Drew Clark: Would Six Californias make the state more governable?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Pokkle ,
    March 24, 2017 8:43 a.m.

    State of Jefferson? Jefferson has nothing to do with California.

    Alta California has already been divided. California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming were parts of the Mexican Departament of The Californias.

    ''California was also an independent republic, but for only three weeks in the summer of 1846.'' This statement is false.

    The so called "California Republic" was never an independent nation. The Bear Flaggers were just a bunch of opportunistic people, which did not constitute a functional government, neither do they have territorial control outside Sonoma nor they represented the majority of Californians. Claiming to take possession of something that was not theirs to begin with.

    The ultimate goal of the Bear Flaggers was the annexation of the Alta California to the United States, which was finally accomplished in 1849.

    The routine goes like this: a small band of discontent English Speaking immigrants revolt, declare independence, and the whole of CA get annexed (stolen) by U.S. Apparently, this routine worked so well in TX and West FL that they had an encore performance in CA.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    Re dave4197

    No Called cornia doesn't merit having 12 Senators. What is merits is having as many representatives as it has.

    Every time there is a vote on the second amendment California senators vote the wrong way. Therefore people should not support California becoming more states than it already is. What California could do to solve its governance problem is transfer power to its counties. This way mismanagement if California in one area would remain localized.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    It will never happen. The masses of people in the big cities like having the outlying colonies under their control.

    There's a chance some of these new States would be more Conservative, and may even throw their electoral votes to a Republican some day (like they used to in the past) and that would be unthinkable to Democrats who are used to getting ALL of California's electoral votes now (even though the majority in many communities OUTSIDE the big cities are very Conservative).

    It will just never happen for many reasons.

    One is the possibility of more Republican Senators coming out of the new more Conservative States (giving control of the Senate to Republicans). Currently CA's Senators are guaranteed to be Democrat, (no matter who runs). And their 55 seats in the house being divided up and diluting their representation in the House... that will NEVER fly...

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    3 states would make more sense, North, Central and Southern California. Texas should be two states, Texas and West Texas.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 18, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    It would make California far more powerful legislatively, with 12 senators instead of 2.

  • dave4197 Redding, CA
    Aug. 18, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    California by population deserves 12 senators. But I diverge.

    I am a supporter of dividing California into better geographic and demographic regions. Give the eastern slope of the Sierras to Nevada. Make LA and San Diego into a state from the top of the grapevine down to the ocean. With difficulty make the SF Bay Area and its bedroom communities into one state. Make the agricultural Central Valley into one or two states. Unsure what to do with the north coast, the central coast (one road in one road out) and the northeast wastelands er high desert.

    But Draper's plan deserves debate, I'll vote against his simpleton lines, at least this can start a discussion.

    In order to get representative gov't in the country we need to do 2 things. Term limits (2 terms) for legislators in order to get more open minds involved. Make the US Senate representative, we're no longer the 13 colonies against everyone else, and require the Senate to act - I know that's a stretch.

  • dianeect north salt lake, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 11:19 p.m.

    That may make California more governor, but the US really doesn't need 12 California senators.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    Make the state into 6 counties and transfer most state power and taxing authority to these 6 counties.

    Not too long ago the people of California voted to spend billions of dollars on a train system, this at a time when it wasn't certain they were going to have even enough money to run their schools

    If the state were subdivided like this, mismanagement in one area wouldn't spill over into the entire state. Excellence in one area would make that area shine and would serve as an example for the rest of the state.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 9:26 p.m.

    I don't mind if it is broken up, but the way in which it is being broken up and the person behind it is quite revealing. This is not about making California more governable. This is about separating classes of people behind different state borders. Some people support that ideal, but ultimately, it will drastically weaken the country as a whole if this becomes an accepted practice among all of the states.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 7:38 p.m.

    The proposal to break up Texas and California is a not-too-subtle attempt to stack the Senate with more Republicans. Since Senate seats can't be gerrymandered, this is the only way to stack the odds there in favor of the Republicans. They've done it quite successfully in the House, where last election there were 1 million more votes for Democrats than Republicans, but still the House is dominated by Republicans. Now they want to do it to the Senate as well.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 7:32 p.m.

    I agree with Chuck E. Racer. It would bring government closer to the people. CA has 38 million people and a GNP alone that would make it #8 in the world if it were a country. Yet, it's government seems to floundering. Whether some of the states are dominated by the GOP or Dems make no difference, I've actually seen the line of where the divides would be and it actually makes sense.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 6:54 p.m.

    "Six Californias and five Texases may be too many for the rest of the country."

    You can say that again. Just think of having 59 stars on the flag!? Just too complicated!

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 6:32 p.m.

    Local autonomy is vital to avoiding tyranny, allowing for differing community standards and experimentation. I'm all for working to adjust our arbitrarily-designed state lines (full of surveyors' mistakes) in favor of boundaries that better reflect geopolitical divisions.

    Breaking California in two just makes good sense.

    See the Pearcy 38-state map for an interesting discussion starter. Though there are of course many particulars where I disagree with it, it's a good effort.

    But six Californias is plainly excessive and would cheat everyone else out of proper representation in the Senate. If Californians think their state government is unworkable and unresponsive and that splitting into six is the only way to overcome this, they should consider rewriting their state Constitution to create administrative divisions with considerable amounts of autonomy; their Federal status actually wouldn't have to change one bit.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    Absolutely! What is surprising is that there are a million people from California that can think on their own enough to even consider it! However, it isn't going to happen. If the powers that be actually thought it would make a difference, they wouldn't let it happen! Just like voting. If Washington thought it would make a difference to let people vote, they wouldn't allow it!

  • Chuck E. Racer Lehi, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 5:40 p.m.

    Thomas Jefferson said, "The way to have good and safe government is not trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent ... [more] ... It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."

    Dividing California and Texas would be very good for the country and especially those states. It would bring the government closer to the people. It would involve more people in their own governance. It would tend to promote self government by this means. We are a stronger nation because we are 50 states rather than one. Pushing the governance down to the people builds the people.

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    Both California and Texas are too big and too corrupt because of the concentration of power. Diffusing the concentration of power by dividing these states makes sense to me. But not six California's. Maybe two Californias (Northern and Southern, similar to North and South Dakota, and North and South Carolina), and maybe three or four Texases.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    Nothing's going to happen because any proposal runs into the politics of what the senator breakdown would be. If California breaking up like this leads to 6 Democratic and 6 Republican senators then democrats would say no. If it would lead to 8 Democrats and 4 Republicans instead of the current 2-0 then Republicans would say no since it makes their seat deficit 2 higher.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    Time for my favorite quote: "We don't have too much government, We have too many governments. More governments provide for more criminal wrongdoing, and nobody but the wrongdoers would deny that.

    Businessmen want to control their own government and to that end every little want-to-be king wants his own government so that he can decide who gets to be rich. Ideally there should be only one government, so that the people could have only one government to watch over and control, and not have their attention split a dozen ways with no one actually responsible for doing the people's will.

    Seems like the whole reason for civilization is to put the Jungle behind us. Multiple governments takes us back to the survival of the fittest.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    "Six Californias and five Texases may be too many for the rest of the country. But it’s too soon to discount the merit in Draper’s grass-roots effort to make this state here a bit more manageable."

    "...a bit more manageable" means "keep rich Californians from having to pay for social services on behalf of poor Californians." I can see Mr. Clark why this appeals to you.

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    Whats next? Admitting Puerto Rico into the Union? Breaking Texas into 4? Combining CT & RI?

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    California should be broken up. As it is now, the vast majority of the state is being suppressed and subverted by Los Angeles. This has led to the left-wing dominating politics of the state in a way that is not reflective of true demographics.

  • The Educator South Jordan , UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    No, i disagree with the article. It's not too late to punt on this idea. It's embarrassing that it has even made it this far.

    Do Californians really want to pay for 5 new state capitols? Do they really want to deal with 5 new state legislatures? Do they really want 5 different state laws? What about state roads? How about the poorer states that would be created?

    Do Americans want to see essentially 10 more senators added to the Congress? Do we really want states to be divided so that the uber rich who inherited their wealth (like the brainchild behind this movement) buy off states?

    I don't like this one bit. Keep your mitts off California!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    The almost total lack or the initiative to creatively name any proposed new 'California' hints at how silly this idea is. And what a mess would it open up in our age of political divide and congressional districts so Jerrymandered as to look like tetris pieces or inkblots. I think we'd best leave things be.

    Aug. 17, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    I couldn't care less what happens to California--the most diseased state in the country, which has infected almost all western states with its horrors. But, being a cynical type, I do wonder how the lines for the six states were drawn up (think "Gerrymander"). Would Silicon Valley be comprised of uber-weatlthy types while Central Valley end up a locus of poverty like Appalachia? I strongly suspect (remember: this IS California we're talking about) that the idea of "making the state more governable"--which, God knows, it could stand--is just a guise under which the priviliged would slough off large numbers of minorities, less privileged or in some other way "less desireable" people.

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    "It may simply be an accident" that Mr. Clark forgot a 3rd "continental U.S." "super-sized" state called Montana. That continental state has 147,000 square miles, but only slightly over one million population.

    That Montana oversight does not really impact the discussion on the merits of "Six Californias". IF I remember correctly, Utah could not give away Wendover to Nevada a few years ago. It seemed that everyone in Utah and Nevada was either for it or did not care.

    No matter how much everyone wants some change in borders and how much sense it may make, the United State Congress does not want to open up a Pandora's box of endless border changes.