"Six Californias" Initiative (2016)

Not on Ballot
This measure was not put on an election ballot

A "Six Californias" Initiative (#13-0063) did not qualify for the November 8, 2016 ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute.

This proposition was sponsored by financier Timothy C. Draper. It would have called on the United States Congress to officially divide California into six separate states.

Although Congress would have ultimately decided whether to divide the state into six states, what the new boundaries would be and what the new states would be called, the Draper initiative proposed these names and divisions:

• Central California, which would include the counties of Alpina, Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne.
• Jefferson, which would include the counties of Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Laasen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama and Trinity.
• North California, which would include the counties of Amador, El Dorado, Marin, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba.
• Silicon Valley, which would include the counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Benito, Santa Cruz and Monterey.
• South California, which would include the counties of Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego.
• West California, which would include the counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles and Ventura.

Draper and other supporters originally aimed to get the measure on the November 4, 2014, ballot, but later decided to aim for 2016 in order to gather more signatures.

On July 15, 2014, signatures were submitted in an attempt to get the initiative placed on the 2016 ballot. Proponents turned in an estimated total of 1.3 million signatures. However, the California secretary of state's office said it did not receive enough valid signatures by the deadline.

Text of measure

Ballot title:

Division of California into Six States. Initiative Statutory and Constitutional Amendment.

Official summary:

"Divides California into six states subject to approval by Congress. Assigns each county to a new state, unless county voters approve reassignment to different new state and second state approves. Establishes commission to settle California's financial affairs after division; upon failure to resolve, each new state would retain assets within its boundaries and would receive proportionate distribution of California's debts based on population. Authorizes counties to refuse to provide State-mandated programs and services absent sufficient State reimbursement. Empowers counties to make and enforce all laws governing local affairs."

Fiscal impact statement:

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.

"If the federal government approves the proposed creation of six new states, all tax collections and spending by the existing State of California would end, with its assets and liabilities divided among the new states. Decisions by appointed commissioners and elected leaders would determine how taxes, public spending, and other public policies would change for the new states and their local governments."

Support

Logo for the "Six Californias" campaign

Supporters

Initiative #13-0063 was sponsored by Timothy Draper. The financier, who invested in and contributed to the development of Skype, Baidu, Overture and Hotmail, announced the launch of the initiative, saying, "We're simply too big and bloated." He also said that the current state government "is not cutting it for our schools, our businesses, our infrastructure or our people."

Another proponent was Mark Baird, spokesperson for the Jefferson Declaration Committee. He said the initiative would bring government closer to the people it represents. Baird added, “When you ask people here about this, they tell you, ‘If I could live in a free state, I’d live with a few more potholes and some used equipment.’”

Arguments in favor

Six Californias video titled, "Why Six Californias?"

Draper listed five reasons for supporting the "Six Californias" initiative in Tech Crunch:

“

It is about time California was properly represented with Senators in Washington. Now our number of Senators per person will be about average. Competition is good, monopolies are bad. This initiative encourages more competition and less monopolistic power. Like all competitive systems, costs will be lower and service will be better. Each new state can start fresh. From a new crowd sourced state flower to a more relevant constitution. Decisions can be more relevant to the population. The regulations in one new state are not appropriate for another. Individuals can move between states more freely.

”

Draper made other arguments in favor, including:

• "What I'm proposing here is to bring us closer to our government. We are all better off with more local government -- local government is more efficient, it's more effective, it represents us better."
• "The government always used to work for us. Over the last 15 to 20 years, I feel like the government is saying, ‘You’re working for me.’ We’ve gone from, in effect, a very free country to one where it’s moving toward, I guess it’s slavery… When you work for your government, when your government forces you to do something, it’s slavery. We need to take it back… I want (government) to be for the people. It’s starting to feel like it’s an ivory tower. There’s more and more control in the hands of people that are further and further from the decision."

Donors

Total campaign cash as of January 1, 2016
Support:	$5,268,360.28
Opposition:	$0

One ballot measure campaign committee was registered in support of the initiative as of January 1, 2016:

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
Six Californias	$5,268,360.28	$5,268,360.28
Total	$5,268,360.28	$5,268,360.28

The following were the donors who contributed to the campaign supporting the initiative:

Donor	Amount
Timothy C. Draper	$5,267,908.28

Opposition

Opponents

OneCalifornia formed to oppose the initiative. The organization was founded by Joe Rodota, a Republican strategist, and Steven Maviglio, a Democratic consultant.

Sovereign California, Inc. also opposed the initiative. The group reportedly planned to push ballot measures seeking to increase "sub-national sovereignty" in 2016.

Officials

• Asm. Eric Swalwell (D-15)

Organizations

• OneCalifornia

• Sovereign California, Inc.

Individuals

• Joe Rodota, CEO and Founder, Forward Observer
• Robert Price, executive editor of The Bakersfield Californian
• Mary Buffett, author and Warren Buffett scholar
• Peter Scheer, lawyer and executive director of the First Amendment Coalition

Arguments against

Mary Buffett called the plan a "balkanized mess." She claimed to agree with Draper on the current problems he identified, but argued that "you don't have to blow up California in order to solve it." She listed a few problems with the plan:

• "First, there is the issue of water. Without water distribution, California would quickly revert back to desert and grassland... However, under Draper's Plan, water intended for use in Los Angeles would have to pass through the states of "Jefferson," "North California," and "Central California" before it ever reached Los Angeles in the new state of "West California." What is to keep a new Governor of "Central California" or "North California" from diverting more water to local farmers and closing the spigot for Los Angeles? Nothing. Why? The new Governor of "Central California" will cater to the needs of his/her voters as opposed to any out-of-state concerns, like a thirsty Los Angeles."
• "Second, there is the case of higher education. If you lived in Oroville, Eureka, or Redding, your children are simply shut out of in-state tuition rates for the University of California system. Why? There are no UC campuses in Draper's State of "Jefferson..".. However, if you are fortunate enough to live in the new state of "Silicon Valley" you have a plethora of choices, paid for by residents from all of California, including the good people of Oroville, Eureka, or Redding. As a resident of the new state of "West California," I am rolling my eyes a bit because it's clear that this new fictional state of "Silicon Valley" gets the best deal while the rest of the of other California states get the short shrift."
• "Finally, taxes will inevitably rise. Instead of one state, where costs of government are spread over a population base of 38 million people, each of Draper's six states will have to create their own institutional functions of state government, from their own DMVs, the prison systems, state police and to everything in-between. While these new states will partially inherit legacy programs from the old State of California, each governor will have to create new command and control functions for everything that once radiated from Sacramento. That will cost money and nobody knows that amount. All we know is that somebody will have to pay for things."

Robert Price criticized the initiative as generating inequality, devastating revenues for public assistance programs and fragmenting an economic powerhouse:

• “Draper's home "state" of Silicon Valley (yes, that's what he suggests calling it) would become the wealthiest state in the U.S. -- and, freed from the obligations of propping up the likes of us here in the Valley, would no doubt grow richer still.”
• “The state of Central California, containing most of the Central Valley, including Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, the Sierra Nevada and the eastern desert, would be the poorest. And I don't mean just among these severed siblings; we'd be the poorest state in the nation, displacing Mississippi, and as such would be in line for perhaps $2,500 in per capita federal spending… We would almost certainly have the lightest tax burden of any state among the six, and possibly the lightest anywhere in the U.S., but without the support of the world's ninth-largest economy and its diversified muscle, we might have some trouble.”

Joe Rodota, the founder and CEO of Forward Observer, argued against the initiative:

• "Unlike venture capitalists, voters don't calculate risk. They seek to minimize it. And splitting the state into six pieces carries obvious and arguably insurmountable political risks."
• "Jefferson California, a new state to be comprised of counties in the far north, would have not one campus in the University of California system if split off from the rest of the state as proposed. Just how would a family from Redding or Chico feel about paying $36,000 in out-of-state tuition to send their son or daughter to UC Davis?"
• "Think of the thousands of business transactions that take place between Southern and Northern California each day. Many of those would now be between states, triggering federal regulation of interstate commerce."
• "And how would the new state of Silicon Valley, which is a net importer of water, guarantee adequate water supplies to its residents and industries?"

Other arguments against the initiative include:

• Kevin Modesti of the Los Angeles Daily News said, "Draper argues that California’s diversity and size makes it ungovernable. But that’s letting the people who govern it, and the people who vote for those public officials, off the hook for their failures. Your city is a lot smaller and probably less diverse than the state, but is your city governed as well as it should be? Size isn’t the issue. If a public official can’t do the job unless he’s in a tiny, homogeneous state, he’s in the wrong line of work."
• Carlos Garcia of the Latin Post noted, "This comes at a time when a large number of corporations Silicon Valley corporations already hide their tax dollars overseas, thereby avoiding paying into the government at all. According to Bloomberg, the top ten corporate tax avoiders are tech companies: 1. Microsoft, $76.4 billion; 2. IBM, $44.4 billion; 3. Cisco Systems, $41.3 billion; 4. Apple, $40.4 billion; 5. Hewlett-Packard, $33.4 billion; 6. Google, $33.3 billion; 7. Oracle, $26.2 billion; 8. Dell, $19.0 billion; 9. Intel, $17.5 billion; 10. Qualcomm, $16.4 billion. This is consistent with the idea that people behind such an industry are not interested in paying taxes which the government could use to improve the lives of people in the poorer parts of California, which is one of the reasons given for dividing the state."

Donors

One ballot measure campaign committee was registered in support of the initiative:

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
One California	$0	$0
Total	$0	$0

Reports

Legislative Analyst's Office

State Population Per Capita Personal Income Largest City West California 11,563,717 $44,900 Los Angeles South California 10,809,997 $42,980 San Diego Silicon Valley 6,828,617 $63,288 San Jose Central California 4,232,419 $33,510 Fresno North California 3,820,438 $48,048 Sacramento Jefferson 949,406 $36,147 Redding

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), in accordance with Section 9005 of the California Elections Code, filed a report detailing the fiscal effects on the measure's proposed state governments.

California’s income and property tax bases are heavily reliant on the Silicon Valley. With 17.8 percent of the population, Silicon Valley provides 24.3 percent of the state’s total personal income tax revenue. Central California, on the other hand, has 11.0 percent of the population, but provides 8.0 percent of state’s total personal income tax revenue. The total average effective tax rate in both Central Valley and Jefferson is 3.0 percent versus 5.3 percent percent in Silicon Valley. The per capita assessed value property tax in Silicon Valley is $157,056 versus $78,141 in Central California. The study concludes that the Silicon Valley would have the highest income level, largest revenue from personal income, property and sales taxes, than any other proposed state. Central Valley and Jefferson would have the lowest of these variables with the other three states in between. These fiscal disparities would affect primary and higher education and public assistance.

The full report can be found here.

Noteworthy events

Deception complaints against petition circulators

Opponents filed an official complaint with the California Secretary of State on July 18, 2014. They claimed that petition circulators misled and lied to people about the initiative's affects in order to collect signatures.

One citizen reported being approached by a petitioner in Kern County who asked her to sign a petition to increase the state minimum wage to $12. Upon inspecting the petition, the citizen noticed that the initiative was about splitting up California into six states. She said she didn't want to sign the petition. She claimed the petitioner responded, "Well it's just to get it on the ballot and let the voters decide... If you won't sign this then they won't pay me so you can just move along young lady."

Another, in Humboldt County, said she was approached by someone asking her to sign a petition to oppose "the Attorney General of California’s intention to split the state into six states." She refused to sign, but saw "lots of people signing." Two other individuals reported similar stories.

Arno Political Consultants was responsible for gathering signatures and hiring petition circulators. Michael Arno, the business' founder, replied, "That’s the first I’ve heard of it… I have no idea why that would happen. This has been one of the cleaner drives I can remember." He continued, "I can’t control all circulators, and I think it’s a very de minimis problem when you figure we collected 1.3 million signatures."

In 2007, the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center reported, "Arno Consulting is known as one of the largest and most successful signature gathering firms in the country. Despite his impressive client list and years of experience, Arno is also known for something else: being accused of deception and illegalities in his signature gathering practices."

Under California Elections Code 18600, it is considered a misdemeanor to "intentionally misrepresents or intentionally makes any false statement concerning the contents, purport or effect of the [initiative] petition."

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in California

• Draper submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on December 20, 2013.
• A title and summary was issued by California's attorney general's office on February 18, 2014.
• 807,615 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
• Supporters had until July 18, 2014 to collect the required signatures. Filing sufficient signatures by that date would not have allowed the initiative to compete on the November 4, 2014 ballot.
• The Secretary of State’s suggested signature filing deadline for the November 4, 2014, ballot was April 18, 2014.
• On July 15, 2014, Draper submitted 1.3 million signatures for the initiative.
• On August 26, 2014, the last county submitted its raw count of signatures to the California secretary of state, who reported that 1,137,803 signatures had been received.
• On September 13, 2014, it was announced that only 752,685 signatures were valid. Supporters needed 807,615.

Draper told the press in December 2013, "I'll make sure it gets on the ballot, so that Californians have a chance to make the decision."

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• California 2016 ballot propositions
• Laws governing the initiative process in California

Additional reading

• San Francisco Chronicle, "Six Californias measure may fall short of ballot," September 11, 2014</ref>
• San Diego Union-Tribune, "What would six California states look like?" April 11, 2014
• Silicon Beat, "Almost Enough Signatures For Ballot Initiative Breaking Up Golden State," March 26, 2014

External links

Suggest a link

Basic information

• Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 13-0063

Support

• Six Californias
• Six Californias Facebook
• Six Californias Twitter

Opposition

• OneCalifornia Facebook
• OneCalifornia Twitter