CalExit: Could California Really be Split in Two?

For some time now, there’s been talk in California of potentially splitting the state into multiple pieces — for a number of reasons. First, there’s the argument that with 39 million people, California simply has too big a population to be represented fairly in Congress.

In the Senate, just two senators represent a state that comprises one-eighth of the U.S. population, whereas the number of representatives in the House for California is a whopping 53, beating every other state — many by 10 or 11 times.

There are major divisions between liberals and conservatives in California, just like everywhere in the country, but the fact that California is only one state presents major challenges in terms of satisfying diverse groups of constituents with just one set of laws.

There are many arguments that the different geographic regions of California have different interests, and that to lump everyone in the state together is to force people to conform to a “lowest-common-denominator” set of rules and regulations that politically constrain some groups, while giving others excessive freedom.

Particular issues such as immigration reform, land use, water rights, agricultural labor and employment law are perceived very dissimilarly in disparate parts of the state, and a Silicon Valley CEO is about as distinct from a Venice Beach bodybuilder as billionaire Larry Ellison is from gym pioneer Joe Gold.

At a basic level, most state residents readily see Northern California very differently from Southern California, so this split initially was seen as a logical division if separation eventually became a reality.

But there are also boosters of the idea that California could be split into as many as six different states, each with their own unique identities, demographics and legislative priorities. Certainly, if one examines an issue such as high-speed rail — which Californians committed to in 2008, only to sour on after 2011, and with more than 50 percent of state residents against the concept by 2013 — one can see that many separate regions of the state have their own interests at heart. A poorly planned 2016 initiative to create “Six Californias” failed, due to a high number of false petition signatures.

It’s been said that if California were its own country that its economy would be the sixth-largest in the world. This economy is comprised of wildly varying sectors, however, with the entertainment industry, the defense industry, the high-tech industry and the agricultural industry all vying for their own political partialities.

California’s current size also presents a challenge in terms of natural hardships such as smog, droughts, forest fires, earthquakes, tsunamis and possible nuclear disasters along seismic fault lines. All of these — because of the large areas they potentially affect — make their management and control major issues for California’s overburdened state government.

It seems that media story after story every few years declares California is on the brink of collapse from one catastrophe or another. Certainly, if the state were to split into multiple parts, the risk factors of these calamities could be better alleviated.

As former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger found out, having one central government for 39 million people means that special interests and lobbyists hold enormous sway, and despite valiant attempts to fight these interests, they have a firm grip over many of the state’s legislators.

As one of Hollywood’s elite (and the former husband of Democratic royal Maria Shriver of the Kennedy family), Schwarzenegger was fairly removed from the daily life of most Californians.

If one looks more intently at these Hollywood elites, one can see that most of them are far to the left even of Schwarzenegger (who a number of people consider a “Republican in Name Only” [RiNO]). In fact, as a quasi-cabal, they wield a fearsome influence not just within California, but also across the country and around the world.

Many of these elites would like nothing more than to see their home state secede from President Trump’s union, even if the logistics of such a break would be difficult to fathom (not to mention illegal and ill-advised). When many conservative Eastern — as opposed to coastal — Californians heard about this specific version of “Calexit,” as some observers refer to it, there was justified anger at Hollywood and progressive groups supporting the idea.

Therefore, these voters would like to add a referendum to the state ballot in 2018 to determine if California could be split into two parts, rather than six. At least 365,880 people would need to sign a petition to add such a referendum to the upcoming ballot.

A split in two would mean two new senators (who would both likely be Republican), additional state representatives and more votes in the electoral college for the constituent parts of what is now the nation’s most populous state. This could affect the calculus of future elections, including the one in 2020.

Joining the fight for conservatives to get their referendum on the state ballot is none other than the self-proclaimed “bad boy of Brexit,” Nigel Farage of Britain’s United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Along for the ride with Farage is his financial and political backer Arron Banks.

Both Farage and Banks believe the successful strategy employed by proponents of Brexit — who believe that Britain’s remaining connected to the European Union “is like having a first-class ticket on the Titanic” — can be applied to the Golden State as well.

“[At least] 78 percent of people in California are unhappy with their government. It’s the world’s sixth largest economy, but it’s very badly run… [A referendum] would be portrayed as the Hollywood elites versus the people breaking up the bad government,” stated Banks.

Already, Farage and Banks, in association with American Republicans Gerry Gunster and Scott Baugh, have been able to tap into voter anger over the influence of the Hollywood and political elites. Fundraisers for wealthier donors have been able to raise at least $1 million for the referendum and additional efforts.

Andy Wigmore, a spokesman for Farage and Banks, says that farmers and agricultural tycoons donated large amounts toward the effort because “they feel they’ve been left out since Reagan [was governor]… They believe now that Trump has won, this is their chance.”

Wigmore argued that in fact there are American precedents for a split, saying, “This has been done before with West Virginia and Virginia and North and South Dakota, so it can work.”

Said Banks of the maneuvering, “Our role is to show voters how to light a fire and win — to show them it’s possible. A lot of people said, ‘This isn’t possible, it can never happen.’ We were saying that people said the same about Brexit — and we just went and did it. The money was pledged to take it to the next level. We believe [California] could ultimately be the greatest political showdown ever.”


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More



Most Popular
Sponsored Content

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More