Nevada County Would be in the New State of Northern California


screen-shot-2013-12-19-at-7-50-26-pmThe NOONer Report has the details:

Techcrunch reports that investor Tim Draper plans to submit a proposed initiative for title and summary today that would divide the Golden State into six states. From the language floating around:

The boundaries of the six (6) new states shall be as follows:

(1) A new state, named Jefferson, including the territory represented by the boundaries of the following counties: Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, and Trinity.

(2) A new state, named North California, including the territory represented by the following counties:, Amador, El Dorado, Marin, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba.

(3) A new state, named Central California, including the territory represented by the boundaries of the following counties: Alpine, Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Tuolumne.

(4) A new state, named Silicon Valley, including the territory represented by the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Monterey.

(5) A new state, named West California, including the territory represented by the following counties: Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles, and Ventura.

(6) A new state, named South California, including the territory of Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego.

This would package the state in to three with more Democratic voters and three with Republican voters.  The problem is that Northern California is one of the Democrat dominated new states.

North California would have 1,971,553, 43.1% Democrat, 31.1% Republican, and 25.8% Other.   I would rather have Nevada County in the state of Jefferson. Asyou can see from the map, we are right on the border.  Jefferson would have 511,532, 34.7%, Democrat, 36.5% Republican, and  28.9% Other.

Which new state would you rather be in?  Jefferson or Northern California.

About Russ Steele

Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.
This entry was posted in Human Behavior, Politics, Private Property, Taxes. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Nevada County Would be in the New State of Northern California

  1. Russ Steele says:

    If this proposal reaches the ballot, and wins the vote and the courts negate it, as they are prone to ignore the will of the people, it does send a message that we the people are not happy with how we are governed now. The real question, is anyone listening in Sacramento? Not likely. They are only concerned about their special interest funders. Eventually the people will rise up and take control. It this a starting point? Time will tell us the story.


    • Dena says:

      A little reminder. The courts don’t exist to match the will of the people. The courts exist to follow the constitution and the rule of law. A law should not exist unless it is fair to all and for the courts to violate the rule of law is anarchy, You only need look as far as the white house to see that this is true. The other example closer to home is the 9th district. Often their rulings violate the law or the constitution but match the view of the left and are overturned by the supreme court.


  2. To the specific question: The lack of economic critical mass in the proposed state of Jefferson makes being part of that less attractive.

    I feel Nevada County has more in common with counties in the proposed state of Northern California than it does with Jefferson. One of the aspects of Nevada County that I like is that it has traces of the benefits/niceties of the greater Bay Area but little of their negatives.

    My initial sense is that states of Jefferson and Northern California would be better off being combined.

    If the proposed new states would mean that citizens living north of San Louis Obispo would have a stronger hand and stemming the flow of water to Los Angeles, that would be an attractive benefit.


  3. Dena says:

    Sounds like the progressives are still not happy. This is another action to silence the voice of the minority by giving California 12 senate seats instead of two. This could cause as much damage to the republic as the 17th amendment . Our only hope will be that the federal government will not approve this action but with the desire to make the District of Columbia into a state to add to the left power base, we are in for a long battle.


    • Perhaps 12 new senators representing the old California would be a bit much. I suspect that the other 49 states would strongly object. But having just 2 senators to represent California does seem a bit deficient.


      • Dena says:

        The constitution wasn’t set up to be fair. The house was designed to reflect the view of the majority and the senate was intended to reflect the view of the state. The senate also helped give a voice to the minority. If senators were selected in the same ratios as the house, there would be no need for a house and a senate. The founding fathers wanted conflict and different view points so they intended four branches (I know what they teach in school) with each as different as possible. The 17th amendment greatly damaged the country by removing state rights and giving them to the people. Populating the senate by population size would finish the senate off.

        Also consider the attempt to give the District of Columbia state hood. Your are talking about giving two senators to a hundred square mile state. What the District of Columbia is after is to have their vote count in the presidential election. This is very bold for a state who’s income comes from the other 50 states and it’s only product is laws that rule over the 50 states. A better solution would be for DC’s votes to be counted in another states election such as Maryland’s.


      • Dena,

        I think I agree that the consequences of 17th amendment are have been undesirable. The evidence suggests the pre-amendment arrangement resulted in representation that was more beholden to the citizens (or the “state” as you wrote.) Regardless of how one feels about the voting/leadership of our current senators, I think most people would agree that only 2 senators for a diverse state like California is too little. It’s hard to “reflect the views of the state” as you write with so many competing interests. Regardless, I think any possible division of the State is over 100 years away–for reasons that Steve Frisch has described.

        I’m interested to learn more about the efforts/progress of making Washington D.C. a State. I too see reasons for concern with that concept.


      • Dena says:

        I think you are missing something when it comes to the rights of the state. What the people of the state want often will not agree with the goals of the government of the state. An example is the people might want more goodies were as the government might see the need for a highway to improve economic conditions.
        The founding father would have had labor and the house of lords like England to provide the different viewpoints except that we didn’t have the lords to form a government with so instead they used the people, states and to add to the mix they tried to free the courts from politics by giving them a life long term.
        Also a side note on why the 17th amendment was passed. The progressives thought there was too much lobbying taking place at the state level and they wanted to eliminate lobbying. By passing the 17th amendment they didn’t eliminate lobbying but instead moved it all to D.C. making lobbying much more efficient. No longer did they lobby two senators but now they could lobby all of them and the house members as well.


  4. stevefrisch says:

    I would rather be in neither, I think none of the six county splits proposed make any sense, and I don’t believe this proposal will ever see a statewide ballot initiative since it basically violates the constitutional provision against revisions of the Constitution. The California Supreme Court would almost certainly rule that such a measure can’t go on the ballot as an initiative because one can only amend, but not revise, the state Constitution. Under the state Supreme Court test for revisions, most recently determined by the decision on Prop 8, splitting the state into six would count as a revision.


    • Interesting observation. Since each of the proposed new states would have a separate constitution, that would seem to be more than just an amendment. But my gut instincts suggest to me that someday, somehow, within the next 200 years this obstacle will be overcome and California will no longer remain a single state. California seems too big, it’s interests too diverse and contradictory to be satisfied indefinitely by one Capitol–IMHO.


      • stevefrisch says:

        Yes that was my point Dai; splitting the stet would require a Constitutional Convention to affect the split not just an initiative, and as Dena points out, I also doubt the Congress would ever agree.


      • Barry Pruett says:

        Steve: I think that a Republican congress would agree in that it would split Califoria’s electoral votes thereby making it more difficult for Democrats to elect a president. It would also bring presidential politics back to the region as the different areas would be in play again and not beholden to the voters of LA and the Bay area. I agree that an initiative is likely not legal, but it will spark a debate.


Comments are closed.