California Supreme Court blocks ballot measure to divide state into three

WuWei · 2018-07-19T16:03:59.086Z

BlueTex:

The process for petitioning the legislature is outlined in the California constitution

Did they not follow it?

WuWei · 2018-07-19T16:05:59.112Z

Auto129:

State splitting is regarded in that fashion because it is 100% apocalyptic for the country and shouldn’t be entertained.

Why do some disgruntled Californians deserve 2 brand new senators? Can’t Californians just move to Wyoming and accomplish the same thing? Those are practically free senators for any political cause that can fill a small stadium.

It’s not like these Californians don’t have any voice. They are heard during the election and they lose.

Why can’t you just move to Norway?

Smyrna · 2018-07-19T16:28:48.049Z

Thank you.

Auto129 · 2018-07-19T16:30:50.963Z

I want to live in the United States. I vote and lose sometimes. When I can’t handle losing anymore, I’ll leave.

These people are already at that point, so why not just go to Wyoming?

TheRedComet · 2018-07-19T18:05:51.616Z

Do people have self determination or not?

madasheck · 2018-07-19T18:12:24.766Z

To answer a few questions, the reasons the initiative was blocked were, among other things, because the court said boundaries can be changed only by the legislature and Congress. Not to mention the uproar caused by the creation of three new states, which would also entail elections of new U.S. Senators and Congressmen. All in all, this was a stupid bill. The story below gives some details on the reasons it was blocked.

San Francisco Chronicle – 19 Jul 18

Splitting up California: State Supreme Court takes initiative off ballot

The state Supreme Court decided Wednesday that California will remain intact...

Auto129 · 2018-07-19T18:25:50.706Z

I’ll just skip 4-5 posts so we can get to the point where I ask you to define exactly what self determination is so we can see why these Californians deserve 2 brand new senators.

MaDef · 2018-07-19T18:42:31.276Z

wiley8425:

Sure. Just ignore the Supremacy clause. It’s not like there’s anything in the Federal Constitution giving California the right to break into 3 states, just as there isn’t a right to secede from the Union. Seems to me that would be your unanswered Federal question right there. Does California have the right to split itself into 3 separate states despite their membership in the Federal Union?

California can ask to be split (and that part is a state question) but it’s up to congress to say yea or nay (federal question)

madasheck · 2018-07-19T19:08:21.765Z

Auto129:

I’ll just skip 4-5 posts so we can get to the point where I ask you to define exactly what self determination is so we can see why these Californians deserve 2 brand new senators.

Actually, it would be four new Senators all together over the three new states.

BlueTex · 2018-07-19T19:09:50.294Z

MaDef:

California can ask to be split (and that part is a state question) but it’s up to congress to say yea or nay (federal question)

If you read the excellent article posted by madasheck above, one of the questions the California Supreme Court is faced with is abolishing the constitution of the state by ballot initiative. This excerpt sums up the major problems with this initiative…

Those questions include whether California voters’ broad authority to enact laws by initiative, established in 1911, includes the power to break up the state, and in the process abolish its Constitution and existing laws, to be replaced by lawmaking bodies in three future states.

The narrower legal issue is whether Prop. 9, drafted as a change in the laws that define California’s boundaries, would actually amount to a “revision” of the state Constitution. That cannot be done by initiative, but instead requires approval by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature to be placed on the ballot.

“We believe it is clear that a ballot initiative may not revise the Constitution by making changes in the basic framework of government,” said Carlyle Hall, a lawyer for opponents who sued to take Prop. 9 off the ballot. “And there can be no greater change in our framework of government than the total abolition of our existing Constitution.”

San Francisco Chronicle – 19 Jul 18

Splitting up California: State Supreme Court takes initiative off ballot

The state Supreme Court decided Wednesday that California will remain intact...

TheRedComet · 2018-07-19T19:24:23.932Z

They wouldn’t be Californians anymore in this situations.

WuWei · 2018-07-19T20:39:09.907Z

Auto129:

I want to live in the United States. I vote and lose sometimes. When I can’t handle losing anymore, I’ll leave.

These people are already at that point, so why not just go to Wyoming?

They want to vote. They like living in California.

WuWei · 2018-07-19T20:41:10.990Z

BlueTex:

“We believe it is clear that a ballot initiative may not revise the Constitution by making changes in the basic framework of government,” said Carlyle Hall, a lawyer for opponents who sued to take Prop. 9 off the ballot. “And there can be no greater change in our framework of government than the total abolition of our existing Constitution.”

Uh oh. Now this is interesting.

But the courts can?

WuWei · 2018-07-19T20:42:24.778Z

Is the California constitution living?

sikofit · 2018-07-19T23:12:10.032Z

WuWei:

But the courts can?

What changes to California framework of government did the courts make?

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-07-19T23:20:37.528Z

Man, the non-Californians here are salivating trying to divide someone else’s state up. All to win a few elections.

Texas next?

WuWei · 2018-07-20T00:23:47.240Z

sikofit:

WuWei:

But the courts can?

What changes to California framework of government did the courts make?

Are they not The Final Arbiters?

WuWei · 2018-07-20T00:24:51.416Z

CaughtInTheMiddle:

Man, the non-Californians here are salivating trying to divide someone else’s state up. All to win a few elections.

Texas next?

Stupid post. It has nothing to do with winning elections.

Hellsbane · 2018-07-20T00:45:17.527Z

No idea why the court didn’t just go ahead and allow it on the ballot. IF it passed, not bloody likely, the court simply would have ruled it unconstitutional anyway, like they do with every voter prop that passes and they don’t agree with.

WuWei · 2018-07-20T00:54:19.140Z

Hellsbane:

No idea why the court didn’t just go ahead and allow it on the ballot. IF it passed, not bloody likely, the court simply would have ruled it unconstitutional anyway, like they do with every voter prop that passes and they don’t agree with.

Humbling.

10