Measure splitting the state looks set to appear on ballot
by Brian Leubitz
I’ll admit that I sort of thought this was some sort of joke that would never make it to the ballot. I was surprised when word filtered out that serious signature gathering was moving forward in the spring and summer. Apparently that has now borne fruit:
Tim Draper said he will file the signatures in Sacramento on Tuesday morning. State officials still need to review the petitions to ensure the initiative can qualify.
“California needs a reboot,” Draper’s campaign said in a statement on Monday. “With six Californias, we can refresh our government.” (LA Times)
Well, he’s got the awkward technology lingo thing going on, but just because you can say “reboot” doesn’t mean it is a good idea. An LAO report from earlier in the year showed a bunch of flaws in the proposal including higher costs and greater inequalities. Yes, Silicon Valley would be a dynamic and wealthy state, but what about the rest of the state(s)?
And then there is the whole question of this being entirely powerless until Congress acts. With the Senate divided, would either party want to roll the dice on 10 new Senators?
In the end, Draper will spend his few millions on this, the state will pay to count these votes, and not much will happen.
Among the many appalling things about Six Californias is that the text appoints Draper, personally, as the sole legal representative of the people of California, if the measure is challenged in court. It bypasses the governor and the attorney general, and explicitly places governmental power at the whim of one specific rich man. (How many who signed this initiative were aware that’s what it does? Any?) The arrogance is astonishing. Six Californias must be defeated.
Now – can we get back to discussion of serious proposals?
…Like moving the state capitol back to Monterey?
I’m wondering if Draper’s real motivation is to give charter counties the same “home rule” powers that charter cities have, and enable binding regional government; if that’s the “steak”, and the stuff about dividing California into six states is just the “sizzle”. After all, Section 4 of the initiative is not very exciting and it would be difficult to generate any buzz around it:
SECTION 4. COUNTY AND REGIONAL POWER DURING INTERIM PERIOD OF
TRANSFORMATION
Article XI of the California Constitution is amended to add section 4.5 to read:
Sec. 4.5(a) Upon enactment of this section, it shall be competent in any county charter to provide
that the county governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in
respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several
charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. County charters
adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to
municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.
(b) A county charter may provide for the delegation of authority in respect to municipal affairs,
by way of compact, or other agreement, to a regional association of counties, consisting of the
other counties within the boundaries of the new states provided for in section 2.5 of Article II [sic],
during the interim period of time before Congressional approval of the new states.
(c) For purposes of this section, any law intended by the Legislature to be a general law or matter
of statewide concern that supersedes the authority of a county over its municipal affairs and also
requires an annual subvention of funds to reimburse the county for the costs of the program or
service pursuant to section 6 of Article XIIIB, shall require an annual transfer of funds from the
state treasury to a county treasury, as needed, and in the absence of such reimbursement, the
county shall have no obligation to enforce the law. The state shall have no power to incur debt
owed to a county pursuant to this subdivision.
[End of Section 4.]
Of course, he has a fatal typo above; it refers to “the new states provided for in section 2.5 of Article II” but Article II Section 2.5 of the Constitution just says “A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.” He probably meant to refer to his new Section 2 of Article III but made a drafting error.