REPOST — May as well revisit the topic one last time on a tax day where Californians pay up to 10-percent of their personal income to corrupt politicians.

California needs to be split into three states.
The state was only to be allowed to be as big as it was because it was sparsely populated. With an economy that would be 7th in the world if California was a stand alone country it’s ridiculous that its large mass and huge population is represented by only two US Senators, neither of whom represent the interests of the state as a whole.

The State is also ungovernable as a State of this size with such a large population. It’s more of a country than a State by any measure – and a poorly run one, at that.

Every so often the populace discusses cutting the State in half and making two States. I’ve thought about this and cannot see any logical place to split the state in two, but can see a good argument for splitting the State into three.

First of all there are numerous political sub-cultures in California that are so distinctive that they should be separated and given statehood. These areas seldom communicate and rarely see themselves as connected to the other part. They are as follows:

Northern California – This would be a state almost the size of Oregon with similar features and cities. The State begins north of Sacramento with a boundary from Pt. Arena on the west and Lake Tahoe on the east. The suggested Capital would be Eureka or Redding. There is little psychological connection between these folks and the rest of California and their needs are under-represented because of this. The area is massive, yet there is not one University of California campus. It would do better for itself as its own State.

California – The could also be called Central California and it consists of the middle of the State south of Pt. Arena down to just South of Big Sur. From there it cuts
across keeping Los Banos while relinquishing Fresno, which people from this area think of as in Southern California. The Capital would remain Sacramento. The University of California, per se is in this area.

Southern California – This includes the entire rest of the State and constitutes the largest land mass. It would still be one of the largest states in the union. There is already a University of Southern California, which is convenient. The placement of the Capital is problematic and the candidates would include: Los Angeles, Pasadena and San Diego — although an even more neutral location such as Riverside or Santa Ana might work too.

Now to find a way to make this happen.

  1. Alexander Moon says:

    As regards #13: by celticchrys — 6/22/2005 @ 11:54 am

    “There are obviously exceptions possible. Otherwise West Virginia would not exist. The Union still considered Virginia to be a US state at the time, although one in rebellion. And WV was created.”


    Hmmm .. I thought the union considered ALL of the south to be part of the US. And, by the way WV wasn’t created until well after the War for Southern Rights. California needs to consider splitting, and maybe recalling the premise of a State of Jefferson. Such a State of Franklin nearly made it to existence (parts of TN and NC). Finally, some folks think of Kentucky as a slave state (which is was) that did not secede; oh, but it did, on 18 Dec 1861. The KY legislature meeting at Hopkinsville (away from Union troops) submitted their petition to President Davis, and it was accepted. KY is the 13th star in the Confederate Flag. Tsk .. how true the rewrite of history by the victors.

  2. jon says:

    I absolutely agree that the state should be split. I’ve been thinking about this ever since I heard an editorial on KQED (one in an occasional series where listerners offer an opinion). This gentleman talked of visiting Vermont and meeting in the airport a senator and the representative, and spoke glowingly of the involvement people had in their government. His idea was to break up CA into units the size of Vermont. Why are we stopping at two or three states? I’ve noticed just on a cursory look through google maps that there are usually about 12 regions that the the state gets split into (by the california government subagencies, tourist organizations, and companies), to break down the state for the purposes of easier administration. North Coast, Bay Area, Central Coast, South Coast, Border Counties, Shasta, Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Mojave Desert, “gold country”, sometimes Napa, sometimes “delta”, etc…. Why wouldn’t this work?

    As far as water is concerned one of the prerequesites for breaking up CA would be some sort of water sharing agreement administered by a localized Federal agency (Like Tennessee Valley Authority).

    And while I’m on the line, We do need more representatives in Congress. Say one for every hundred thousand, (best case scenario) which by some estimates (Jane Jacobs in Death and Life of our Great American Cities) makes a cohesive and governable unit. And at least one Rep for every million.


  3. jon says:

    I notice I said a million per representative, yesterday, and that is worse than the situation we have now. So I take that part back.

  4. Adam says:

    Interesting idea. I don’t think it’ll ever happen, though. Those who don’t support the war in Iraq are called anti-American, so I can’t IMAGINE what someone who wants to break up California would be called!?!?!

    I think you should split it into only 2 parts keeping the Industries with the northern part of the state. That way, northern California isn’t deprived of industry. I live in Oregon, and believe me, we ALL wish there was more than one heavily industralized area. Making wo parts would make it a lot more fair.

    By the way, on your current map, Northern California is NOWHERE near the size of Oregon. It’s only about 2/3rds the size of Oregon.

    Like I said, intresting idea, but there are way to many political points in the way, and it would never happen. The CA Senators like coming from the 7th biggest economy in the world!

  5. joe says:

    This would solve the issue of many Americans who think there are 52 states.


  6. John P. says:

    First of all there are numerous political sub-cultures in California that are so distinctive that they should be separated and given statehood. These areas seldom communicate and rarely see themselves as connected to the other part.

    You’ve really got to be kidding. For all large states you could say the same thing.Texas, NewYork, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Michigan, and Massachusetts are states where I’ve lived that you could say have areas that “seldom communicate and rarely see themselves as connected to the other part.”

    Stupid idea.

  7. Ryan says:

    No way California can be spilt. if we split it would make 52 states. now how uneven is that? I also dislike being around every radical republican in orange county. and if they have there way that means less votes for democrates in upcoming elections and would screw everthing up!!

  8. Bill says:

    If the “Big One” ever happens, you may not have to worry about splitting it up.:-(…

  9. matt says:

    I have an idea, why doesn’t California and Mexico join together and form one Country, but the white folks can all move westward 🙂

  10. Eric says:

    5 states.

    Your view is ok as far as it went, but SoCal needs more refinement. San Diego west to Arizona, LA maybe to the Arizona line, and a Central farming state. Then you could have your Southern Oregon state and the more central SF-based state.

  11. James Wade says:

    I have wanted this since I became politically aware. I would love to seperate myself from those crazy libs up north.

    Corona, CA

  12. James says:

    Texas is the ONLY state that has the right to split. We were smart enough to reserve the right to split into 5 states when we joined the union. Texas shouldn’t even need the approval of congress. If cali pushes to split texas will just do it and then we get 10 senators to tell you no. ^_^

  13. Synchro says:

    Mexica is not part of USA. 🙂

  14. Jay Johnson says:

    EAST CALIFORNIA — EC: A new state east of the Sierra Divide, south of the State of Nevada, including the current CA counties of Mono, Inyo, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial. A key feature of EC would be a time-zone alliance with Arizona so that could remain on MST year around.

  15. J. Mcknight says:

    I don’t live in California, but I think you are definately on to something. However, I think any split must be based on political and cultural realities more than on geography alone. These realites would suggest at least 3 and probably 4 states, and would have to take into account the political and cultural divide between coastal and inland areas, as another poster mentioned. One such state would include, and be centered around the entire Bay Area. It would also include Santa Cruz and Monterrey to the south and Napa, Sonoma and Mendecino to the north as well as various areas east of the Bay perhaps as far east as Sacramento. I will call this proposed state “Calpacifica” but, obviously it could have another name. Another state would include much of Los Angeles County, but might also include coast communities in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties up to Santa Barbara. I wooul call this proposed state “Los Angeles.” The remaining areras of the California would probably be organized into two states. The first of these proposed states would include Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, San Diego, Imperial and Kern Counties as well as northern portions of Ventura County and Santa Barbara County (parts of which want to break away from Santa Barbara already), and possibly San Luis Orbispo County and other central California counties. This proposed state could be called “Calsierra”, “Calsur” or “Reagan.” Finally, the remainder of California (far northern California and parts of Central California) would be organized into the State of Jefferson or the State of “Calnorth.”

  16. kristi morikawa says:

    I once saw this topic covered on a local LA tv station in the early 1990’s. the proposal was for 3 states, broken up almost similiar to what the OP is suggesting. I can easily forsee 2 political divisions, anything beyond 3 is just mundane.

  17. Jay Johnson says:

    How about dividing California into fiscally autonomous regions to prevent the central government in Sacramento from siphoning a disproportionate share of locally collected taxes to be used for pork projects in other in other regions of the state. I believe each region should determine its own budget based on its own revenues. Many California counties are larger in population and land area than some of the original 13 states. Yet, we are unable to meet our current financial obligations because the state returns less than half of what our county pays in taxes.

    East California is proposed for such an autonomous region. We have an excellent seaport in San Diego County. There are large agricultural areas in Imperial and Riverside Counties. San Bernardino and Inyo Counties have vast mineral resources. We are have extensive higher education and research institutions within East California. We willingly support large U.S. Military training bases from seaports to desert sites. And Mono County has some of the best summer and winter recreation areas on the east side of the Sierra Nevada. Together, these diverse East California counties compliment each other. We can be a model for a successful autonomous region within the State of California if not granted outright statehood as the 51st, 52nd, 53rd, or 54th state.

  18. Alex says:

    I have been saying that Florida should split in two for years. The people in Tallahassee have no idea what it is like to live in South Florida. We often get screwed out of money for schools and roads while northern counties get our money. BTW, I dare you to tell me one thing that Northern Florida produces besides rednecks. I say we should split Florida in two from the Space Coast down.

    Needless to say, I agree with splitting California. If we have two Carolinas, two Virginias and Two Dakotas (we needed even one Dakota?) why not three Californias and two Floridas? Although in the case of North Florida it might better be named South Georgia.

  19. Chris Moody says:

    If California was split into 3 as you suggested. Northern California would have a State University. There’s been one in Chico for at least a century.

  20. Being born and raised in L.A. but having spent my entire adult life in Redding, CA (Northern CA), I can tell you we in the north are sick and tired of being bullied and pushed around politically by the multitudes in the south and their voting clout. Issues as varied as taxes (having the govenor “stealing” county taxes for state needs), water (the south needs it, we have it, so why not out-vote the north and just take what they want?), budgeting (again, the squeakiest wheel gets the oil, in this case, those with more votes meaning southern California voters!), have always been bones of contention for those few of us who live in the north of the state.

    If Northern California was a state unto itself, it could conserve more of it’s own natural resources for it’s own needs, have more say in it’s own local government and budget spending, and maybe even have it’s own state university so students wouldn’t have relocate so far to go to college. We in the north help fund the state college system with our taxes, but like much of the taxes we pay into state coffers, we don’t enjoy the benefits up here in the north.

  21. Dan Conditt says:

    I’d like to blow the spark on the smoldering fire of an idea for splitting the state of California. While most states have some diversity contained in their borders — rural, urban, suburban & industrial — I think that geography and size dictate a point of governance. I once heard that Long Beach was proposed as the capitol for Southern California. The Dome which held Howard Hughes’ Spruce Goose and the Queen Mary could serve as the capital. Look to the geograpy of this vast, wild territory we call home and see how we can go about dividing ourselves into a workable state.
    By the way, quit picking on the immigrants. We depend on them more than you think.

  22. bsharkey says:

    This is a great idea, I’ve been a proponent of for a LONG time. The problem is you’ve got the dividing lines slightly off — but not completely off. The name “California” for the north/central section is more than a bit presumptuous — but this plan definitely needs to happen. Let’s call it Mid-Cal for lack of a better term.

    6 senators!! So Cal with our own 2 and the ability to elect them ourselves without “outside interests” (meaning, the kooks up in SF and the likes), yes please! Boxer and Feinstein are serving nobody’s best interests but their own. I honestly don’t know why politicians don’t endorse this, it only gives them a better chance to get elected. Then again the ones already there are probably just serving their own self interests and don’t want to disrupt our field of “50” on the flag!

  23. bsharkey says:

    p.s. looking forward to the “serious” website!!

  24. SignOfZeta says:

    Up to ten percent in taxes? OMG I’m going to die!

    How can anyone be so cheap/greedy that that don’t want to kick %10 back into the comunity that made it possible for them to earn the other %90?

    California actually does some good with that %10 too, unlike here in Michgan where the taxes go to…I’m not sure actually.

  25. gquaglia says:

    Democrates would never let it happen. It gets them 2 sure seats in the senate and all of it electorial votes in the presidential race.

  26. JB Cole says:

    I have to stick with my earlier post. Without water rights secured for all 3 new states, which would have to include agreements from all other states that draw water from the Coloratdo river, other issues could not even be discussed.

    “Water rights can be resolved, I’m sure.”

    Hah. good luck on that one. Re-read your California history with respect to water in this state.

  27. JB Cole says:

    With respect to water, one place to find some information is the Salton Sea restoration website. Here’s a chrnology of the Salton Sea.

  28. axe says:

    91: If this would to occur the electoral votes would be divided but not equally. If all 3 new states stll slanted left of the middle what would the Democrats fuss over. In fact they may gain 4 senate seats at the most and probably 2 at the least.

    I just wonder what our (burning) flag would look like with 2 extra stars.

  29. Me says:

    #89 – 10% would be paradise. I’d even pay 15%. The problem that Paul alluded to is that, by the time you add ALL the taxes together, the average American’s bill is closing in on 50%. That’s ridiculous.

    As far as the California issue goes, if you could surgically remove S.F. and LA/Hollywood, the rest of the state might have something to offer and be worth saving.

  30. Josh says:

    Northern California is already referred to as the State of Jefferson.


Bad Behavior has blocked 8881 access attempts in the last 7 days.