UPDATED: Siskiyou County supervisors vote to pursue seceding from state

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: Redding Record Searchlight

The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 this afternoon to pursue seceding from California.

More than 100 people packed the supervisors' chambers late this morning for a discussion on whether the county should issue a declaration that it wants to secede from the state. Nearly all those in attendance appeared to be for the move.

Among those in attendance was Erin Ryan, field representative for Rep. Doug LaMalfa. She said that she and other LaMalfa staff members supported the effort to secede, but she did not know LaMalfa's thoughts on it.

Board Chair Ed Valenzuela was the sole vote against the declaration today. He said he was elected to solve problems within the system.

Read more: http://www.redding.com/news/2013/sep/03/live-tweets-siskiyou-county-supervisors-discuss-se/

---

Siskiyou County would also invite other neighboring counties in California and southern Oregon to join in the effort to create a new state.

[ZRT2209]

1. better solution: move to Alabama

[jaysunb]

2. +2 n/t

[Cryptoad]

5. Somalia,,,, nt

[Iliyah]

3. Never happen

like Colorado

[truebluegreen]

4. Hey!

That's North Colorado to you, bub.

[Cryptoad]

6. I thought we settle this 150 years ago? nt

[PoliticAverse]

60. The question is about creating a new state, which is constitutional and subject to the following...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states 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.

[pampango]

115. Which raises the question as to the constitutionality of West Virginia seceding from

Virginia during the Civil War. Those counties in western Virginia essentially seceded from the state and created a new one.

[onenote]

116. Here is what Abraham Lincoln had to say about that question.

http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/lincolnopinion.html

[pampango]

118. Very interesting. Thanks for posting, onenote. n/t

the division of a State is dreaded as a precedent. But a measure made expedient by a war, is no precedent for times of peace. It is said the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we can call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the Constitution, and secession in favor of the Constitution.

I believe the admission of West Virginia into the Union is expedient. - Abraham Lincoln, December 31, 1862, Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress.

[struggle4progress]

117. meh. it's almost a yearly event somewhere or other in California

[Rain Mcloud]

7. Don't let the door hit ya,where the good lord split ya!

[link:

|

[jtuck004]

8. Great idea, please do so. That will be $500 to cross the road into the rest of the state.

Every freakin' time, in or out. Per person. And there will be a vehicle tax too.

Food is going to go WAY, WAY up, because you will no longer have access to our subsidies. You can generate your own electricity. right? Do you have your own hospital? Hope a dr or two hangs with you, and there will be no health insurance ever again.

Fuel? You thought gas was high then?

Oh, you will have such a good, good time.

You are in a state of your own already, you're just too ignorant to understand it.

[moonlady0623]

10. Excuse me?

People in siskiyou county are tired of watching their water and electricity flow to the south. $500 to cross the border? Ridiculous.

[greiner3]

19. "$500 to cross the border? "

Maybe not in their currency, which would be worth less than the medium used to create it.

[jtuck004]

25. Their water? Without the efforts of a lot of other people, and the people who came before them, I

suspect they wouldn't even have homes. Do they generate enough power and have the resources to keep it on line all by their little selves?

They don't grow enough food for everyone, and they don't pay the subsidies to other farmers that enable us all to have cheap food. I suspect they don't educate everyone to the level needed to maintain their life today. They didn't pay for all the roads and highways and airports they use when they leave. They didn't pay for the military that protects us by themselves...

But hey, if they think they are so smart, let 'em go. They get nothing. If they are right, then no harm, no foul, don't let the border crossing hit you in the ass.
And if not, when they are ready to rejoin civilization, an appropriate compensation can be arranged with the state, or maybe other voters can hold an election about whether they even want them back.

[hughee99]

30. I believe they're talking about leaving CA, not the US.

The military that protects us is federal, and isn't impacted by whether they're part of CA, Oregon, or their own state.

As far as power goes, California doesn't generate enough power and has to import about 25% of it. Why should this county importing power be a huge issue. They can import food just like many other states do. I don't believe there's any rule that says a state has to be self-sufficient, and no state is. They will sell what they have (which if I understand, is a lot of water that CA needs) and buy what they need.

I'm not siding with them on this (I think it's pretty dumb), but you're really working over the sour grapes here.

$500 to cross the border? I'm pretty sure charging for a state-to-state border crossing is illegal under the interstate commerce act, which incidentally is the same thing they used to get the ACA passed (which is where they'll get their health care, if necessary)

[moonlady0623]

33. EXACTLY

Wow does anybody actually READ before commenting?

[BlueJazz]

73. Lot of people here joke around ...sorta' tongue in cheek.

We know 100 percent that the county is going nowhere.

[CreekDog]

49. Whose water? I assume you are referring to the tribes and fish and wildlife?

[kestrel91316]

84. That water is a public resource that belongs to all the people of CA,

not just those onto whose land the rain falls.

Suck up and deal with it.

[Jamaal510]

99. +1

[primavera]

119. Yeah, but I can see where it could be frustrating

From what I hear, legislators often succumb to pressure from unscrupulous development interests looking to get rick quick by building up pricey developments in areas with little or no water. The proper palms greased, the development gets built in an area where no development should ever have been built, the developers get their money, and then the foreseeable, inevitable problem of supplying the unviable location with water falls to the rest of the state.

We have a somewhat similar problem here in New Orleans. Developers are constantly pressing on local legislators to issue permits to develop swamp lands that a.) serve valuable ecological and topographical purposes, and b.) are already below sea level and outside the levee protection system. Being the irretrievably corrupt place that Louisiana is, legislators never fail to take the bribes and issue the permits, the developments get built, then they predictably get flooded out the next time a big storm comes along and everyone has to foot the bill for bailing them out, both figuratively and literally. Meanwhile, the developers who created the problem are living in big mansions on high ground far, far away, their profits safe and sound in numbered offshore accounts.

Nevertheless, I agree that such unscrupulous and irresponsible conduct is probably not a valid basis for seceding; I'm just saying I can sympathize with the frustration they might be feeling.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

90. They'd get tired of paying their own way in a real hurry

They receive much more in state benefits than they pay in. Fuck these stupid 'baggers. If they want to starve to death, let them.

[former9thward]

93. Funny you talk about generating electricity.

SoCal sucks electricity from the the border states. Maybe they should go at it alone too.

[jtuck004]

95. I think anyone who thinks they are an island should feel free to

do what they think they are big enough to do.

It is my suspicion that they won't be fond of the outcome, but one never knows...

[Niceguy1]

111. they have a valid grievance

The only areas that matterbin the state are sf and la. If you live anywhere else in the state you get the left overs..or have to tax yourselfs to pay for what the state should be paying for.

[Pab Sungenis]

9. A state with one tenth the population of Wyoming.

Yeah. That will work out just fine.

[David__77]

11. This isn't even THAT conservative of a county.

Obama lost to Romney by 40-55. The fact that these right-wing yahoos need to face is that no place in California is "theirs." They better pack it in and go to Idaho. Someone like LaMalfa will have no place in the legislature at all within 10 years. The decrepit racist, right-wingers are dying or fleeing.

[moonlady0623]

34. wow again

an independent state made up of southern Oregon and Northern California has been tossed around for decades. This isn't a new idea. It's not even so much about Republican vs Democrat. I was born there and do Not take kindly to being called a Right-Wing Yahoo. There is a history behind this idea. Read and learn.

As to racist: Think again. I grew up with first generation Americans from Italy, Germany, and Mexico. A third of my class was black. We weren't ahead of the times as far as segregation goes but we weren't difficult to convince that it would be the right thing to do to hire a black person at the grocery store. The lumber mill was Union so it didn't matter you could have been purple.

Right or wrong, it's certainly the right of the people in that region to split from California.

[David__77]

36. I'm not claiming that all secessionists are racist yahoos, just most of them.

And I'm aware that the area was once firmly pro-union and pro-FDR progressive. It has turned right since then. The secessionist attempt is right-wing though, no matter what one claims. It is anti-social for a small county to want to monopolize the natural resources it boasts.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

41. Southern Oregon -

is chock full of racists, always has been. Nice neighbors you'd have.

[CreekDog]

53. do the Native Americans in that area want to spllit from California?

or is this mostly a white thing?

[SwankyXomb]

12. Is this that State of Jefferson nonsense again?

I'm almost tempted to let them do it (assuming there's a popular vote in California) , just so everyone can see how truly fucking horrible their Koch-master paradise would be. Bonus points if they're willing to name the capital city Starnesville.

[mulsh]

13. yup

[link:http://www.jeffersonstate.com/jeffersonstory.html|

for those who are wondering what the state of Jefferson might have been.

[davidpdx]

23. Funny enough

Part of the area that is (has been) proposed for it is where I grew up. No wonder I ran far away from that place when I was old enough.

[Jesus Malverde]

14. State of Jefferson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state)

[suede1]

15. I think they should go for it. Why not?

It's about democracy and all that, right? If they really think they can cut it as a state and would be better off... And I can't imagine they're doing all that much to help CA in commerce, not like some of the better known counties do.

[maxsolomon]

29. At 2 senators per state

No way in hell.

[moonlady0623]

35. God forbid

the people would have equal representation for a change. Most of the people I met from south of Chico thought California ended in Redding.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. In waht way do you claim that 2 senators for a small rural area would be 'equal representation'?

I see that even the larger proposed version of 'Jefferson' would have a population of just 1.4 million. For that to be 'equal' representation, you'd need over 200 states in the USA.

[bunnies]

45. Population of Rhode Island: 1.05 million.

Number of Senators: 2.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/44000.html

Oh. And...

Hawaii 1,392,313
Maine 1,329,192
New Hampshire 1,320,718
Rhode Island 1,050,292
Montana 1,005,141
Delaware 917,092
South Dakota 833,354
Alaska 731,449
North Dakota 699,628
Vermont 626,011
Wyoming 576,412

Forgot the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. You don't fix a problem by making it worse

There are deep imbalances in state population; creating another small-population state would be stupid.

[bunnies]

48. I dont see every state having two Senators a problem.

The House is where that matter gets addressed.

[maxsolomon]

51. really? WY has 576K people.

CA has 38 million. each wyomingan has the same representation in the senate as 66 californians.

the senate is the sclerotic artery of american government.

[bunnies]

56. Any WY has 1 house rep while CA has 53.

So yeah, I dont see the problem.

[maxsolomon]

63. do you not understand that the senate has power?

a LOT of power?

one house provides equal representation, the other provides massively UNequal representation combined with archaic rules and procedures that hold progress hostage to the whims of a minority of the population. they won't even let obama fill vacant court spaces.

i suspect you're being deliberately obtuse.

[bunnies]

77. I understand what the Constitution says.

and I understand why the Senate was set up that way. Im not addressing any abuse of rules and procedures, which should certainly be addressed.

[CreekDog]

75. you just said you didn't say it was fair

or democratic.

now you don't think not being democratic is a problem.

are you keeping track of what you say?

[bunnies]

76. The Senate was set up that way...

so that each state, being a sovereign entity, would have equal representation. The House is designed to represent the people according to population. The Senate was not set up to be democratic. The House was. Thats the way it is. I know damn well what I said, thank you.

[CreekDog]

78. and that makes it right how?

or does it simply make it legal?

[bunnies]

79. It simply makes it the way it is. nt

[CreekDog]

80. then what are you arguing, not to change the Senate?

while arguing that it's a decent idea to change the state of Oregon and California?

[bunnies]

81. I never said it would be a decent idea to change OR & CA.

I think its a perfectly fucking stupid idea, actually. I dont care if some dumbshits want to expose their dumbshittery by spewing such nonsense. But I dont support their dumbshittedness.

[CreekDog]

82. lol ok, after all that, we agree on that part at least

[bunnies]

85. :)

I love it when that happens.

[CreekDog]

89. :)

me too

[CreekDog]

55. right and your state has two Senators

or were you hoping for Republican senators?

in what way does Barbara Boxer not represent you properly?

[bunnies]

59. What?

Did you mean to respond to me? I dont live in CA and my Senator is a Dem. Im not sure what you mean at all.

[CreekDog]

64. i was responding to the idea that Siskiyou and surrounding areas get their own Senators

First, they already have four in that region.

2 from Oregon and 2 from California.

if they feel underrepresented and want more senators for their small population, we here in the rest of California who get one senator per 19 MILLION PEOPLE, will go along with them getting 2 senators for 1.4 million people if we get the same ratio of representation. so that area would get 2 senators and the rest of California would get the same representation per population --53 senators.

that's democratic and fair.

saying that it's fair for us Californians to get 2 senators per 38 million people while saying it's only fair to them if they get 2 senators per their 1.4 million people is ridiculous.

[bunnies]

69. I was simply pointing out that...

there are many states with less than 1.4 million people that all have two Senators. Im not fighting over some bullshit teatopian state thats never going to happen. If it did, however, they would get 2 Senators as outlined in the Constitution. Thats just a fact. The Senate is not set up the same was as the House. Sorry.

[CreekDog]

71. is the Senate democratically allocated or not?

is it democratic that California gets 2 senators and (2 percent of the Senate, with 12 percent of the population)?

no it's not.

[bunnies]

72. Never said it was. nt

[former9thward]

94. We are a republic not a democracy.

Something that is taught -- or should be-- in grade school.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Why would these particular people be deserving of their own senators?

Manhattan has a slightly larger population. And it's an island, so there's an obvious geographical boundary. Should it be a separate state? How about San Diego County? Over twice the population of that proposed 'Jefferson'. In fact, California alone has 7 counties with a larger population than 'Jefferson'. Since you don't see a problem with those each having 2 senators, shall we move on to other states and split off the counties with population of over 1.4 million from them?

[bunnies]

62. I didnt write the fucking Constitution.

And I dont give two shits if people want to form a new state. Its not going to happen anyway! Sheesh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Well, it's your 'fucking' constitution

I thought you posting in the thread meant you did give a shit about it.

[bunnies]

70. And MY constitution says TWO Senators per state. nt

[CreekDog]

54. Oh, you 44,000 folks up there feel you don't have enough representation

which environmental laws do you not want enforced up there?

[theHandpuppet]

16. Though I can somewhat sympathize...

... setting a precedent like this would result in a virtual nightmare across the country. We could split all the states into political pieces and have hundreds if not thousands of states. At some point you have to dance with who brought ya.

[life long demo]

31. And as was mentioned in another thread earlier on a similar subject

They want to split because they don't like the way the state is being run. Well, Probably every American has felt that way at some time or another. But it could get even weirder when whole cities want to secede, then neighborhoods within a city.

[PoliticAverse]

61. Which is why they provided limits on the ability to do this in the constitution...

You have to have the approval of the legislatures of the states involved and the US Congress...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states 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.

[Maeve]

86. Oh, there you go, bringing the Constitution into it!

Seriously, they can try this, but the odds of it succeeding are slim to none, for the very reason you cite. Thanks for pointing out the legal issue.

[XemaSab]

17. Erin Ryan is the president of the local teabaggers

[Gormy Cuss]

44. So THAT's why she wants water rights.

[paulrandfu]

18. I think we should give all T-baggers their own state

Like, in the middle of Siberia.

[Bette Noir]

20. Hello, this is not a big deal.

Seceding from a State is not like seceding from the Union. If it passes a popular vote, more power to them.

[SoapBox]

21. *eye roll*

What a stupid fucking waste of time AND taxpayer money.

Idiots.

[Coyotl]

22. Yeah, let's start a few dozen small Republican states and give them each two Senators.

These teabaggers are really deep thinkers

[bunnies]

46. Should we take away Rhode Islands Senators too?

Screw those small states!

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Let 'em go!

And don't give them even 1 penny of Federal money or protection.

[DiverDave]

26. I guess they have everything squared away there, time and money for this crap

must be nice to not worry about mundane issues like, oh, homeless kids, or potholes.
Not only are the town/county officials idiots, the people that are listening to them are too.

Yep, just ignore REAL problems

[oldandhappy]

27. Was up there a year ago.

Really nice people concerned about caring for their land and for some old fashioned values of quality of life. I don't know how they plan to handle reality but I am glad they are pushing the issues so that perhaps they can find some middle ground. They feel their tax money goes out and does not come back. They are taking some very constructive actions to protect land. I am not one of them, but I cannot say I am against them.

[maxsolomon]

28. They are very likely factually incorrect about the direction of the tax flow.

I don't know about Siskyou County specifically, but every rural county in WA State is a net recipient of state tax dollars, yet thinks they are rugged individualists being persecuted by the commies in Seattle. Sure, I think that CA could break into 2 states, but "Jefferson" shouldn't be one of them.

Decipimur Specie Recti: we are decieved by the semblance of what is right.

[Xolodno]

32. State of Jefferson.....what and ironic name if it becomes a "red state".

The first serious time they tried to pull this off....really was for legitimate reasons. They couldn't even get the state to help with paved roads.

Now...I have my reservations. Its beautiful country up there! But I fear that the Tea Party types will run roughshod and bully others and let forest companies slash and run, mine and goodbye, etc. the environment there. I think a lot of that area should be declared a National Park and work on bringing in tourism. Which is a lot more sustainable than "raping the land" for a few decades and leaving it dead and barren.

[moonlady0623]

37. Wow x 3

why does everybody here insist Siskiyou is a Tea Party county? The employment rate is about 16%, I'm thinkin most folks are so disenfranchised they don't vote. Ya there are people more conservative than California urban areas, what, do folks have to be far Left to be Cool around here or something? Most people I know are moderate democrats, the old school kind. By which I mean one can believe in being somewhat fiscally conservative and still be a democrat.

"LET" forest companies slash and run? The reality is more like economic blackmail. Do as we say or we close the mill. As a native of the area I find that doubly insulting.

[Xolodno]

38. This is just Siskiyou County....but....

...it did vote Red in the last election.

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/california/

You can make suppositions as to why it voted red...but, big money has gotten people to vote against for the common good of themselves.

I agree..."close a mill" is economic blackmail....and fear....but fear makes people do strange things. You can harvest forests to sustainable levels...but their will always be big shareholders somewhere telling a CEO of a mill....."make bigger profits or your throuh, oh and if elections get in the way, don't worry...we'll buy them out".

One of my fondest memories....aside from, visiting my future wife, was driving up into Shasta, through Ashland, Medford, Grants Pass, etc. and seeing the greenery.

But you can't underestimate the power of "big money" co-opting that was designed to protect the area and then ravaging it later.

[Jesus Malverde]

39. There are a lot of good people in Siskiyou.

Surprising that so many people fear this will be a right wing utopia. My impression is there are a lot of progressive people in the area. The people that do live there, seem to love the land and nature, and it's a big reason why they still live there.

Often times those that exploit the land are actually not local companies, think maxxam or barrick gold or chevron...etc.

[maxsolomon]

57. it doesn't matter if it's red or blue.

rural pieces of states peeling off because they feel butthurt is not a model for a functioning democracy.

n california/s california, fine. it can be argued that the state is oversized. but putting LA & SF in the same state, and making Weed the capitol of n california and giving them 2 senators? absurd.

[CreekDog]

68. We want our money back

you realize you're spending it as you poke the rest of us in the eye.

[Le Taz Hot]

42. Every fucking county in California

has the same legitimate beef that their tax dollars go OUT of the county and into San Francisco and L.A. And if they have an issue with "their" water (really?) they probably should have taken it up with the state 80+ years ago when the aqueducts were being built. It's a little late now.

More 'bagger bullshit.

[Throd]

43. Gotta have those green lawns in Palm Springs!

So, because something happened 80 years ago I should be fine with it? How about those underground canals through the delta that Jerry has such a hard-on to build? Can I object to those?

[Le Taz Hot]

52. You can object to anything you choose.

The point is not that "it happened 80 years ago," the point is that the water distribution system was ESTABLISHED 80 years ago. Hey, I'm in Fresno County, "our" water goes to San Francisco and L.A. and sometime the water allotment for FARMING goes down to 10% even though we pay for 100%.

[Cleita]

106. FYI the green lawns in Palm Springs are so far away from Lake Shasta that the water is

not from there. Also, there are mountains in the Palm Spring area that get snow in winter and the snow melt and artesian wells provide much of the water for the area. Do get your geography straight.

[maxsolomon]

65. but rural $ doesn't go to the cities.

just as with federal dollars and rural/urban states, it's quite the opposite.

[Le Taz Hot]

87. All I know

is that Cal Trans (state money) has been "retrofitting" the Bay Bridge for the last 10+ years yet it took us over 25 years of begging and pleading to get our FIRST freeway in. If it's "quite the opposite" I'm sure you'll have no problem proving it.

[maxsolomon]

91. IN, not CA, but the 1st study I found:

http://cber.iweb.bsu.edu/news/2010/Jan12_IIB.pdf

Your whinging about the Bay Bridge is exactly the same as what I hear in WA about Seattle's transpo projects.

I don't know where you live. Did you actually NEED a freeway?

[Le Taz Hot]

92. Well, with a half million people in the city

and 3/4 of a million in the third-largest-county in California, I'd say yes, we needed a freeway. Since then we've gotten two more but it took FOREVER to get the first one. We were always being told, "San Francisco needs it," or "L.A. needs it."

Your link has nothing to do with California so you have not proven your point. I know YOU think urban is urban and there's no difference between them but there really is. Rural Indiana has NOTHING in common with rural California. In ANY way.

And I've no idea what "whinging" is.

Btw, your screen name is from one of my favorite Susan Sarandon movies. Haven't seen it in awhile, though.

[maxsolomon]

96. urban to rural tax flow is consistent across the country

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/welfare-state/Content?oid=6686284

it sounds like you live in Sacramento? that's not "rural".

[Le Taz Hot]

97. Again, about Washington state.

Nothing to do with California. And I already mentioned above I live in Fresno County. We have some larger cities (Fresno, Clovis) but the vast majority of the county is, indeed, rural.

Now, if you don't mind, unless you want to continue to give me rural information about Idaho, North Carolina and Tennessee, I'm pretty much done here.

Have a nice day.

[CreekDog]

74. we in SF and LA aren't taking your money, quite the opposite

[Cleita]

104. Actually it's the urban areas of San Francisco and LA that provide the tax

dollars that keep the rural counties going.

[Le Taz Hot]

107. Link?

[Cleita]

109. Common sense.

That's where all the banks, commerce centers and populations are. They are the the densest tax base. It's just common sense. Also, don't forget silicon valley as a money generator.

[Le Taz Hot]

110. Would that be the same "common sense"

that accuses all Central Californians of being ignorant rednecks (which is really funny considering the Central Valley is mostly Hispanic so what's the subtext there?) who come and louse up the Central Coast and beat up helpless homeless people because, after all, anything 60 miles east of "the coast" is a cesspool, or so I'm told? 'Cause there's absolutely NO geographical elitism involved here, no sirree. Nor stereotyping.

You and I agree on a lot of things, Cleita, but I can't abide by your elitism. I'm done here on this VERY old thread and I bid you a good night.

[Cleita]

114. I was talking about places like Siskiyou. I know Fresno and most of the Central Valley

have a self sustaining economy. Those guys don't. You guys get the brunt of the water stealing accusations. Hey, I pointed out to one of the upstate "you are stealing our water" accusers that the water siphoned to the dry valleys and southern California would end up in the ocean anyway because it all flows into the ocean, so why not allow it to be redirected for irrigation first? Whose talking about beating up homeless people? It happens but it happens anywhere there are homeless people and that's here on the Central Coast too. You are so overly sensitive about things. We have a ton of rednecks too. The difference is that our rednecks are rich, which makes them even more insufferable than the poor ones. The Hispanics are fine, they don't really bother anyone. It's the white Republican rednecks that are jerks and you know it as well as me.

[marlakay]

50. I don't think Ashland would be too happy with that

Medford yes but blue Ashland would say no way!

[CreekDog]

67. Speaking as someone whose family is from what some call the "State of Jefferson"

F--- that secessionist noise.

California and Oregon are good, progressive states to be a part of.

[duffyduff]

83. Stupid is as stupid does

Those morons can take the secessionist bullshit and shove it.

I am from around the area, by the way, southern Oregon to be exact.

I want no part of that shit.

[freshwest]

88. Just think! They could charge exorbitant tolls for passing from CA to OR and vice versa! Brilliant!

They could all retire and be gentlemen farmers from the largesse of the hapless people who have to travel the west coast for a living with this Bonanza:

Yes, I can see it all now...

[Cleita]

102. They are going to have to think of something because the county

doesn't have much of an economic base.

[roamer65]

98. All fun and games until the CA National Guard shows up.

Lol.

[tblue]

100. Please do.

That should work out real well.

[Cleita]

101. They are a pretty poor county, scenically beautiful but poor.

California state social programs and taxes from more affluent parts of the state keep them from going bankrupt and even starving. I guess they haven't thought that through very well.

[tularetom]

103. With a resource based economy, an aging population, no tax base to speak of

it sounds just like a half a dozen states that have been "independent" for more than a century but are really only charity cases for the wealthier areas of the country.

Maybe it isn't a bad idea after all.

[Cleita]

105. As A CA resident, I say go for it.

They'll soon be begging to come back in when they realize what it's going to cost them to be independent.

[gopiscrap]

108. Fucking idiots

[struggle4progress]

112. 201 Census populations of counties proposed for Jefferson State:

OREGON
Curry 22364
Josephine 82713
Jackson 203206
Klamath 66380
CALIFORNIA
Del Norte 28290
Siskiyou 44900
Modoc 9686

TOTAL 457539

Each of the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas has more people than that: the 100th, Columbia SC, has 17% more. Every one of the top hundred counties in the US has more people than that: the 100th, Providence county RI, has 37% more. Each of the top 37 US cities has more people than that: the 37th, Kansas City MO, has 1% more. Every one of the existing US states has more people than that: the 50th, Wyoming, has 25% more

I suppose we could make all the Metropolitan Statistical Areas states

[Jesus Malverde]

120. A Metropolitan Statistical Area is more likely to be over represented on a state level.

The chief complaints seem to be under representation of the more rural issues.

By creating the state of LA and the state of SF you would be doing the same only in reverse.

[struggle4progress]

122. The claim you make needs to be supported by evidence, because the issue is litigable

and it is my understanding that the judicial equal-representation criteria are rather strict

[struggle4progress]

113. Under the 1911 Apportionment Act, which has fixed the size of the House of Representatives

at 435 members for over a hundred years now, somebody somewhere would lose a Representative to "Jefferson State," since Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 provides ... each State shall have at Least one Representative ...

[Jesus Malverde]

121. I didn't know apportionment was frozen, interesting..nt