming from present-day California. Two Democrats would likely represent the proposed 'Northern California' (running from Santa Cruz to the Oregon border), joined by two more Democrats from the new 'California,' which would encompass the Central Coast and Los Angeles.
Hypothetical 'Southern California' is more politically split, but the possibility of six Democratic senators between the three states is not out of the question.
The bad news for Democrats is that the politically balanced 'Southern California' could go for a Republican presidential candidate. That would suddenly fracture the guaranteed 55 electoral votes that Democrats count on from the Golden State.
"The stakes in presidential elections are so high that I can't imagine many Democrats being really enamored of this idea," said Amar.
Amar added that there could be bipartisan concern that the entrance of the new states would dilute the voting power of all sitting Senators.
In 1820, Maine's exit from Massachusetts was aided by a perfect storm of popular support and political opportunity. There's a reason the feat hasn't been repeated for nearly 200 years.
