Two of three remote California counties vote against secession

SACRAMENTO Calif. Wed Jun 4, 2014 3:09pm EDT

Related Topics

U.S. Secret Service provide security for President Barack Obama in Pensacola, Florida, June 15, 2010. REUTERS/Jim Young

Protecting the President

The Secret Service detail surrounding President Obama.  Slideshow 

SACRAMENTO Calif. (Reuters) - Long-shot efforts by a trio of remote Northern California counties to begin the process of seceding from the most populous U.S. state failed on Tuesday in two referendums and succeeded in one.

Secession efforts appear every now and then in California, in this case driven by local vexations with state government, but face an uphill battle thanks to required support from the state legislature as well as the U.S. Congress to succeed.

The latest move involved two counties - Del Norte and Tehama - where supporters want to leave California to form a new state they hope to name after the third U.S. president, Thomas Jefferson, who once imagined that part of western North America might develop into a freestanding republic.

The measures, which would have directed the boards of supervisors in the counties to declare support for leaving the state, passed in Tehama with 56 percent of voters in favor and 44 percent opposed, but failed in Del Norte, with 59 percent opposed and 41 percent in favor, according to election results posted by the state.

A measure in a third county, Siskiyou, to declare itself the Republic of Jefferson, also failed, with 56 percent of voters opposed and 44 percent in favor, the state said.

Supporters in the counties, which have more registered Republicans than Democrats, had hoped to gain momentum for the creation of a new state from part of Northern California, saying they were poorly represented in the state legislature, which is dominated by Democrats.

Opponents say the measures would sound an economic death knell for the area, given its poverty and high unemployment.

The passage of the measure in Tehama County does not mean that the county will secede, only that the Board of Supervisors has been directed to declare its support for such a move.

Efforts to chop up California boast a long history. Disgruntled residents first proposed a state of Jefferson, also comprising counties in nearby southern Oregon, in the 1940s.

In 1993, after voters in 27 counties approved, the state Assembly agreed to a nonbinding statewide vote on whether to divide California into three. But the measure never made it into the state Senate, and the referendum was never held.

More recently, venture capitalist Tim Draper suggested splitting California into six separate states, while fellow venture capitalist Balaji Srinivasan proposed that Silicon Valley secede from the country. None of the proposals have come to pass.

(Reporting by Sharon Bernstein; Editing by Jim Loney)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (7)
morbas wrote:
Northern CA counties, don’t separate, instead propose an …

Gerrymander Antidote

World Democracies have used partial proportioned electoral systems to minimize gerrymandering. Simply, the percentage of ballots cast for a party restricts the number of seats it may occupy. An unintended consequence is the individual perspective balloting loses traceability, this is unacceptable to the American voter. The following system maintains traceability by involving the balloted elective in the dispersion/sequester of ballots for seat allotment. Since any elected Representative is entrusted by our direct ballot, that person is entrusted to re-allocate ballots per that balloted persons determination. Thus bartering from and to other perspective Representative candidates to achieve a seat or in exchanged of ballots for political favor. In these two ways the minority gains representation. This represents a positive ‘for something’ rather than negative ‘preventive against’ voting strategy.

Implementation:

The People vote for any one statewide legislative Representative candidate in the same manner as in voting for two State wide Senate seats. After the balloting period, each perspective Representative candidate tallies his/her vote, and if equal to or larger than the minimum he/she fills one of the States Federal Congressional House Representative seat (minimum equals total ballots cast divided by number of allotted seats to be filled). If a ballot tally is less than the minimum he/she can politically compromise for the necessary additional ballots with other candidates having excess or insufficient free ballots to re-allocate. After a set period barter time, free ballots are re-allotted by the residing State governor.
-
morbas(i) ex CA,TX,VA,WA now NC(land of the oligarch)

Jun 04, 2014 4:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:
@morbas-

I do not recall you complaining about all of the gerrymandering that took place in your home state of NC under the democrats. Did I just miss it or what, because you seem to hit it a lot now that the republicans are in office?

Jun 04, 2014 4:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:
@morbas

Your post has nothing to do with the article and is just the same spam you post on other articles. This has nothing to do with Gerrymandering…

Jun 04, 2014 5:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.