If There Can Be Six Californias, There Could Be Two Washingtons


Wouldn't it be great to stop subsidizing Eastern Washington?
Plus we get two senators. Of course so do they.
Three states: Then we get four senators. Two very liberal ones.
California has a Tim Eyman. Oh joy. I leave Seattle, Eyman stops being a horse's ass, I move to San Francisco and discover we have one just like him. Well, crap. At least I don't have Dave Reichert any more, that's one blessing.
This genius "idea" has the Will in Seattle stamp of approval. It MUST be good.
Well, let's see: right now, Puget Sound elects the Governor and two center-left Senators. Once Washington is two states, that will continue to be the case, and Eastern Washington would elect some Tea Partying Christian Dominionist nutballs to be Governor of and Senators from their new state. And the precise division might give the nutters another US House seat.

What's the upside for the country, exactly?
Washington DC cannot stop a state from splitting into subsequent parts. The worst it could do is demand each new state ratify a state Constitution that included all aspects of the current state's present one (on the grounds that those rights cannot be removed from those individuals). In fact, while Texas cannot secede from the Union without Congressional approval, it can split into 5 separate states without Congressional approval (as enumerated in its Founding Documents).
Conservatives that like this: the tax base is usually the blue parts of the map. Shut up about this idiot creating new states garbage.

Liberals that like this: some parts of the country are more prosperous than others, and we carry those for a whole host of good reasons. You know, kinda like how health insurance works? Also, you really want the Central Valley (or Eastern Washington) to have its own 2 senators (and all of our drinking water?)?

And to the rich ding-dongs that spend time, money, and energy on garbage like this: not only would a multi-state California be a total disaster, it's probably outside the scope of the initiative process. Could you really not think of any worthwhile charities to throw these resources at?
There are some knuckleheads downstate from where I reside who want to split Illinois because they're sick of Chicagoland's 3 million souls driving public policy. Hey, if you don't like democracy you can go to some hellhole where they don't have any concept of majority rule.
While you're busy plotting the breakup of some more populous states, I can think of a few that might be prime for a reverse-split. Montana, Wyoming and the two Dakotas, for example. They would make one big state with 3 million people and not even break into the top 30.
@7, Texas's "founding documents" don't trump the US Constitution, which says "nuh-uh you can't".

The only state that has split off from another state is Maine from Massachusetts, way back in 1820. West Virginia doesn't count because Virginia was in an illegal condition of secession at the time, and even if you want to count it for some reason, that was still more than 150 years ago.
#12, they can and do. The Tyler-Texas Treaty, signed by all parties between 1844 and 1846, gives them the right. It would give them the right to secede from the Union entirely, except the Texans forgot to include a caveat lifting the required Congressional approval for secession. Breaking up isn't secession. All lands are still US property. All Federal and previous state laws still apply on that property. The Constitution does not prevent a state from breaking up. It prevents the laws of the US Constitution from being removed from any property it was ever allowed on.
The US Government violated those parts of the Constitution centuries ago.
Since the Tyler-Texas Treaty was ratified with Texas still an independent nation, the treaty precludes the US Constitution. If Texas breaking up is unconstitutional, the Constitution must be removed from Texas before the treaty, under the Common Law statutes regarding Implied Preemption that were the foundation for the Constitution itself.
@7: there is a precedent for this: West Virginia. Each of the six new states would have to petition for admittance to the Union. Given the history of statehood petitions, there would be a lot of political wrangling.

Hint: Congress gets to draw the borders, no matter what the states want.
@13, nope, sorry. When Texas became a state all previous arrangements became dead. Your treaty is between the USA and another party that hasn't existed for more than 150 years.

Love to see you try, though. Even the current kook Supreme Court would refuse to hear such nonsense.

@14, I think you meant "a lot of political laughter".
@12: the West Virginia-Virginia split may have been 150 years ago, but the Maine-Massachusetts split was further distant still. When considering rare constitutional crises, temporal distance is a secondary consideration.

The fact that Virginia had seceeded is problematic. Since secession was illegal, it was invalid from a legal standpoint. How can it be considered as factual in one context but not in another?
And for the record: this initiative is Exhibit A as to why popular referendums are a Really Bad Idea.
@13: how many armies does Texas have?
#15, that is categorically impossible. If all previous arrangements between Texas and the US were null and void upon Texas joining the Union, then the Tyler-Texas treaty that permitted it would be null and void, making the admission into the Union equally null and void. You've gone from wrong to stupid on this one.
#18, we're talking about current law, not the force of power. Try to keep up.

Republics are not democracies.

States are republics.

Rule of Law, not mob rule.

@4 yes, except Mr Tim Draper is Very Rich. Think Harvard business school, versus Mr Eyman, a salesman from WSU. And now that corporations are people, every richly rich can get folks to vote for all kinds of nutball ideas!
@11 is on the right track here. As long as we're asking for the impossible we should be nailing together the empty states. Any state with a population under 2.5 million is a candidate for merger. Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana qualify. Nebras-kotas. Alaska as Washington's 40th county. 81% of us live in cities. There's no reason to consider giving more Senators to the empty spaces.
@ 19, the Texas-Tyler treaty was never ratified. Annexation occured another way.
It was ratified as a joint House-Senate resolution. It was rejected when it was a Senate only bill, and finally ratified on February 27, 1845 after a handful of compromises and amendments. The House passed that version on March 1, Tyler sent it out March 3, and Texas ratified it on July 4th, the official joining of the Union was on December 29th, and formal relinquishment of sovereignty happened on February 14th, 1846.
The majority of Texas-Tyler, including provisions to break up the state and secede, made it through both houses of Congress. It is only an oversight that prevents Texas from seceding without Congressional approval. That oversight is not present in the parts of the treaty regarding breaking up the state.

Breaking up a state is perfectly legal, so long as all parts remain part of the US.

stop using logic- you just confuse venumtrash.
@24, only the Senate can ratify treaties, and in the one correct bit if your post, you note that the Senate failed to do so. It was annexed by a normal bill that specified a Texas referendum agreeing to it. Sure, the bill included much of the treaty's provisions, but it's still not a treaty.
How about a state level equivalent of a so-autonomous zone for "pugetopolis"?
@26, you're almost right. Yes, the Senate is the only body that ratifies treaties. By a 2/3rds majority, as you well know. Had the Senate stuck to their guns and rejected the joint resolution by a simple majority, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Had the Senate rejected hearing the resolution, or filibustered, that would also be a different story. But they didn't. They ratified the joint resolution. The Senate of 1844 voluntarily permitted an end-run around their own power. You'd have to ask the Senate of 1844 why they allowed this, but it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
It was and is a treaty, for all it was ratified in an odd manner. If it wasn't, Texas wouldn't be part of the Union.
@ 28, they rejected ratification by a 2/3 majority. Hence the need to run around and find another means to do it. The final actual law wasn't a treaty. A treaty wasn't necessary because there was no international law saying that's how annexation had to go. It was one way, but not the only way.

Besides, if the US needed a treaty with anyone on the topic it was Mexico, and they decided war was easier than a treaty.
@29, I am sure you know a bill can be sent through Congress more than once. The final law was in fact a treaty, and this was mentioned by Tyler in the very address in which he suggested the JR. The Senate did balk at first, because this was a treaty being passed by JR. The facts at hand disagree with your statements regarding the events at hand.
Texas was still a sovereign nation in 1844. Mexico never had any say, nor should they have.

Six Californias?

How will an immigrant know which border to cross?

From Kent East Hill --- Thank you, and goodnight!
Oh Christ on a Stick. It won't happen. It won't happen in Texas. It won't happen in California. Why? Because ultimately they are urban states not rural states.

Split them into pieces and it's the Republicans who will loose Senate and House seats and they know it. The Republicans just toss this nonsense around to distract their base.
I love how Sloggers go on and on about "democracy," but when the East Side of King County votes against metro funding, suddenly it's "they suck! We should have our own county!"
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Oh, and Paul, if you hate tech millionaires so much, why not stop blogging using computers made by tech millionaires?
c_s apparently you missed it when East King County started their Cascadia County movement because of tax hikes fueled by those "evil Seattleites". My SO lives in the Snoqualmie Valley, and I remember the rallies in the Grange Halls well. So you see, both sides of this equation are guilty of the same crime. Of course, you being such a level headed poster, you were about to point this out rather than just leave us with a one sided biased diatribe.
again notice how we in the 50 states can comment on stuff like this -- giving us MORE senators -- but no one gives a crap about DC residents not having ANY same for the millions of folks in puerto rico. so WE make laws for THEM and they get no representation, they are legally second class to us, and we tolerate this inequality and lack of democracy not even caring to discuss or mention it but omg someone says hay man at a pizza shop or someone suggests two washingtons and omg it's vitally interesting.

because at bottom even liberals and progressives are selfish and don't care about equality or rights except when it's about US.

the lack of rep for DC and PR is the tip of the iceberg too, as @11 points out the wasteland empty states collectively have many many senators and should be lumped together to reduce the inequality produced by having our national legislature partly represent States, not people. in fact our system i clearly not a one person one vote democracy when a wyoming voter has about 45 the throwweight of a california voter -- and WE DON'T CARE. turns out we are not that democratic or equal AT ALL when we tolerate this shit. but OMG let bill clinton say the wrong thing and it's impt. to jump all over him for racism! the disproportion is shocking. throw in the filibuster and IT'S NO WONDER the urban archipelago can't get it's way -- the whole system is tilted to be conservative, much like the antebellum nation overrepresented slave power states. throw in a final factor: liberal's meekness, inability to cut off the rural welfare counties, inability to end the filibuster, etc. and of course we have a majority on key issues but FAIL to pass anything because we ACCEPT all this inequality and tilted game table. even if we couldn't change the table, hello! pointing out it's tilted would help you win. why get all frantic about cutting voting days a few days in ohio, when we won't even work for DC and PR to senatorial votes AT ALL? when we accept wyoming and california are EQUAL in the senate and equal in law making power? we're not even good liberal democrats accepting this inequality by law, and we want a post 20th century semi socialist nation, but we accept these 18th century inequalities making the whole system rotten.
I like how c_s can't tell the difference between grousing and an actual policy position.
We subsidize Eastern WA, but, in exchange, we take 100% of WA's electoral college votes. Two Washingtons would make it harder to elect a democratic president.
@ 36 - And, actually, two Washingtons would still be democracy. There isn't actually any hypocricy or contradiction there.
Here's a stupidly simple idea. Divide WA or CA in two (WA on the Cascade Curtain, CA on an east-west line somewhere between SF and LA) and give DC statehood. That preserves the balance of power in the Senate and rights the wrong of no representation for DC.

Hey dummy...we are a republic. Go study a book and learn what that means.

also, your hatred for rural people has been noted. I suggest you stay the fuck out any place that isnt a concrete jungle.

You sound like just another progressive douche who has no sense of history or civics while living in your little urban bubble. In other words, a typical stranger reader.
Dc should never have representation beyond what they already have. Smarter people than you set it up that way for a very good reason....can you figure out why?
I just want to annex N. Idaho. It makes zero sense, and it belongs in Washington.

Also, I want to rename Washington State "Tahoma".

Finally, I would like to fuck 1983 Jane Weidlin.
I actually agree with renaming the state, even though it's unlikely to ever happen. Why have a state named after a slave owning douche who, after leading a revolt against, amongst other things, too much taxation, raised taxes higher than the British did?
There are no ideological fractures in Rhode Island.

My college mail room had a sign on the wall: "PLEASE PLACE MASSACHUSETTS MAIL IN THE IN-STATE MAILBOX". I think that sums up Rhode Island pretty well.
God, the politics geek in me would adore this.

Would McMorris-Rogers run for the Senate, giving up her power in the House? Would Peter Goldmark come home to run for Governor in a likely primary against Lisa Brown, to see who would square off in the general election against Matt Shea or Sharon Brown? Would Michael Baumgartner finally get the Senate seat that he covets?

The dynamics would be incredible!
@7: Read your Constitution. It clearly states that a state cannot be formed from (an) existing state(s) without the consent of Congress and of the legislature(s) of the affected state(s).

You tenther idiots are very tedious.