51st state?

[Hurricane Rex]

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1036681001

New California has declared independence from the rest of it. Current California would be reduced to Sacramento, San Francisco, LA and San Diego metro areas. New California would be the New California.

Puerto Rico has had movements in the past (but turned down) and DC also wants the 51st state designation. Thoughts?

I personally am in support of California splitting. Puerto Rico is up to them but DC should not become a state. The founders did not want DC to become part of a state or a state itself because it is the country's capital.

[kalvado]

April 1st came early in 2018...

[Papa Georgio]

If it is to happen it would probably take away electoral votes from the Democratic Party.

Also it will change the makeup of the House and Senate slightly but probably not that much.


iPhone

[Hurricane Rex]

If it is to happen it would probably take away electoral votes from the Democratic Party.

Also it will change the makeup of the House and Senate slightly but probably not that much.


iPhone

Senate probably more than house because each state has 2 senators vs each state is garunteed only 1 state rep the extras are divided porpotionaly. Electoral votes is a different story.

[Papa Georgio]

Senate probably more than house because each state has 2 senators vs each state is garunteed only 1 state rep the extras are divided porpotionaly. Electoral votes is a different story.

Yeah but it would still be even (102 I believe) so it should function fine.


iPhone

[RobbieL2415]

DC as a state could work.  You could pull a Vatican City and keep all the federal buildings as part of a federal district while the land surround them becomes part of the State of New Columbia.  The President would also be mayor of the federal district, just as the Pope is also King of Vatican City.  A new set of ordinances pertaining to the federal district would be drafted by both houses in Congress, signed into law by the President and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

[abefroman329]

The founders did not want DC to become part of a state or a state itself because it is the country's capital.

Because of DC's proximity to the capital compared to the other states.  The airplane sort of rendered that point moot.

Also, if we're playing "the founders didn't want it," we may as well go back to letting state legislatures elect Senators.

[inkyatari]

I still say that the top five  metro areas should be their own states.  Otherwise the heavily blue urban areas have too much pull over heavily red rural areas, at least when it comes to state politics.

Nationally, I would think things would still tend to balance out.

[hotdogPi]

The capitals of Mexico and Australia are not states; they're their own district the same way Washington DC is. The US is not alone in having its capital not be part of a state.

I still say that the top five  metro areas should be their own states.  Otherwise the heavily blue urban areas have too much pull over heavily red rural areas, at least when it comes to state politics.

Nationally, I would think things would still tend to balance out.

New York could split into two, as could Chicago. If Los Angeles, DFW, or Houston split, you would have a state completely surrounded by another (especially DFW, where it would be surrounded by Texas on all four sides and not a combination of another state and ocean). I could see California or Texas split into two in a way that includes more than just the metro area.

If California, Texas, New York, and Illinois each split into two, does that mean New England goes from 6 states to 2 (CT/RI/MA and VT/NH/ME)?

I'm completely ignoring how Senate composition and electoral college bias will change in this post.

[Henry]

Where would the capital be located, and what would the postal code for the new state be? Surely it can't be NC, because the Tar Heel State already has it! But I do like the idea of splitting the state in half, and it's been forever since they first talked about doing that, it seems.

[triplemultiplex]

I wish I was a billionaire so I could redraw state boundaries to help my political party.

What a bunch of ridiculous bullshit.

[hotdogPi]

I wish I was a billionaire so I could redraw state boundaries to help my political party.

What a bunch of ridiculous bullshit.

The rural section is seceding from the urban section, right?

It won't help the Republicans. New California still went for Clinton 57-43. Both states would be Democratic in the Electoral College, Democrats would get two extra senators, and the House makeup wouldn't change much because they aren't statewide.

[1995hoo]

Where would the capital be located, and what would the postal code for the new state be? Surely it can't be NC, because the Tar Heel State already has it! ....

I've wondered the same thing about the abbreviation when people in DC talk about statehood under the name "New Columbia." Poses the same problem. Maybe they recognized that, as the most recent statehood discussion I saw proposed calling it the "State of Washington DC."

[SP Cook]

CURRENT politics are, well, current.  I am not really THAT old (well maybe I am) and multiple states have changed from solidly this to solidly the other or to "swing" in my lifetime and back.  California was a solidly Republican state not that long ago.  In 20 or 30 years, who knows what will be what. 

Now, that said, if you look at the electorial map with shading by counties (multiple sites have these on line) and at election results in California for other races, it is clear that the voices of the productive people inland are being drowned out by the coastal elites.  A similar situation exists all over the country, in most states with big cities in fact.  This is a problem more with the state government than federal politics, as it must be frustrating to be governed by people who have no idea about your needs.

In the broadest terms, really Florida and California should be divided into several states, as they are simply too big to govern properly and have different areas with vastly different economies and thus needs and wants from government. 

DC cannot be made a state without a Constitutional amendment approved by all 50 states.  That will never happen.

[kalvado]

I still say that the top five  metro areas should be their own states.  Otherwise the heavily blue urban areas have too much pull over heavily red rural areas, at least when it comes to state politics.

Nationally, I would think things would still tend to balance out.

Well, with agriculture evolving from small farms towards larger industrialized business, and mining becoming more automated and more overseas, fraction of urban population grows and will keep growing. This is more about being able to find compromise between interests of different groups than dividing states. Compromise, an art lost over time...

[Brandon]

DC cannot be made a state without a Constitutional amendment approved by all 50 states.  That will never happen.

Actually, 38 states.  An amendment must be ratified by three-quarters of the states (either the legislature or by convention) to become effective after it has been approved by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate (or two-thirds of State Legislatures).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[bandit957]

DC cannot be made a state without a Constitutional amendment approved by all 50 states.

Actually it can. You don't need a constitutional amendment to make D.C. a state.

Even then, a constitutional amendment only needs 38 states to pass, not all 50.

[bandit957]

It's a shame the productive people in the cities are being drowned out by suburban and rural elites.

[SP Cook]

Actually it is 50.  Read the last clause of Article Five. 

... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. 

Thus changing the Senate from "two per state" to "two per state, plus two for this non-state" requires the consent of EVERY state. 

Likewise, DC may not be given a vote in the House, because Article One, Clause One provides that "The House ... shall be composed of Members chosen .... by the people of the several states".  Thus changing the House from "members chosen by the states" to "members chosen by the states, plus people from this non-state" would require a amendment, in this case the regular one, 38 states.

Likewise, Section Eight of Article One makes the existance of DC mandatory, and, as happened with Arlington, should Congress take some parts of it out of DC (the so-called "Vatican solution") it would retrocede to Maryland.

[DTComposer]

I wish I was a billionaire so I could redraw state boundaries to help my political party.

What a bunch of ridiculous bullshit.

The rural section is seceding from the urban section, right?

Actually, that's not their plan at all. If you look at the map in the USA Today article, you'll see that they put Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties in "New California." Those counties alone give them 14 million people, and while I can see including those Southern counties, as they do lean toward the conservative end, I don't understand the two Bay Area counties being included - they're heavily urban, heavily liberal, and it slices it one metropolitan area between two states in an awkward fashion - in fact, the map looks like one of the Gerrymandered districts from North Carolina. All I can figure, at least with Santa Clara County, is it's a blatant grab for the Silicon Valley economic engine to help fund the new state.

If their goal was to balance the power away from the "coastal/urban elite" (which, by the way, is as uninformed and unhelpful a term as any of the rural/redneck monikers out there, and does nothing to actually move the discussion forward), then why include six of the ten most populous counties and two of the four largest cities in the new state?

[Hurricane Rex]

The capitals of Mexico and Australia are not states; they're their own district the same way Washington DC is. The US is not alone in having its capital not be part of a state.

I still say that the top five  metro areas should be their own states.  Otherwise the heavily blue urban areas have too much pull over heavily red rural areas, at least when it comes to state politics.

Nationally, I would think things would still tend to balance out.

New York could split into two, as could Chicago. If Los Angeles, DFW, or Houston split, you would have a state completely surrounded by another (especially DFW, where it would be surrounded by Texas on all four sides and not a combination of another state and ocean). I could see California or Texas split into two in a way that includes more than just the metro area.

If California, Texas, New York, and Illinois each split into two, does that mean New England goes from 6 states to 2 (CT/RI/MA and VT/NH/ME)?

I'm completely ignoring how Senate composition and electoral college bias will change in this post.

New York and Illinois would be a prime canidate for splitting, Texas is undecided for me. I don't think New England would change much though.

[Brandon]

Actually it is 50.  Read the last clause of Article Five. 

... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. 

Thus changing the Senate from "two per state" to "two per state, plus two for this non-state" requires the consent of EVERY state.

As DC lacks senators at this juncture, just as a territory, then the equal suffrage is a moot point.  If made a state, then DC would have to have two senators plus the appropriate number of representatives.  Again, your point is moot.

Likewise, DC may not be given a vote in the House, because Article One, Clause One provides that "The House ... shall be composed of Members chosen .... by the people of the several states".  Thus changing the House from "members chosen by the states" to "members chosen by the states, plus people from this non-state" would require a amendment, in this case the regular one, 38 states.

Likewise, Section Eight of Article One makes the existance of DC mandatory, and, as happened with Arlington, should Congress take some parts of it out of DC (the so-called "Vatican solution") it would retrocede to Maryland.

Again, a constitutional amendment in accordance with Article 5 could address this.  It wouldn't be the first time such an amendment was made changing the original constitution.  Read up on a few others, starting with Amendment 12, and continuing through Amendment 27.

[Max Rockatansky]

The water rights issues from the Sierras alone make splitting up California a non-starter. 

[Brandon]

The water rights issues from the Sierras alone make splitting up California a non-starter. 

Those water rights are a knot tied up in a corundum, mixed up in a clusterfuck.

[nexus73]

In Oregon we have seen how MJ and gas fueling laws have been able to be dealt with on a county level perspective.  Cities get to weigh in on MJ and gun laws as well.  Sometimes the policy is Demo, sometimes it is GOP.  This kind of deal seems to help when there are widely varying views in one state.

Rick