It is very likely that an initiative will be on the November 2018 ballot in California, asking if voters want to split the state into three states. Law Professor Vikram David Amar here analyzes the legal and political impediments to this idea, even if the voters pass it.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
DOA in the USA gerrymander Congress if it adds more Donkey than Elephant USA Senators (and EC votes].
ABOLISH the USA Senate and Electoral College.
Divide many of the larger States – CA, TX, NY, IL, etc.
PR and AppV
Amar is in error in saying that the proposal would amend the California constitution. It is a statutory initiative. It simply gives legislative assent to erection of three new states, and division of the assets. The people of each State would create a new constitution, just like the people of Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia have done in the past.
Amar correctly points out that the measure is only a statutory initiative, not a constitutional amendment.
1787 USA Const 4-3-1
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
ME (ex part of MA) due to CRISIS about MO as a slave State in 1820-1821
WV (ex part of VA) due to CRISIS in 1863 – part of Civil War
— total fraud – Union military force in small part of northern VA with a bogus small *VA* legislature.
SCOTUS upheld the WV fraud circa 1870.
Amar writes:
“Perhaps the biggest legal obstacles exist under the state, rather than the federal, constitution. In particular, there is a very strong argument that Mr. Draper’s proposal would constitute a “revision” to rather than an “amendment” of the California Constitution, and, if so, would require a more involved process than the simple gathering of signatures and placement on the statewide ballot that Mr. Draper is pursuing.”
Article XVIII of the constitution appears to make a distinction between “amending” and “revising” the constitution. But the CAL3 proposal is neither revising nor amending the constitution.
The tricky part is if some or all of the proposed new states do not wish to become states.
In my view Jim Riley is correct. For decades the state legislature rejected the CA Constitution and created districts in a non-North South order. It took me to convince the commission that the state border with Oregon did not follow the 42nd degree North Line.