From the most excellent Strange Maps Blog:

From the article:

“The extension of these areas was calculated by MIT and IBM, analysing anonymised call data. The map delineates zones in which people are more likely to call someone inside those areas rather than outside of them. The result is a revelatory re-mixing of states of America. Some split, others merge with their neighbours. “

Californians have been talking about splitting the state for as long as I can remember. But I think a lot of it must have been idle talk, because mostly it’s faded away with the vague belief that somehow the feds would never let it happen. You two seem to have dug deeper into the question, and what you found agrees with what I know about the Constitution’s mechanisms for admitting a new state. To work within the existing rules, one of the resulting states continues to exist with a boundary and perhaps name change, while the other state is defined as a new state and petitions Congress for admission to the Union.

Other than Puerto Rico, has a petition for statehood ever been denied?

A wikopedia articla says “…there have been more than 220 attempts to divide California into multiple states[1] including at least 27 serious proposals”, and I believe it. Another one that’s currently active would carve a new state out of a few northern counties and a few in southern Oregon. “Cascadia”, I think is the name.

I’d vote for partition or even secession. The north and south have different characters and different needs, and administratively they’re an awkward fit. A good sign that the split would be natural is the way that utilities have divided the state between them along the lines people use in partition discussions: PG&E in the north, Edison in the south. And once upon a time General Telephone owned the south and AT&T/Pacific Bell the north.

The present boundaries of California are as artificial and irrational as the boundaries of Iraq. Did the British design California too?

That is a good question, one I can’t answer. I’m not sure it’s covered in our Constitution.

No doubt the Feds would have an opinion and could weigh in up to conceivably sending troops to stop the split.

My question is whether there is any legal or constitutional reason for the Feds to intervene.

Splitting a State is a far cry from a State seceding. It would seem that at least the splitting side would revert to territorial and be required to apply for Statehood.

Again, the only reason for this thread is because I have read this is a dead serious issue in CA.

I don’t think it would be so easy today. And with a Democratic sitting President able to veto any bill…

Of course, we might have a Republican next time but I still don’t think a bill would make it through the Senate even if the Republicans gained a seat or two or three. They’d have to have a rousing majority to do that and I have a feeling that ain’t gonna happen. The country’s in an ugly mood and if the blame comes down on the Republicans, they’re dead meat. Now would be the time for a legitimate third party to sweep the elections.

The president is Virginia and West Virginia. The fact that the Feds favored that split is immaterial. The people of West VA initiated the split and the Feds did not object.

Isn’t this because Conservative Californians are pissed off that their State votes liberal in Federal elections so the conservatives feel they are not represented? On that same note, we’d also have to split Texas and half a dozen other states. In Missouri, we’d have to have Kansas City and St. Louis banded together and the rest of the state a second state.

It’s silly.