Link to news story

This particular plan will do nothing to correct the single party domination of the State's government but will garner four new US Senate seats for the California Progressives.

I had no idea this was on the ballot

Vote no

vote NO
its a stupid idea, so it will probably pass.

if this goes through, then other states will split?

Here is another news story on this with the same perspective I mentioned - Democrats after more Senate seats.

Link to article in The Hill

"A proposal to split the nation’s most populous state into three smaller states would give Democrats a huge boost in the perpetual battle for control of the United States Senate — likely dooming the plan even before voters have a chance to weigh in.

California voters will vote this November on the ballot measure, backed by tech billionaire and venture capitalist Tim Draper. If the measure passes, Congress would have a year to allow the state to split up into three separate states — one centered around Los Angeles, another in Northern California that includes the Bay Area and Sacramento, and a third in Southern California that would include the Central Valley and San Diego."

Dividing up States would have an effect similar to eliminating the Senate.  It would make the Senate similar to the House of Representatives, which is contrary to the objective of having a Senate in the first place.

It seems consistent with the push to go to a popular vote and eliminate the Electoral College.

It wouldn't have the same effect as eliminating the Senate.

Not a fan of this plan, but a while back I figured that since constitutional reforms are pretty much impossible, even if somehow Reynolds v. Sims and the like were to be overturned or ignored successfully, that a split might be the only way to really do what needs doing.  To that end I came up with my own idea for a split, drawn using precinct results from 2016 elections as a basis.  Something more thorough might look at the previous few elections just to see if some precinct results were just outliers due to the Trump effect.  I also wanted to ensure that any potential "free state" had largely uninterrupted major internal lines of communication and economic viability, both of which require, unfortunately, retaining some Blue areas to maintain contiguity.

I posted it in the GD thread.  It's a two-way split.  Republicans would in the net gain two Senators and a good-sized chunk of Electors.  The other idea is to make three States using this map.  The proposed western/blue State would be split.  One would start from the south at about where you can see Monterey Cunty getting dense and particularly blue, otherwise including everything as is going north.  Another would start just west of Santa Barbara and the contiguous more densely populated areas and include everything else as-is to the south and east.  The third would be the eastern part as-is except for gaining the thin coastal strip connecting the two others in the two-State split map.  In the net the Senate balance wouldn't change.

Likewise Texas could carve out a blue section and call it Texas Blue

Then carve out 10 new states and call them Texas Red1 though Texas Red10

Drop the Name California from all three and call them what they really are.  State of San Francisco, State of Los Angeles and State of San Diego.

This is what I was referring to when I said it would eliminate the Senate.  If every State decided to split up, you'd have a massive number of new Senate seats.  In Chaingun's example, there'd be 22 senators where there are currently just 2.

If every State split into an average of three smaller states, we'd have 300 senators, which is why I said it would be like a second House of Representatives.

That the dividing lines would be based on today's geographical distribution of party affiliations is perfect proof of one fundamental flaw underlying this plan.

The fundamental problem is the number of liberals imported from the east coast and south of the border.  Add to that the school system is completely dominated by liberals who are indoctrinating your children as new liberal warriors every single day and you are paying them to do it.

You just created the peaceful utopia of ....San Angeles

Now we can go live in the sewers.

If California is divided into three states the Congress could reject statehood and reduce the "Californias" to territories with federally appointed governors and loss of representation in both the House and Senate. I like the idea.

It can either approve or disapprove of the split, nothing more.  If it approves, they all become sovereign States, which may or may not be admitted to the Union.  It can't strip State sovereignty like that over part or all of it without consent of the State, which is, as I recall, how it went down the last time that happened (the original States used to be much larger; Virginia before its split with West Virginia originally also included Kentucky; North Carolina included Tennessee; etc.).  I'd have to look it up to be sure.

Generally, there have been almost no disputes like that to look at to see how or if they were resolved.  All splits and subsequent admissions of new States or cessions of parts of States to the Feds to run as territories happened peaceably and voluntarily except for West Virginia, which is kind of a special case.  If one accepts that Virginia left the Union and West Virginia seceded from it and chose to join the Union, then it's legit.  If you reject that secession was legal, then there are issues with it since obviously Virginia's legislature did not consent to it.  Since the Union won the war and could impose its will on the former Confederate States, it was kind of a moot point by then I suppose.

My Proposal -

1.  Separate the blue coastal areas from the rest of the State of California*.

2.  The coastal strip could be re-named West California**

The entirety of California has a very large area full of natural resources (water, oil, natural gas, wood, minerals,...).  There is plenty of tourism via the National and State parks; the Sierras with all their skiing, etc.  Lots of things.  Oh yeah, did I mention California has all the water?

With all the politically-induced troubles for businesses (taxation, over-regulation, etc), it would be easy to attract a lot of companies and their employees out of the expensive, high cost of living West California.  Relocating a company out of Silicon Valley or Los Angeles, up into the Sierra Nevada foothills would be an attractive move.  The tax avoidance would pay for the move.

*  This could be done all the way up the western coast and does not have to stop at the California border.
** Perhaps, California Dreamin', Surf City, Oceania, The Left Coast or some such appropriate name but leave it up to them to figure it out.

Why would enticing Silicon Valley business' from West to East Cali be anything but an absolutely stupid thing to do? Do you not understand that splitting from the liberal-dense left coast is the whole point of splitting Cali? My goodness, piss on the Bay Area!...

The idea is to attrtact businesses that want to get out from under the thumb of the liberal tax and spend policies of West California.

Business is good, right?  I hope we agree on that point.  The new government could offer incentives for the right type of businesses and could offer disincentives to businesses with a bad track record.

You do understand you cannot stop US citizens from migrating within the US borders, right?

P.S. - The Central Valley agricultural region would NOT be part of West California.  The politicians in Sacramento would have to go west.  We might take the city but those politicians have to go!  Newsom could stay in San Francisco.

Oh well, this has been a fun exercise in gerrymandering, Federal-level gerrymandering.

I've heard about this on the news, they only show the map where there's be 3 states. I had no idea it was an elaborate plan to hijack the Senate. I thought it was because certain counties are pissed off about the sanctuary state bs.
It looks like "north California" would be completely screwed because San Fransisco, they'd probably get tighter gun control, more environmental law's, etc.
"California" with LA would probably stay the same.
It looked to me like "southern California" with orange and the desert may actually be a red state?
Does anybody know if there is any talk about how they will write all of their law's? Will they just automatically adopt all current law's into effect?

Of course, the leftist politicians do not discuss the extra Senate seats.  They talk about all sorts of freedoms as a diversionary tactic.

San Diego, San Bernardino, Bakersfield, Fresno and Orange County would dominate the South California "State".  I suspect it would also be a blue State, as most of those large population centers show up as blue in all the political maps I've seen and have huge numbers.  The land mass is irrelevant at the ballot box.