What Would The Political Makeup Of California Three State Solution Be

Former Proposition

Proposition 9
Sectionalisation of California into Iii States
Map of the iii Californias Northern California (NorCal) California (Cal) Southern California (SoCal)

Cal iii was a proposal to split the U.S. country of California into three states. Information technology was launched in Baronial 2017 by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, who led the effort to have it originally qualify on the November 2018 state election every bit Suggestion 9, officially the Division of California into 3 States initiative.^[1] Proponents of the proposal argued that dividing California into three states would provide fairer and more responsive governance for large regions outside of California's major cities. In July 2018, the Supreme Courtroom of California pulled it from the ballot for further state constitutional review.^[2] Draper officially stopped pushing for the measure out soon later on.^[3] ^[four] ^[five] ^[6] On 12 September 2018, the courtroom permanently removed the measure from all future ballots.^[7]

The Cal three proposal would not have legally split the state immediately; the division would have occurred just if and when the U.S. Congress consented to acknowledge the new states to the Union per Article Iv, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the measure would have established procedures inside the land government for the proposed split.

In that location were key procedural differences between the Cal 3 initiative and Draper's previous Half dozen Californias program, which failed to get enough signatures to authorize for the 2014 election. Amidst the differences, Cal 3 was an initiative to alter a California statute, which required fewer petition signatures to qualify for the ballot than a proposed state constitutional amendment like the Six Californias plan. Likewise, language in the Cal three initiative was written so that if it was canonical by the voters, the legislative consent required by Section 3 of Article IV "is given past the people" instead of directly by the California Land Legislature.

Every bit with his previous Six Californias plan, Draper and other proponents of Cal 3 said that the state is too big and ungovernable, and splitting California would produce smaller and more efficient country governments. Similarly to the previous plan, opponents said that such a divide would be an unnecessary utilize of money and resource.

Background [edit]

California history [edit]

California has been the subject area of more than than 220 proposals to divide it into multiple states since its access to the union in 1850,^[8] including at least 27 significant proposals in the first 150 years of statehood.^[9]

Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper launched Six Californias, a proposed initiative to split California into six states, in December 2013. It failed to obtain sufficient signatures to qualify equally a California ballot measure out for the 2016 state elections. He spent more than $v 1000000 to try to authorize the proposition for the ballot, including nearly $450,000 for political consultants.^[10]

Federal precedents [edit]

Article Four, Section three of the U.Due south. Constitution outlines the procedure for the access of new U.S. states. It reads:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Spousal relationship; only no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of whatsoever other State; nor any Country be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of u.s.a. concerned also as of the Congress.

In that location are several precedents for the creation of new states out of pre-existing ones. Note that the pre-existing land does not disappear but simply gets smaller when the new state is admitted. The original country is not renamed or re-admitted, since it never leaves the matrimony. Congress addresses only the question of admitting the new country.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky was admitted in 1792. It was created from the western territory of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Virginia legislature had already approved release of the land when the old constitution was even so in result (1781-1789). Just every bit the Congress had not acted before the new constitution was enacted, information technology passed the neb of consent again as a matter of course.^[11]
Due north Carolina ceded its western territory to the United States, as the Southwest Territory. The Congress later created information technology the State of Tennessee in 1796.
The Land of Georgia likewise ceded the western two-thirds of its mail service-1783 territory, part of which was disputed with the Castilian Colony of Florida until 1795. That territory was afterward separate in half, with the western portion created the Country of Mississippi in 1817 and the eastern portion created the State of Alabama in 1819. Both states and the State of Louisiana (1812) were expanded when the U.s.a. acquired Florida from Kingdom of spain in 1821, and divided the western half of the Florida Panhandle betwixt the 3.

I instance was related to slavery:

In the 1820 Missouri Compromise, abolitionist-leaning states allowed Missouri to exist admitted every bit a slave state subsequent to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' understanding to release its northeastern territory (accounting for more than 75% of the Republic'southward state area) for the access of Maine every bit a complimentary state. This kept the number of complimentary states and slave states in residue. In fact, the independence of Maine from Massachusetts had been first considered three decades earlier for completely unlike reasons just the impending admission of Missouri as a slave state provided political momentum to achieve it.

One instance was a direct outcome of the Civil War:

When Virginia seceded from the United States in 1861, the people in the northwestern counties of the state refused to back up the decision. They formed a conditional Restored Government of Virginia and were admitted to the union as the Country of West Virginia in 1863. They were admitted as a slave state and were exempted from the Emancipation Announcement, on the understanding they would apply the time thus allowed to fix for the eventual abolition of slavery nationwide, which happened with the ratification of the Thirteenth Subpoena in December 1865.

The admission of Vermont is oftentimes mistakenly presumed to be the result of a division of New York, just that is non the actual history. At the time the American State of war for Independence began, virtually of the northern one-half of what is now Vermont was part of the British Province of Quebec. The southern half and west bank of the Connecticut River Valley had been disputed between New Hampshire and New York for several decades. When New Hampshire surrendered its claim in 1782, New York refused to recognise the grants of land fabricated by New Hampshire decades earlier, which had been the bases for establishing 131 towns and New York's action infuriated Vermonters. The Privy Quango in London ruled in favour of the Vermonters but the harm had already been done, so that six months after the Province of New York seceded from the British Empire, the Democracy of Vermont seceded from New York, in January 1777. The first Vermont Constitution was adopted in July 1777, and Vermont remained a fully independent nation for fourteen years. Negotiations to join the U.s.a. were thwarted by perennial objection from New York, which connected to claim Vermont. New York finally surrendered its merits, paving the fashion for Vermont to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 10 Jan 1791, and exist admitted as the 14th country on 4 March 1791.

A similar dispute arose between the State of Ohio and the Territory of Michigan in 1835-36, over which of them had rights to the Maumee Strip, including newly-created Toledo. Ohio's claim was proper, and then her consent was necessary for Michigan to go a state if it wanted to have Toledo. A compromise was reached under which Michigan was given the Upper Peninsula instead; and Michigan became a land in Jan 1837.

Election qualification procedure [edit]

Draper introduced Cal 3 in August 2017.^[12] On October 24, 2017, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla gave approval for Draper to begin collecting petition signatures; under California state law, to qualify for the ballot, valid signatures of at least 365,880 registered California voters (five percent of the total votes bandage for the Governor of California in the November 2014 general ballot) were required to exist submitted past April 23, 2018.^[thirteen] Because Cal iii is an initiative to change a California statute instead of a land constitutional amendment, it requires fewer petition signatures to authorize for the ballot than the 807,615 that the Six Californias plan needed.^[14]

On Apr 12, 2018, eleven days before the deadline, Draper announced that he had nerveless over 600,000 signatures.^[fifteen] ^[16] ^[17] On June 13, it was announced that there were sufficient valid signatures.^[18]

Measure details [edit]

The Cal 3 measure would add a new article to the California Codes. Information technology outlines 3 proposed new states, and then calls for the California Country Legislature to divide and transform the existing land into the iii states. The proposal would then demand the approval of voters in California, and then of the Congress of the United States (per Commodity IV, Section three of the U.S. Constitution).^[19]

Proposed states [edit]

Map of the iii Californias

Northern California (NorCal)

California (Cal)

Southern California (SoCal)

Proposed land	Estimated Population^[17]
(New) California	12.3 million
Northern California	13.3 one thousand thousand
Southern California	13.ix 1000000

The Cal iii plan would divide the state's 58 counties among 3 states, tentatively named California (nicknamed Cal), Northern California (nicknamed NorCal), and Southern California (nicknamed SoCal).^[15] ^[16] ^[17] In drawing these new boundaries, Draper aimed to have it so that the three proposed states have virtually equal populations.^[14] The following is an envisioned distribution of California's 58 counties into the proposed 3 Californias.

Counties in proposed state of California [edit]

Los Angeles
Monterey
San Benito
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Ventura

Counties in proposed country of Northern California [edit]

Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Glenn
Humboldt
Lake
Lassen
Marin
Mariposa
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Napa
Nevada
Placer
Plumas
Sacramento
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tuolumne
Yolo
Yuba

Counties in proposed state of Southern California [edit]

Fresno
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Madera
Mono
Orange
Riverside
San Bernardino
San Diego
Tulare

State-splitting process [edit]

If passed by voters, the measure and then directs the Governor of California on January i, 2019 to formally submit the state-splitting request to the U.S. Congress along with the certified elections results, and enquire them to grant approving inside twelve months. Language in the mensurate states that for the purposes of Commodity 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the legislative consent for splitting the state "is given by the people".^[nineteen]

The measure also directs the California State Legislature to carve up California'south assets and liabilities among the iii new states. If the legislature is unable to pass such a plan within 12 months of the U.S. Congress' approval to split California, the assets and liabilities would and so be distributed amongst the three new states based on their populations.^[xix]

Assay [edit]

Fiscal and policy implications [edit]

Proposed state	Estimated Per Capita^[17]
California (Cal)	$53,000
Northern California (NorCal)	$63,000
Southern California (SoCal)	$45,000

Because various parts of the country have deep economic ties with the other areas, splitting California would be a very complicated economic and public policy process. Water rights, transportation and infrastructure projects, California's public postsecondary education system, and other public programs are fully integrated throughout the state.^[20]

The income levels, and therefore the personal tax bases, in the proposed states differ. Based on 2015 values, the proposed (new) California land would rank about 12th among the states in per capita personal income, the new Northern California would be 2nd, and the new Southern California would be 30th.^[17] Because the new Southern California would be below the boilerplate of the remainder of the country, it might struggle financially in its initial years.^[21] The new Northern California would have the college per capita, while the (new) California would have the largest income disparity.^[19]

The income and wealth differences amid the three states would consequence in different hereafter policies in taxes and public spending. Each new state could prefer different laws, either stricter or more lenient, on these problems than what California currently has on the books. For example, the new states may limit or discontinue Proposition 13'southward inflexible limits on taxes or Proposition 98's school-funding guarantee. Other programs that could be affected include health programs, social services programs, prisons and other offense-related policies, and transportation projects. These differing policies would result in long-term demographic and economical changes, equally various groups of people will want to migrate to those new states with laws more favorable to them.^[19]

If California's university system were to split nether Cal iii, the new Northern California would accept both the nearly University of California campuses and the most California State University campuses. California'southward prison house system is likewise unequally distributed, with the proposed Southern California housing 55% of California'southward current prison inmates and the (new) California only housing thirteen percentage.^[19]

California'south electric current water issues and water rights would likewise have to be resolved. The proposed new California would exist a net importer of water, as the California Channel would then originate in the new Northern California, and both the Los Angeles Aqueduct and the Colorado River Aqueduct would originate in the new Southern California. Some of these problems might accept to be addressed by both the U.Due south. Congress and the courts.^[nineteen] The three states would also have to negotiate other infrastructure projects such as the California Loftier-Speed Runway project and decide whether to continue financing them as multi-state systems.^[19]

Furthermore, each new state would have to pay various i-time costs to set up up separate state governments, new capitols and other administration buildings, and so forth.^[19]

National political implications [edit]

Presidential vote
Proposed state	2012^[22]
Proposed state	Obama %	Romney %	Margin of victory
California (Cal)	66.9	30.5	+36.iv
Northern California (NorCal)	64.4	32.4	+32.0
Southern California (SoCal)	49.1	48.four	+0.6
Proposed state	2016^[22]
Proposed state	Clinton %	Trump %	Margin of victory
California (Cal)	68.9	24.8	+44.0
Northern California (NorCal)	64.4	27.7	+36.7
Southern California (SoCal)	51.5	41.8	+9.7

California (Cal)

Northern California (NorCal)

Southern California (SoCal)

The proposed country of Southern California would have populated areas such as the San Joaquin Valley that lean toward the Republican Party, leading legal scholar Vikram Amar to believe that this is a "deal breaker" for the Democratic Party.^[23] California is currently a rubber state for Democrats with 55 votes in the Electoral College, and therefore splitting the land would too separate those guaranteed electoral votes and make the new Southern California a potential swing state.^[22] Legal scholar Jonathan Turley told CNN, "Dems consider California to be a unmarried golden empire, it would be difficult for them to accept it as three gilded empires".^[17]

Splitting the state would create four new seats in the U.S. Senate, 2 for each of the ii newly created states. Although the proposed Southern California state may be more than competitive for the Republican Political party, the worst example for them would be that all of these new seats would go Democratic.^[23] ^[22] In any instance, Turley explained that the addition of four new senators "could create countless tensions betwixt representatives".^[17]

As Sabato'south Crystal Ball postulates, Democrats might not want to risk losing i third of California'southward current electoral votes to potentially gain iv new Senate seats. Conversely, Republicans also might non want to put those electoral votes into play at the expense of Democrats gaining those Senate seats.^[22] Finally, states outside of California may oppose diluting their representation in the Senate.^[23]

Thus, Congress could easily only opt non to act on the Cal iii results, much like the Puerto Rico political condition plebiscites in which Puerto Rico voters were asked whether they wanted statehood, costless association, or independence.^{[ citation needed ]}

Legal issues [edit]

The Cal three plan raises both U.S. and California constitutional issues, which led the California Legislative Annotator'south Office to predict in its initiative assay that the measure would almost certainly be challenged on multiple grounds.^[19]

A primal U.S. constitutional issue is whether a voter initiative is sufficient for the state legislative approving that is required nether Section 3 of Article IV for the cosmos of new states.^[23] The voter initiative process was not established by various states until decades afterward West Virginia split from Virginia in 1863, and then there is no clear precedent for this specific case. However, the Supreme Court of California has ruled that a voter initiative is not sufficient for the state legislative consent that is required to call for a U.S. constitutional convention.^[19]

Another consequence is that there is no articulate precedent indicating that a single state can exist carved up into multiple ones. When West Virginia was admitted to the U.S. as a separate state, almost of the new land'due south counties had in fact supported secession. As Vikram Amar asks, "when Commodity IV speaks of the need for the consent of the 'States concerned,' does that hateful (in the context of a single state that is existence subdivided) only consent of the mother state (which is to exist divided), or likewise consent of the newly created states?"^[24] For example, what happens if the Cal 3 ballot measure passes statewide, but nigh of the voters in the proposed (New) California state opposed information technology?

As for California constitutional issues, there is the question every bit to whether a statutory initiative measure out like this 1, without whatever state constitutional amendments, tin start a process that fundamentally revises the state government'due south basic framework. Nether the California Constitution, a proposal that substantially alters the state's basic governmental framework must be a state constitutional subpoena that originates from either the State Legislature or a constitutional convention, and non from a ballot initiative.^[xix] ^[24] Every bit Vikram Amar writes, "Certainly breaking California up alters, equally a quantitative affair, most every provision in the constitution, by shrinking its constructive reach ... such a sectionalisation is starting time and foremost a matter of structure ... what is of greater importance to a state's overall structure than its geographic boundaries?"^[23]

In that location could also be multiple court challenges on how the state's existing liabilities are split among the new states, whether based on a plan passed by the State Legislature, or distributed based on their relative populations (as mandated by the proposal if the Land Legislature fails to decide on such a program). Amongst the existing liabilities are all the bonds that have been issued equally a consequence of other passed laws or ballot measures. There is also the question as to what to do with all the health and retirement benefits and other compensation owed to the state's current public employees. At that place are also liabilities mandated past other policies. A number of these bonds, employee plans, and policies are currently unfunded, pending acquirement from hereafter land budgets. Furthermore, many of these liabilities are mandated by California ramble amendments, so a instance could be made that splitting the country may unconstitutionally impair the contractual rights of all these bondholders and public employees.^[19]

Legal challenges [edit]

On July 9, the Planning and Conservation League, an environmental group, became the first party to file a lawsuit to block the measure, asking the Supreme Court of California to pull Cal iii off the ballot on the aforementioned grounds that it would be a revision to the state constitution that substantially alters the country'due south bones governmental framework.^[25] In their response, Cal 3 supporters on July 12 stated that it was "just another example of how Sacramento politicians, powerful unions and their high-priced lobbyists are trying to agree onto power at the expense of California voters".^[26] Draper as well wrote a response directly to the court, stating that there is not plenty time to properly consider the legal challenge: "I take been given just a 24-hour interval or 2 to answer to a complex, multi-faceted attack on my Ramble right to initiative. This Courtroom'southward long history of jealously guarding the exercise of initiative power should not exist cavalierly overlooked at present, especially on such a truncated timetable".^[27]

In a unanimous decision on July 18, the California Supreme Court removed the measure out from the 2018 ballot, ordering farther legal arguments on whether it can be restored on the 2020 election or struck down completely.^[2] In its ruling, the court stated that "meaning questions have been raised regarding the proposition's validity and considering we conclude that the potential impairment in permitting the measure to remain on the election outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proffer to a future election."^[28] Responding to the courtroom's club, Draper labelled it as "corruption", "the insiders are in cahoots", and that the California Supreme Court justices "probably would accept lost their jobs" if Cal 3 passed.^[2] ^[28]

On 12 September 2018, in another unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of California permanently removed Cal three from all futurity ballots, stating:

On August 9, 2018, petitioner (the political party challenging the validity of the initiative measure out) and existent political party in involvement (the proponent of the initiative measure) filed carve up documents in this courtroom. Petitioner filed a request for an order granting the petition and directing the Secretary of State to refrain from placing the challenged initiative measure on the November 2018 ballot or on whatsoever future election. Real political party in interest filed a document stating that he "do[es] non object to the Court making its [prior] order permanent without further conference or hearing." Under the circumstances, nosotros construe the real political party in interest's filing equally consenting to the entry of a stipulated judgment in favor of petitioner. The court has received no objection to proceeding in this fashion. Accordingly, the petition is granted and the Secretarial assistant of State is directed to refrain from placing the challenged initiative measure on the November 2018 ballot or any futurity ballot.^[7]

Stances on the proposal [edit]

Support [edit]

Tim Draper's motivation is basically the aforementioned as for his failed Half-dozen Californias program.^[14] He has stated that California is ungovernable as is, with the legislature unable to go along pace with issues in all the state's regions, specially in areas such as job creation, education, affordable housing, and water and transportation infrastructure.^[29] Furthermore, he believes that the current state regime is losing touch with the people of California.^[30] Co-ordinate to Draper, splitting up the state would allow the resulting new state governments to be closer to their people than the electric current California land government.^[29] ^[14]

Republican California State Senator Joel Anderson stated that he will vote for Cal 3 as a referendum on the country's Democratic leadership, proverb that "at that place is no greater insult to the 1-party dominion in California. It's a barometer of the potential unhappiness of the state."^[31]

Opposition [edit]

Both the 2018 Republican and Democratic nominees for governor have voiced opposition to the plan. Autonomous nominee, then-California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom told reporters on June thirteen that "California'southward success is being a cohesive country, particularly at a fourth dimension of [U.S. President Donald] Trump and Trumpism. We're now the 5th largest economy in the world. Why would we cede that to splitting the state up into 3?"^[32] ^[31] Republican nominee John H. Cox said on June 18 that he does not call up Draper's plan is the respond, and that "nosotros need to do a better job of managing the state".^[33]

The California Republican Party voted overwhelmingly to oppose information technology at their Apr convention.^[31]

Eric C. Bauman, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, said that "it'southward going to exist more money flushed down the toilet. Only one guy is behind it, and everyone is against it".^[31]

Democratic political consultant Steven Maviglio has stated that it would be cheaper to operate California's current vast statewide government, telling LA Weekly, "It's costly and impractical if y'all split upward the existing organisation".^[34] Maviglio also stated that Cal 3 "doesn't solve a single trouble in the land or add a single job".^[fourteen]

The California Chamber of Commerce stated that "this measure would instead create an entirely new suite of problems to distract and consumer [sic] voters, political leaders, concerned citizens and ordinary residents".^[35] ^[36]

Polling [edit]

Engagement(s) conducted	Polling organization/client	Sample size	Margin of error	Yes	No	Undecided
June 26–27, 2018	SurveyUSA	559	± 5.one%	13%	75%	12%
Apr xix–23, 2018	SurveyUSA	916	± 3.6%	17%	72%	10%

References [edit]

^ Zenter, Emily (June 29, 2018). "Here Are The 12 Ballot Propositions On California's November 2018 Election". Upper-case letter Public Radio. Retrieved June thirty, 2018.
^ ^a ^b ^c Egelko, Bob (July 18, 2018). "Splitting upward California: State Supreme Court takes initiative off ballot". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved July 19, 2018.
^ "three Californias Plan Dead As Billionaire Backer Drops Quest". CBS Sacramento. August 9, 2018. Retrieved Baronial 25, 2018.
^ Betz, Bradford (August 9, 2018). "'Cal 3' proposal to divide California existence pulled, billionaire backer says". Play tricks News. Retrieved Baronial 25, 2018.
^ "Venture capitalist Tim Draper who spearheaded 3 Californias initiative will not fight court ruling". KABC-Television receiver. Baronial 9, 2018. Retrieved August 25, 2018.
^ Egelko, Bob (Baronial 9, 2018). "Billionaire gives upward entrada to split California into 3 states". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved August 25, 2018.
^ ^a ^b "PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE 5. PADILLA (DRAPER) - Case Number S249859". California Supreme Court. July 9, 2018. Retrieved November 5, 2018.
^ Forest, Daniel B. (July 12, 2011). "51st country? Pocket-size step frontwards for long-shot 'South California' plan". The Christian Science Monitor. Yahoo!. Retrieved May 3, 2018.
^ "History of Proposals to Divide California". Three Californias. phrelin.com. Retrieved May iii, 2018.
^ Cadelago, Christopher (Apr 29, 2015). "'Risk master' Tim Draper soliciting ideas for next ballot proposal". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
^ Vasan, Kesavan (2002). "When did the Articles of Confederation Terminate to Be Constabulary?". Notre Dame Law Review. 78 (1).
^ Miller, Jim (August 18, 2017). "Three Californias? Calexit endeavor joined past new state-splitting plan". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
^ "Proposed Initiative Enters Circulation: Division of California into Iii States" (Press release). Secretary of State of California. October 24, 2017. Retrieved May iii, 2018.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Wildermuth, John (April 13, 2018). "Splitting California in iii would be different. That's the only sure affair". San Francisco Chronicle.
^ ^a ^b Ting, Eric (April xiii, 2018). "Plan to divide California into three states may qualify for election". SFGate. Hearst.
^ ^a ^b Jennewein, Chris (Apr 12, 2018). "Wealthy VC's Proposition to Split California into iii States Qualifies for Ballot". Times of San Diego.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Diaz, Andrea (Apr thirteen, 2018). "3 Californias? The initiative to interruption up the land may be on the ballot in November". CNN.
^ "Initiative to interruption California into three states to go on November ballot". June 13, 2018.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^eastward ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^thousand ⁵⁰ ^thou "Initiative Analysis: Splitting California into three new U.S. states". California Legislative Analyst's Office. October 9, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2018.
^ Amar, Vikram David (September 8, 2017). "Political Impediments to Carving California into Three States, and Why Tim Draper Should Support the NPV Plan for Presidential Elections". Justia.
^ Whalen, Bill (April 17, 2018). "They Say That Breaking Up Is Hard To Do -- Unless It's Breaking California Into More than Than Ii". Forbes.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Skelley, Geoffrey (April 26, 2018). "California Dreamin': Etching the Gold State into Thirds". Sabato'southward Crystal Ball. University of Virginia Centre for Politics.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^east Amar, Vikram David (April 19, 2018). "What California Voters Should Focus on When Voting on Tim Draper's "CAL 3" Initiative". Justia.
^ ^a ^b Amar, Vikram David (August 27, 2017). "Carving California". Justia.
^ Luna, Taryn (July 9, 2018). "Remove three Californias plan from the ballot, opponents inquire state Supreme Court". Sacramento Bee.
^ "3-Californias entrada answers call to strike initiative from ballot". The Mercury News. July xiii, 2018.
^ Bollag, Sophia (July xiii, 2018). "Backer of 3 Californias measure asks court to dismiss accommodate". Sacramento Bee. Associated Printing. Archived from the original on July fourteen, 2018. Retrieved July 14, 2018.
^ ^a ^b Dolan, Maura (July 18, 2018). "Mensurate to split California into three states removed from ballot by the state Supreme Court". Los Angeles Times.
^ ^a ^b Whitcomb, Dan; Kearney, Laila (February xx, 2014). "Venture capitalist in bid to split California into half-dozen states". Reuters. Los Angeles. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved May 5, 2018.
^ "Why venture capitalist Tim Draper wants to dissever California into six states". VentureBeat. June 21, 2014. Retrieved June 22, 2014.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Gutierrez, Melody (June 13, 2018). "Gavin Newsom shrugs off three Californias measure. John Cox is silent". San Francisco Chronicle.
^ McGreevy, Patrick (June 13, 2018). "Gavin Newsom opposes initiative to split up California in 3 even though it was proposed past a friend". Los Angeles Times.
^ Gutierrez, Melody (June eighteen, 2018). "Don't split up up California, says GOP governor candidate John Cox". San Francisco Chronicle.
^ Romero, Dennis (September 1, 2017). "Proposal to Piece California Into 3 States Already Has Haters". LA Weekly. Archived from the original on July eighteen, 2018. Retrieved May five, 2018.
^ Daniels, Jeff (June 13, 2018). "Draper programme that would separate California into three states qualifies for Nov ballot". CNBC.
^ Haddon, Christine (May 24, 2018). "CalChamber Lath of Directors Takes Positions on Initiatives". California Bedroom of Commerce. Retrieved June xvi, 2018.

External links [edit]

Official website (archived)