Three Californias

Three Californias 2011 - It's Time

2011-04-12T17:08:00.000-07:00

In February 2005, over six years ago, an article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle which included this observation:

I'm an optimist by nature and a Californian by upbringing. I truly believe there is something distinctly alluring about the state in and of itself -- not just the geography but the California of the mind, the ideas and dreams embodied in the notion of the place. There's a cultural climate that says here, new things can happen. Everyone's own private heaven awaits, whether it's the green arcadia of Humboldt County or the well-buffed bliss of San Diego.

But focus hard on the reality of 2005, and what we see is a golden state of dysfunction.

Bad enough that schools are in decline, and that budget deficits stretch as far as the eye can see. The underlying problem is the detachment between decision-makers and the results of their decisions. It is a state so large, hobbled by so many initiatives and expectations that not even a life-and-death issue jars the status quo.

At the time, I saved that article because its writer, 2002 and 2003 Pulitzer Prize nominee John King, so clearly articulated the obvious I wanted to use it on the front page of the web site Three Californias.

That web site was set up in 2005 to provide a single place on line for people to find the long history of proposals to divide California, controversies that began when California was proposed for Statehood.

But more importantly, it is a web site that outlines the reasons why California no longer works as a single state and the logical for dividing the State into three new states.

Here we are in 2011. The State government is in an agonizingly deep financial crisis. Governor Jerry Brown, elected in November 2010, is running up and down the state trying to convince people to push for a tax increase that he cannot get through the Legislature. Everyone agrees that California is "ungovernable."

There is a story from nearly a quarter of a century ago, which may be apocryphal, about when that term was applied to the State:

Then-Sen. Pete Wilson was agonizing over whether to run for governor. Old pal [Stu] Spencer — a political advisor to presidents and governors, most notably Ronald Reagan — invited Wilson to his isolated Oregon ranch for some frank talk among the pines and manzanita, in front of a crackling fire.

“You’ve got the best job in the world right now — senator from California,” Spencer told Wilson, as the sage recalls it. “I don’t know why’n hell you’d run for governor. California is ungovernable.”

In a 2007 piece, columnist George Skelton of the L.A. Times wrote:

Last week, I called Spencer — now 80 and semiretired — at his Palm Springs home and asked whether he still believes the state is ungovernable....

“The public is more polarized,” he said, “because we’re more diverse. We’ve got a bigger mass of bodies and we’re more diverse economically. People are divided about what they want....”

This leads to political “rigidness,” he added. “There’s not much unanimity or desire to compromise to reach a goal.

...People get despondent because they believe something should be done and they can’t get it done.”

If you think dividing the state is a crackpot idea with no foundation, keep in mind proposals to divide California into more than one state date back to the time before California was admitted to the Union in 1850. In the first 150 years of statehood, there have been 27 serious proposals to split the state.

And consider the underlying reason Brown is traveling around the state compared to this discussion of the push to split the state in the 1849 Constitutional Convention, before the State became a State:

…The representation from the southern districts in the constitutional convention was about one-fourth the number from the whole territory. Seven members of the convention were native-born Californians. The greater number of the other members had been in California but a short time.

It immediately became evident that the people of southern California did not desire to have their fortunes linked in civil government with the territory further north.

…William M. Gwin, in his Memoirs, says of the attitude of the convention: “When they met to organize, the members showed a strange distrust of the motives of each other from various sections. The old settled portions of California sent members to the convention to vote against the formation of a state government. They were afraid of the newcomers, who formed a vast majority of the voting population.”

Mr. Carrillo, a native Californian from the Santa Barbara district, …proposed that the country should be divided by running a line west from San Luis Obispo, so that all north of that line might have a State Government, and all south thereof a Territorial Government.

In 1859, the Legislature put matter to the voters in Southern California and a whopping 75% said create a separate state. But the Civil War distracted everyone. In the first 160 years of statehood, there have been 27 serious proposals to split the state.

If the area that became the state was thought to be too diverse and too large to be a state by Californians in 1849 and 1859, and about every 6 years since then, maybe it is too diverse and too large to be governed as a single state.

Just maybe Jerry Brown should take a hard look while he's traveling around. Maybe "it is a state so large, hobbled by so many initiatives and expectations that not even a life-and-death issue jars the status quo," as King observed.

As Brown struggles to find support for his budget plan with particular emphasis on saving our educational system, California Watch has found that:

For nearly eight decades, California's landmark Field Act has governed the design and construction of public schools. But California Watch found a regulatory breakdown that raises questions about the safety of children in buildings throughout the state.

What they found is that many schools have never been certified under the Field Act, the seismic building standards law for public schools enacted after the 1933 Long Beach earthquake.

The 1972 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, passed one year after the Sylmar quake in the San Fernando Valley killed more than 60 people and caused more than $500 million in damage, requires the California Geological Survey to map the earthquake hazard zones in the state.

As soon as the first maps were released in 1974, development and real estate interests began an incessant attack. Keep in mind that Brown was sworn in as Governor for his first term in 1975. According to the San Francisco Chronicle

"Realtors absolutely hated it," said Earl W. Hart, manager of the Alquist-Priolo program from its inception until the mid-1990s.

In one three-week period in October 1974, Hart reported receiving 52 complaints from real estate agents, developers, property owners and others. During the commotion, the state geologist at the time, James E. Slosson, refused to "water down" the hazard zone maps, notes from the State Mining & Geology Board show.

But in late 1975, Slosson resigned and was replaced by Thomas E. Gay Jr., who began re-examining the fault zone maps. By February 1976, the Fault Evaluation Program was born.

Hart's team no longer included faults without significant ground movement in the past 11,000 years. Previously, the state had used the scientific standard of 2 million years - criteria still used by other states - to draw the zones.

...As a result of the changes, many fault zones shrank or disappeared from the Alquist-Priolo maps.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, 13 maps had fault zones that were removed, according to an internal state geologist report. Out of 708 maps released over the past three decades, the state geologist's office has redrawn 161.

The Chronicle article also notes:

...The Alquist-Priolo law requires school districts to hire geologists to make a detailed assessment of nearby earthquake faults before renovating or building in these zones. Builders, teachers, children and parents are left in the dark without those assessments.

Still, several school districts in these hazard zones have started and completed building projects in recent years without investigating fault-line hazards, records and interviews show.

The question for any reasoning Californian is why do we want to continue government in this fashion.

Is it really important to give Brown his five year temporary tax increase extension to solve a fiscal problem created during his last stint as Governor to put school children in school buildings that are unsafe because of his management during his last stint as Governor? Are we really this stupid?

Well, yes we are. As John King said six years ago:

The underlying problem is the detachment between decision-makers and the results of their decisions. It is a state so large, hobbled by so many initiatives and expectations that not even a life-and-death issue jars the status quo.

It's 2011, it's time to seriously consider dividing the state into Three Californias if for no other reason it will give us all a fresh start on state and local government.

The Fiscal Collapse and Political Farce That Is California

2009-05-23T08:12:00.000-07:00

May 19, 2009 may go down in California history as the date the most populous state in the Union became "obviously ungovernable." For on that date, the voters of California told their legislative representatives they had just elected to office that they - the voters - really did not want those representatives to attempt to operate and maintain government within the state.

And they repudiated the political compromise worked out by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who they elected when they recalled Governor Gray Davis, the second governor to be recalled in American history.

There aren't many Americans old enough to remember when during the depression, along with banks going under, state and local governments including schools started paying vendors and employees with "warrants" which were IOU's based on the hope that someday enough cash would come into the treasuries to cover them. Californians will get there.

The State of California is about to start massive layoffs beginning with about 6,000 employees in the next month with the initial largest layoffs in the Department of Corrections (yes, prison guards).

While most Californian's don't see the magnitude of the problem, the State and local governments of the world's 8th largest economy will suffer a financial shock over the next 6 months. I mention local governments, because the State is considering "borrowing" property tax revenues and will be unable to remit sales tax revenues to local governments because the State is again getting low on cash. The State's deficit is now 25% of the State General Fund and rising.

State spending on everything from cars and computers to food and toilet paper is going to have to be cut by a minimum of 15%. This is a surprisingly large amount of money that is going to cease to enter the private sector. The ripple effect in the national and world economy will be noticed by the economy's statistics keepers.

It's just the way it is unless Congress decides to intervene to bail out another poorly managed "too-large" economic entity within the American economy in order to reduce the impact on the world's economy. The Los Angeles Times, in discussing the likelihood that private investment in California's economy will dry up, noted today:

"We lose competitive advantage by being the state that can't solve its problems," economist Stephen Levy said. "Regardless of what we think the solution is, the fact is we can't find a solution."

The budget crisis threatens to further weaken the state's job market, which lost 63,700 more jobs last month, according to figures released Friday. The state's overall unemployment rate actually fell slightly, to 11% from 11.2%. But new job losses could prolong the vicious cycle in which the California economy is now trapped, with rising joblessness reducing consumer spending and delaying a housing rebound, thus leading to more layoffs.

Business Week yesterday called California a "basket case" in an article noting that 47 states face budget gaps explained:

The California state legislature will now have to consider many more cuts. They'll range from relatively smaller items—a $4 million-a-year poison-control hotline that gets 900 calls a day—to sweeping cuts in health-care spending that will reduce coverage for 2 million poor state residents. "These are folks who may go to the emergency room, but they'll face the bills afterward," says Anthony Wright, executive director of advocacy group Health Access California. "If you're trying to lift yourself out of poverty, that won't help you."

California legislators had already passed $16 billion in spending cuts and $12 billion in fee hikes to tackle the current fiscal year's budget. Schwarzenegger says his own office has been reduced by 27 positions, to 147 people, and remaining staffers are taking a 9% pay cut. State legislators, though, say the governor's decision this week to stop pursuing short-term borrowings came as a surprise to them. Noreen Evans, a Democrat who chairs the budget committee in the State Assembly, says she was against borrowing more money to begin with. She thinks the fix lies in a number of spending cuts and tax increases—everything from putting a sales tax on tickets to sporting events to the $750 million a year that could be gained from taxing oil production in the state. "We should think about taxing oil producers before we cut health care coverage to 200,000 children," she says.

Some see California's fiscal crisis as an opportunity to address structural problems with the state's government....

Indeed, some of us do see it that way. As we proposed in our Three Californias web site several years ago, California is too large to be effectively governed unless it becomes a separate country. Since that is unlikely, it is time to split the state into Northern California, Coastal California, and Southern California, as we have proposed.

The Economic Panic and The 3 California's Proposal

2009-03-12T14:53:00.000-07:00

The recent economic panic (a term preferred to trying to distinguish between a recession and a depression) appears not to have created significant differences in the relative economies between the three proposed states. Using employment data, for instance, Northern California generally has a higher unemployment rate than the other two.

Prop 8's win confirm the existence of Three California's

2008-11-05T13:51:00.000-08:00

Based on the 2008 election results in California, it's clear that there are three Californias. Two social policy issues that were on the California ballot were social policy issues:

Proposition 4 which would have required parental notification before a teen could get an abortion and which was defeated by the voters;
Proposition 8 which placed in the state constitution a provision effectively banning gay marriage.

In nine counties casting a majority for Obama, voters also approved requiring notification of parents in advance of any teen abortion. In six counties casting a majority for McCain, voters were against the notification measure. These 15 counties seem to indicate a discrepancy between attitudes on social policy and reasons for voting for a presidential candidate. In itself, this would not be surprising. After all, the issues most affecting how people voted for President - the economy and national security - do not indicate attitudes on any single social policy issue.

So how does one explain the differences between the two maps on social issues, Prop 4 Abortion Notification (top right) and Prop 8 Gay Marriage Ban (bottom right)?

First, consider the voting pattern on Proposition 22 passed in 2000 which created a statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman and which the State Supreme Court overturned as violating the state constitution. As you can see from the map below left, Prop 22 was defeated in only a few of the most liberal California counties. It was clear from that vote that even in the generally liberal counties the electorate was probably two decades away from supporting gay marriage.

Now, consider the voting pattern on the 2008 measure, Proposition 8. While the measure was defeated in many of the traditionally liberal counties representing a gain for the gay community, in fact Prop 8 passed in Los Angeles County, Imperial County, Solano County, and Sacramento County.

Why did that happen? We have no polling data on these ballot issues at this time. So all one can do is speculate based upon other considerations. Generally the Hispanic and Black communities are thought to be more conservative on the issue of gay marriage due to cultural and religious background. And while the same cultural and religious background might favor anti-abortion laws such as Pro 4, the abortion notification issue is decidedly a women's issue that would tend to cause many somewhat socially conservative women to vote against it while still voting for Prop 8.

These results clearly support the concept that there are the Three California's advocated here and as outlined on our map:

California Primary Held Too Early

2008-02-27T13:30:00.000-08:00

I have been waiting for someone else to note this fact. California held its Democratic Primary too early to be relevant.

It is more than ironic that the Texas and Ohio primaries are considered crucial for Clinton and, depending upon the results from next week, Pennsyvania could be "the decider" in April.

The problem for California's Democratic voters is that many cast their ballots by mail in advance of developing stories - particularly the story of Barack Obama. The rest of us who voted at the polls were just beginning to get the message that there was a viable alternative to Clinton.

So here we are. We used to have an election date in March - generally reserved for local elections - it would have been a good date. Imagine if Clinton and Obama on March 4 were competing for California as well as Texas and Ohio.

Also imagine if so many of our Superdelegates hadn't committed before March. My own Congressman - Mike Thompson - committed to Clinton. Obama won in his District even though Obamamania had yet to take hold in most of the state. Nearly 55% of the voters in Thompson's District voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton.

Now if we Californian's could just approve an initiative to allocate our Electoral College votes proportionately we could become completely irrelevant....

California the Ungovernable

2005-12-12T16:03:00.000-08:00

Dan Walters, long time Sacramento Bee reporter and columnist on Sunday began a series of columns on Arnold Schwarzenegger's problems and mistakes in attempting to get control of the helm of our floundering state as follows:

California is an extraordinarily difficult state to govern. Its immensely complex social and economic mélange generates unique issues and unique political conflicts that make consensus on any of those issues virtually impossible.

Indeed, a perfectly logical argument can be made that California is fundamentally ungovernable, at least with a political structure that gives almost every faction a veto power. And the recent political history of the state - wheel-spinning on virtually every front - provides strong prima facie evidence of the theory's validity. More

How to Proceed

2005-12-11T22:06:00.000-08:00

Separatism is not the proposal of this web site. But many of the same arguments that lead to proposals for California being separated from the rest of the Union contribute to the case for dividing the state. (Of course, the one exception is that a new republic could allow immigrants like Arnold to become President without the problem of a Constitutional Amendment. For more on having California "released" from the Union, see my alternative analysis at A New California Republic.)

So how do we proceed to divide the state into three states?

The Legislature needs to place a three state proposal referendum on the statewide ballot. It should provide for the creation of a Commission to prepare on behalf of the Legislature a detailed proposal to divide the State approximately as indicated in the maps here (while we recognize that the boundaries proposed here may need some adjustment, we would hate to see either an effort to divide the state in two nor in three ways horizontally as has been suggested in the past, nor would we want to see peculiar gerrymandering).

The referendum should provide that the Commission's proposal be placed on the ballot by the Secretary State as a proposed amendment to the State Constitution. Finally, it should provide that if the Commission's proposal be approved by a majority of the voters of the State that the State's Congressional Delegation including all members of the U.S. House of Representatives elected from the State and the State's two U. S. Senators sponsor and introduce a bills in each house to implement the division of the State.

That's how it could be done. Now, we need only persuade the Legislature, the voters, then Congress.

How Would Three States Stack Up?

2005-12-07T12:54:00.000-08:00

California is the most populous state in the Union with about 10% of the nations population. As of the 2000 census, based on population California was 65% larger then number 2 Texas and 78% larger than number 3 New York. California is the third largest state in area, behind Alaska and Texas both of which are substantially larger.

So how would the three proposed Californias (see map) stack up in the ranking with a total of 52 states?

Southern California would be the 2nd most populous state, slightly behind Texas, and 21st in area, ranked between Washington and Georgia.

Northern California would be a bit larger in area, ranking 19th between Oklahoma and Washington, but would be 21st in population between Maryland and Arizona.

Coastal California would be 9th in population, between Michigan and New Jersey, and 42nd in area between South Carolina and West Virginia.

With the division of the state, Californians would find themselves in states more comparable to others in the Union. Each of the new states would have political influence similar to most other states. Each would have a clearer image of what the state was about.

Rationale for Three States

2005-12-05T09:21:00.000-08:00

Before tackling the arguments associated with the pros and cons of dividing California, the issue of how many states to divide California into should be examined.

Californians who are familiar with their state know that one can find a rationale for dividing the state into anywhere from two states to eight states. California is physically diverse. The State's California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES) has performed a fairly thorough job of mapping the regions of the State as follows:

These maps indicate that no logical north-south divisions stand out providing a quick way to divide the state, even though most historical efforts tried to use horizontal lines along latitude numbers such as 36 degrees. While a simple approach, it isn't too logical to use horizontal lines. The watersheds and bioregions are a result of topographical features and climate. Consider a topographical map of California:The first thing one observes from these three maps is that a "Southern California" seems to be identifiable. One might argue that the South Coast would seem to be different from the inland. There is some truth in that. But one can even demonstrate an odd tie between the two - the infamous Santa Ana winds:One can't help but feel that Southern California is reasonably identifiable as a physically separate area from the rest of the State. The line to be drawn is not literally east-west or north-south. But some relationship probably exists between the physical and existing political boundaries. What about the rest of the state?

Again, in the past some have attempted to simply use a latitude number, a simple east-west line. But as the physical maps above indicate, particularly if one looks at the bioregions and watershed maps, an obvious fact stands out. The remaining portion of California has a coastal area more or less split off from the east by mountains. Further, when we review the political maps such as the 2000 Presidential election county results, we begin to see an area with an orientation:The fact is a political divide does exist. In their San Francisco Chronicle column of November 1, 2004, Matier and Ross reported on some results by the Field Poll:

California's North-South split now East-West
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Monday, November 1, 2004
Forget the old North-South split -- recent polling is reinforcing the notion that the new fault line in California politics is inland vs. the coast.

"And it's a phenomenon that may be with us for some time,'' said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo.

The emerging split pits the liberal and heavily Democratic coast against the more conservative and Republican inland areas such as Riverside and the Central Valley.

And nowhere is the split more apparent than in this year's presidential race, where recent Field polling showed George Bush ahead by 20 points in the Inland Empire, compared with John Kerry's 17-point lead in the more populated coastal areas.

And the split continues on other issues as well. For example:

Proposition 66, the move to roll back California's "three strikes" law. The latest polls show support for the measure is four times greater among coastal voters than inland voters.
Proposition 72, to require businesses with more than 200 employees to help pay health insurance costs for their workers. On the worker-friendly coast, recent polls had the measure ahead by 6 points. But among the business- friendly and government-averse inland voters, the "no" side of Prop. 72 was ahead by 18 points.
Proposition 71, the $3 billion stem cell initiative. It has a 20- point lead on the coast, but only an 8-point lead inland.

"And this is going to be with us for many years," DiCamillo said. "The inland voters look like America's heartland, while the coastal voters look a lot like the Northeast."

A split in the economies of the regions also applies. Dr. Tapan Monroe in 1995 (while serving as Chief Economist for Pacific Gas.& Electric) noted:

"The economy of the state of California, if it were a nation, would be comparable to that of the U.K. or China, and the President of California would be attending the G7 or G8 summit meetings. However, such a strong economy is not consistent across its regions. Based on geographic and economic activity..., we can divide California into three major economic regions and San Diego County: the...Central Valley, the...San Francisco Bay Area, the...Los Angeles region, and San Diego."

Monroe explains that during the 1990-93 recession the Los Angeles region economy declined earlier and more significantly primarily because of defense industry job losses but by 1995 recovered significantly from growth in service and entertainment industries. The Bay Area was more stable because of the higher education level of the population (remember this was before the dotcom bubble and burst). The Central Valley was the area of the fastest job growth attributed to such things as cheaper housing. He concluded:

In summary, the three major regions of California and San Diego have been recovering at different rates because of significantly different economies. The Bay Area is a relatively stable region due to its well diversified economy. The Central Valley has been and will continue to be the fastest growing region in California due to availability of open space, lower housing costs, and absence of problems that hamper the larger coastal areas. But the Central Valley will continue to suffer from relatively high levels of structural unemployment. The Los Angeles area was hit hardest during the recession because of defense cutbacks and the resultant massive layoffs by prime defense contracting firms. Even though job growth in the Los Angeles area is at a faster clip than in the Bay Area, it will take longer for Southern California to regain its pre- recession job level.

In the most recent recession cycle, Southern California proved to be more resiliant, the housing boom particularly protected the Central Valley while, as we all know, the Bay Area economy tanked. All this confirms that three separate economies exist.

In addition, one more factor helps reinforce dividing the South Coast from the remainder. Appendix H of the Online Guide to California's Marine Life Management Act indicated the importance of this: (emphasis added)

Currents and other bodies of water may differ dramatically in temperature and chemistry, as well as speed and direction. These factors all influence the kinds of marine life found in different bodies of water. In general terms, geography, oceanography, and biology combine to divide California marine fisheries and other marine life into
two major regions north and south of Point Conception. Within each region, other differences emerge. Conservation and use of California's marine life depends partly upon recognizing these differences.

Finally, if one takes a quick look at the California highway and railroad maps one can see that transportation corridors have created an east-west split in the North portion of the State:

Taking all of these physical and economic realities into account plus historical considerations and using existing county boundaries for ease of mapping, it is suggested that California should be divided into three states in some manner close to the following map:

While we will be using the above map for further discussions, it should be noted that some elements of it will be troublesome. Kern County, for instance, might more logically be included in Northern California. If one considers everything it probably should be divided along with Solano and Contra Costa, all as indicated on the map below:

However, these details are not something that can be resolved on this web site. For statistical analysis, the map with undivided counties will be used.

The last point to be taken up is that of limiting the split to three states. The political facts of life are that even with just three states Californians would gain four U. S. Senators, no small concern for the other states. However, a division as suggested here as of 2004 would create four open Senate seats unless incumbents Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer relocated, for they both would live in Coastal California which would be the most liberal new State. The new Southern California and Northern California would likely present new opportunities for both of the two major parties with the real possibility that two conservatives and one or two moderate Republicans could take the seats. Of course, Democrats could take the seats also, but the point is that true opportunities would exist for both parties. This should make the idea more appealing in the current Congress.

Divide California: The History

2005-12-03T16:42:00.000-08:00

Proposals to divide California into more than one state date back to before California was admitted to the Union in 1850. In the first 150 years of statehood, there have been 27 serious proposals to split the state. It is an idea that has staying power!

From 1850 to 1860, the issue was constantly before the public, the legislature, and Congress. While abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates in the East tried to capture or disparage proposals, most Southern Californians thought the state should be divided up for many less controversial local reasons relating to taxation and common interests. In 1859, the Legislature put matter to the voters in Southern California and a whopping 75% said create a separate state. Unfortunately, the Civil War distracted the folks in Washington. For an interesting and detailed review of the issue during the State's first 12 years, click here.

Since the Civil War, the issue has been discussed seriously by the Legislature at least once every two decades.

One of the more amusing, but serious, movements began during 1940 when parts of Southern Oregon and Northern California decided to form the State of Jefferson. Again, another war, World War II, distracted everyone. For details, click here.

The most recent proposal occurred in the early 1990's. The original proposal was to create two states - one from the counties in the northern part of California that closely identified with the issues brought up by the Jefferson proposal and the other including all the rest of California. After some debate, the proposal switched to the creation of three states and it passed the Assembly! Several counties put the matter on the ballot in June of 1992. To read about this effort, click here.

This blog continues this long history of advocacy for dividing California.

The 2004 Political Controversy

2005-12-02T22:30:00.000-08:00

"...I truly believe there is something distinctly alluring about the state in and of itself -- not just the geography but the California of the mind....
"But focus hard on the reality of 2005, and what we see is a golden state of dysfunction.
"...The underlying problem is the detachment between decision-makers and the results of their decisions. It is a state so large, hobbled by so many initiatives and expectations that not even a life-and-death issue jars the status quo."
- John King, San Francisco Chronicle

The Current Blue/Red State Controversy. The 2004 national election has elicited much discussion on the web about having California remove itself from, or be thrown out of, the Union. This discussion has even received some review in the traditional press. Those responding negatively to the idea have correctly observed that the Civil War settled this issue and that Californians are clearly integrated into the American scene both historically and culturally. And the California economy is too much a part of the national economy to simply separate it out.

Too many people in other parts of the nation see California as someplace weird, out of the norm of the country, because of the press emphasis on Blue/Red, liberal Hollywood, and gay San Francisco . That is a very uninformed view. Consider the last two presidential elections using maps of the results by county:

2000 Presidential Election Results

2004 Presidential Election Results

These two maps should remind you of the national maps of red and blue states. They would seem to be an indicator that the national "values" divide exists inside California.

But is it really a difference in values or just historical inherited partisan loyalties? Fortunately we have the results of ballot measures to examine in 2004:

Stem Cell Research Funding

Mandated Employer Health Insurance

What these two maps indicate is that California includes regions that usually will vote socially and economically conservative (red on the stem cell map) and regions that usually will vote socially and economically liberal (green on the employer health insurance map). California even has "swing counties." Consider a map of another ballot measure that established a 1% income tax on income over $1,000,000 to pay for county mental health programs compared with the 2003 recall election of Governor Gray Davis and you will find potential "swing" counties:

Mental Health Tax

Recall Gray Davis

Politically California is as divided as the nation. As a country on its own, it would have the world's 6th or 7th largest economy and it would be the 59th largest country in area and the 34th largest in population (out of about 237). So it too could become a "divided" nation, but why would anyone propose that?

More logically, it should become more than one state. The intent of this blog is to provide information regarding the idea of dividing California.

Its Time for Three Californias?

2005-12-01T22:22:00.000-08:00

There are three Californias. Because of this, California has become ungovernable. The time has come for one of two things to happen: (1) Divide California into three states, but logically, not with just horizontal lines; or (2) Have the United States release California to become a separate nation divided into provinces by its own constitution.