Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: Politix |
Measure to split California into three states removed from ballot by the state Supreme Court |
2018-07-19 |
![]() Of course they did The decision was a defeat for Tim Draper, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist considered an eccentric entrepreneur who spent $1.2 million on the measure. Four years ago, the wealthy Atherton resident spent $5.2 million promoting a measure that would have split California into six states. It did not qualify for the ballot. He reacted angrily to the court's action, calling it "corruption." "Whether you agree or not with this initiative, this is not the way democracies are supposed to work," he said in an email. "This kind of corruption is what happens in Third World countries." He said the state's "insiders" were "in cahoots." In a brief order, the court said it acted "because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition's validity and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election." The court, meeting in closed session, also agreed to rule eventually on the measure's constitutionality, a ruling that is likely to go against the initiative. The challenge was filed last week by the Planning and Conservation League, an environmental group. An environmental group? Really? Why would they be against splitting the state, I wonder? Not enough opportunity for graft? |
Posted by:DarthVader |
#10 We've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen! |
Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-07-19 17:24 |
#9 Over the years, weren't there other resolutions that were passed by the voters only to get 187ed by government or just ignored? It's not good to not have a voice in your state government. |
Posted by: JohnQC 2018-07-19 12:40 |
#8 Proving once again that if you can't win an election you can always get your way from the courts. |
Posted by: Abu Uluque 2018-07-19 12:34 |
#7 The proposed split would have resulted in a dissolution of central planning and power. Didn't end well the last time either. |
Posted by: Besoeker 2018-07-19 07:09 |
#6 Haven't seen much discussion of the fact that all three "new" states would have to petition for entry to the Union. No guarantee that the split would be an automatic win for the left at all. |
Posted by: M. Murcek 2018-07-19 07:06 |
#5 Watch the migration to the conservative state that decides to go with no state income taxes and no benefits for non-Americans. |
Posted by: Airandee 2018-07-19 06:29 |
#4 Their own power is being threatened. Of course they're going to engage in corrupt skullduggery to get their way. The people must not be allowed a voice, they are our rulers. |
Posted by: Herb McCoy 2018-07-19 04:03 |
#3 An environmental group? Really? Why would they be against splitting the state, I wonder? Not enough opportunity for graft? Possibly concerned about inequitable distribution of the Colorado River water. Cities are wasting and the AG vallies can't get enough. |
Posted by: Skidmark 2018-07-19 01:11 |
#2 "This kind of corruption is what happens in Third World countries." Welcome to California. |
Posted by: CrazyFool 2018-07-19 00:41 |
#1 Here's what I don't get - if one of the stated goals / results of this measure would be getting up to four more lefty Senators, then why would the presumably leftist cal. SC nix the measure? Also - I'm not swayed by the little ditty by the court about the 'significant questions' being raised about 'validity' - what questions / validity, exactly? |
Posted by: Raj 2018-07-19 00:17 |