California Splitting into 6 States should be passed

To help focus the debate, I believe it is necessary to set one premise, which is the initiative as defined on California Six States web site. With that in mind, let me offer the following: As stated in the California Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) analysis (see analysis on LAO website) , we know of many issues that would arise from the passage of this initiative, "For all of the issues described above, the effects that California's split would have on the new state and local governmental entities would depend on decisions made by the Board of Commissioners, the new states' leaders, Congress, and, in some cases, the courts." As stated earlier, the passage of this initiative starts a process and that process is: 1. Immediately after voter approval of this initiative, charter counties are allowed to assume more authority over municipalities. Provisions are made to allow counties to delegate this to a regional association of counties that would represent the new state. 2. Immediately the State could not impose laws on counties without immediate compensation for costs of implementation. Presently, these payments can be delayed. 3. On or before November 15, 2017, the voters in each county can vote to become part of a contiguous state. 4. On January 1, 2018, the Governor will request the Federal Government to approve the splitting of California to the desired configuration determined by the original proposed 6 states as amended by individual county readjustments. The request will ask for approval within 12 months (January 1, 2019). 5. Not less than 180 days after Congressional approval, a Commission will be established to sort out the details of the split. California will provide resources and finance the Commission's efforts. The initiative does not prevent an earlier establishment of this Commission. 6. Once each new state has a Constitution by convention or popular vote within each newly created state, the separation from California can be completed. Items 1 and 2, above are the only issues that will be effective immediately. Powers removed from municipalities may or may not take effect and will be subject to on going debate. If the outcome is disputed, it will probably be the subject of litigation. The immediate compensation of the State imposing laws on counties is nothing more than closing a loophole. The State has been able to defer paying these costs, essentially using the counties as interest free loaners. The important question is what happens during the two years between the passage of this initiative, and the voting for counties to change states, and the sending of the request to Washington. The LAO identifies the bumpy road ahead, and it should be. There are a multitude of issues to get settled, and that will be the first test. As the LAO states, there is no reason for the Commission to wait to get started, but it won't happen until the California Legislator appropriates money for the task. Not starting the Commission right away is close to a death sentence of the initiative. Few voters, will support an issue that has not been thought out and debated. There are exceptions as with Obama Care, wherein you pass a law, and then find out what is wrong. Details will also be needed by Congress before they will vote; which is the last hurdle. We are well aware how partisanship works in Washington, wherein bills are not brought to the floor by leadership, and can die as a result. Anywhere in the process, the actual splitting of the State of California can be squashed. If it is squashed, I hope it is for a good reason and not just partisanship. After reading your response, I am concerned that you want to argue against California splitting into six states. As I have argued above, we are not yet in a position to argue the splitting of California, because there is insufficient information. In order to argue that point, we must pass the initiative, and see what the Commissioners propose. Let us not have another Obama Care where we pass, or reject, a bill without knowing the good and bad points. This initiative will allow the debate to occur with knowledge of details, and not just philosophical rhetoric before it is implemented.