The State of Jefferson’s plan for a California divided
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Almost anywhere you drive through Northern California, you’ll see green and gold signs, flags and banners heralding the arrival of the State of Jefferson, a separatist movement that nearly succeeded in 1941 and, more recently, has grown like a grass fire in the era of Trump.
The signs feature “The Great Seal of the State of Jefferson,” a gold pan emblazoned with two X’s—Jeffersonians have long believed they’ve been double-crossed by big city politicians in Sacramento who take their money but ignore their concerns.
Over the last two years, the signs have popped up on billboards, front yards, and haystacks, sometimes next to Confederate flags and anti-immigrant slogans.
They can also be seen at county fairs and frequent rallies featuring supporters, some in camouflage fatigues, outside the Federal Building in Sacramento, where the secessionists have taken their fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jeffersonians argue that since Southern California has 111 elected state reps (74 assembly members and 37 senators) and Northern California above the San Francisco Bay Area, only nine (six in the assembly, three in the Senate), the courts have “a legal, moral and constitutional” obligation to fix this imbalance by adding more state legislators, especially in far-flung rural counties.
Click on the image for a larger version.
INFOGRAPHIC BY SARAH HANSEL
|
“Taxation without representation,” the rallying cry of the American Revolution, now resonates with tens of thousands of Jeffersonians in 23 counties from Stanislaus to the Oregon border—nearly all of which voted for Trump. The “double cross” dates back to 1941 when residents of five counties, sick of paying taxes and not getting needed roads in return, joined forces with rural Northern Californians to secede and then formed their own border patrol.
Today, they reflect a growing sentiment that California should be carved into anywhere from two to six states in order to adequately govern its 40 million people and their conflicting political views on a broad range of issues, including immigration, gun control, water rights and environmental regulations.
Just this summer, a measure to ask Congress to split California into three states, backed by Silicon Valley billionaire Tim Draper, qualified for the November ballot. It was eventually invalidated by the California Supreme Court, which questioned the measure’s constitutionality.
The legal setback didn’t discourage Jeffersonians.
Indeed, this unlikely assortment of survivalists and hippies, pot growers and hardline cops, real estate appraisers and loggers, fencing instructors and gun-lovers, Latinos and anti-immigrants has joined forces, seemingly impervious to criticisms.
While Jefferson’s leader, Mark Baird, claims the movement is non-partisan, Baird admits he, and many other Jeffersonians, voted for Donald Trump—"he wasn’t my first choice, I wanted Ted Cruz"—because they couldn’t stand Hillary Clinton. He also acknowledges Trump’s victory empowered thousands of disaffected voters in Jefferson country, and noted that the more federal judges Trump appoints in California, especially to the decidedly liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the better Jefferson’s chances.
Critics across California and the nation have called Jefferson a hare-brained scheme, a disaster in the making.
But Baird and others argue that Jefferson’s time is now.
“Our window of opportunity is here,” he said.
‘California has become a totalitarian nightmare’
The Jeffersonian movement has recently re-ignited and spread across California. Now, supporters as far south as San Bernardino want in, even though it’s not practical to admit counties that aren’t contiguous, Baird said. But he understands why impoverished rural Californians statewide want to join.
“California has become a totalitarian nightmare of social engineering, and people are bailing out, we’ve lost 9,000 businesses and nearly a million productive people,” Baird said.
Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence opens with a Trumpian-sounding rant that claims leaders such as Gov. Jerry Brown and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom “have openly and publicly declared war on the government of the United States.”
“Is this or is this not a nation of laws?” it reads. “[We] Declare the 51st State, Jefferson, to free us from tyranny!”
The language and ideas date back much further than the 45th president.
In 1941, Jeffersonians captured attention when they formed a rebel militia and even stopped drivers on Highway 99 in Siskiyou County at gunpoint, handing out their declaration of independence and bumper stickers letting them know they were entering the State of Jefferson.
Stanton Delaplane, a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, could smell a great story 300 miles away. He rode into Siskiyou County and won the 1942 Pulitzer Prize for reporting his coverage of the “mountain men” rebellion.
“Gun-toting citizens of these rebel counties are partly mad, partly in fun, partly earnest about this new state,” Delaplane wrote then.
The rebels—then comprising four counties in California and one in Oregon—demanded the state build promised roads into the mountains containing millions of dollars of copper deposits, “and if they don’t get them pretty soon, there’s no telling what they might do.”
“This is the last frontier and the hard stand of rugged individualism that is not a political slogan,” Delaplane opined in his December 1, 1941 piece.
 Stephen Johnson, an avid State of Jefferson supporter, sold shirts, caps, signs and flags during a recent Auburn Home Show. Some hats proclaimed “Jefferson Militia,” while others featured a gun and the slogan, “Mama Didn’t Raise No Victim.”
PHOTO BY STEVE MAGAGNINI
|
Jeffersonians appeared on the verge of getting approval from Congress to break away until it was blown out of the water by the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
The movement remained largely under the radar until Mark Baird, 65, a strapping reincarnation of John Wayne, started breathing new life into Jefferson five years ago. The 6-foot-4-inch fire tanker pilot, rancher and reserve deputy sheriff from Siskiyou County cuts an impressive figure. He sports a black belt holster, but instead of a sidearm, packs his weapon of choice, a copy of the Constitution.
Many politicians, academics and journalists seek to dismiss Baird and his fellow Jeffersonians as a bunch of gun-toting, right-wing rednecks, Trumpies and neo-Confederates whose chances of launching the 51st state are slim to none and slim’s left town.
Tim Onderko, vice-mayor of Loomis in Placer County, empathizes with Jeffersonians—to a point.
“I understand people feel under-represented or misrepresented and want to make a change—I totally get it, I’m all about local control,” Onderko said. “But we have to have a state-wide constitutional convention. How would Jeffersonians support themselves?”
Onderko’s skepticism was amplified by the State Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan think tank, which last year issued a 13-page report on secession outlining a wide range of potential problems, including who will pay for and operate public schools, courts, prisons, water, welfare, transportation, parks and state agencies.
If the measure was approved by voters and the federal government—and until California and Jefferson came to an agreement on how to split the state’s assets and liabilities, the report read, “all tax collections and spending by the existing state of California would end.”
Baird’s used to not being taken seriously.
When he and his finance expert, Steven Baird (no relation) of Sacramento, showed up for a scheduled appointment with Gov. Brown to present their secession plan, for example, a California Highway Patrol officer outside the governor’s office told them the state’s chief “had more important things to do.”
“We couldn’t even get the guy who brings them coffee to take our papers, so we dropped them off in the mail room,” Steven Baird said.
Mark Baird is equal parts Don Quixote, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. He lives in Scott Valley, a staunchly independent community 30 miles west of Yreka, now the provisional capital of Jefferson.
Baird said he and several other ranchers took on the California Department of Fish & Game a decade ago, “when they were trying to charge us $25,000 per ranch for our water rights and unfettered access to our land.”
“We told them not only ‘no’ but ‘hell no'—if you want our water be prepared to take it.”
Ultimately, Mark Baird and company never had to brandish their weapons, Fish & Game just cleared out. That victory set the table: On September 3, 2013, the modern state of Jefferson was born when Baird and about 100 supporters presented the Siskiyou Board of Supervisors with their Declaration of Independence and won approval by a 4-1 vote.
Baird, a walking encyclopedia of California history and constitutional law who’s fond of quoting Alexis de Tocqueville and Frederick Douglass, has sold his dream across a vast expanse of California.
“We’ve raised more than $500,000—$2 at a time, and I’ve been reading legal cases like a crazy law student for the last five years,” he said.
Teachers, mechanics, doctors, lawyers, clerks, small business owners, farmers, ranchers and survivalists have all contributed.
“While most of us are gray-hairs, we have a strong Facebook presence in all our counties, and young people are turning out for our fairs and events,” Baird said.
Whatever their age, background or profession, Jeffersonians share a common distrust of big-city, heavy-handed government, Mark Baird says. He knows plenty of folks who “hate California, they hate the taxes, rules and regulations.”
Baird and many other Jeffersonians have a distinctly libertarian flavor. They say their new state will largely be governed by individual counties that will enforce their own laws and fund their own police, courts, fire departments, schools, public officials and indigent medical care.
“Spending, except in rare cases such as the state Supreme Court, education above K-12 and prisons will be handled at a city/county level,” explained Steven Baird, the finance expert, who ran for the sprawling 1st Senate District in 2016 on a pro-Jefferson Platform and lost. Now, he argues that one district with 11 counties shortchanges almost every constituent.
“It is up to the people in those communities how they want their taxes and money to be spent. We will not force any county to fund any particular action.”
A new independence
Here’s what Jefferson would look like based on census records from the 23 counties that have signed on and two others on the fence, either through referendum or a vote of their board of supervisors: 2.5 million people, 69 percent Caucasian, 21 percent Hispanic, 4 percent Asian, about 3 percent multi-racial, 1.6 percent American Indian and 1.6 percent African-American. Nineteen counties voted for Trump, four (Mendocino, Lake, Nevada and Stanislaus) went for Clinton.
If secession happens, Jefferson would hold a constitutional convention to draw its own legislative boundaries.
Jefferson’s governor and courts would have less power to authorize or veto legislation—that responsibility would fall squarely on the legislature. Nearly all services—from police to fire to schools—would be run by individual counties, Baird said.
 Jean Colegrove adorns a T-shirt that reads: “The moment has come for the 51st state.”
PHOTO BY STEVE MAGAGNINI
|
Critics both inside and out of Jefferson’s boundaries, including Chamber of Commerce officials and park rangers, fear a state made up of California’s poorest counties won’t have the resources to provide quality services—they say the state sends more money back to those counties than it collects from them.
But Jeffersonians argue that without having to pay income, sales or corporate taxes to the state, their financial model shows an aggregate county surplus without reducing current spending for schools, roads, public safety and infrastructure, according to their website.
The Jefferson movement welcomes all independent parties, and the Green Party, which has scored few victories elsewhere, would have a better chance running in freshly-drawn rural districts, Mark Baird said.
Not all Jeffersonians are crazy about their namesake, but Steven Baird says it fits.
“I guess we adhere to Thomas Jefferson’s principles of limited government. We would like to reboot the core beliefs of our Founding Fathers.”
America’s Founding Fathers believed every American would have the opportunity to succeed but there’s no guarantee of success: You will succeed on your own merits and resources.
The State of Jefferson has sparked plenty of opposition within its boundaries.
Keep it California, a nonpartisan group based in Sierra City, for one, is staunchly anti-Jefferson. The group claims the actual costs to Jeffersonians, ranging from having to pay out of state tuition to California universities to having to buy their way out of California’s $778 billion debt, which means Jefferson’s projected $3.16 billion annual budget will be sliced to $840 million.
“This proposal would create a very weak, Balkanized states with little uniformity throughout creating confusion and uncertainty,” declares Keept It California’s website. “It wouldn’t even guarantee that the few comparatively prosperous counties (Eldorado and Placer, both Jeffersonian bastions) would choose to help the poorer counties.”
Placerville’s Jamie Beutler, chair of the California Democratic Party, Rural Caucus, said Keep It California was formed in 2015 to counter Jefferson after its leaders began persuading county after county to join up.
“I think it’s crazy—I understand their frustration,” she said. “But they get more money from the state for roads, schools, hospitals, infrastructure than they would get if they broke away.
While Mark Baird says Jefferson would liberate mining, timber, farming and energy from California control, Beutler notes, “most of the water and forests are federally controlled, so nothing would change there.”
Baird hopes that Jefferson can become a reality in five years; Beutler counters that notion.
“I think there’s no chance of this passing, but there’s a populist mood sweeping the country and they have been emboldened, all these hate movements have risen up,” he says. “These are the same people who have been infused with fear by Trump, Rush Limbaugh, and alt-right media. They listen to what they want to hear and don’t listen to reason.”
Voters, lawsuits and true grit
While Jefferson’s plans to create a special Native American senate seat has generated support from some of the many Indians within its boundaries, Jessica Jim, an elder with the 5,000 member federally recognized Pit River Tribe who sits on the enrollment committee, said, “the problem is, who is going to get control of that seat?”
Jim, who lives and works in Burney, said she feels Jeffersonians are simply pandering.
“We have Karuk, Hoopa, Susanville and Pit River among the 37 tribes in Northern California. We all have different dances and beliefs. They’re trying to pacify us,” she said. “We said no, you treat us on a government-to-government, face-to-face basis.”
Mark Baird, who agrees many details need to be worked out, nonetheless insists they’ll be successful.
“We are picking up steam in the face of some pretty serious opposition from both political parties.”
Though Jefferson’s two U.S. Senators will likely be Republicans, he says, there’s no real alliance between the political party and secessionists.
“Republicans hate us more than Democrats, because they have literally more to lose,” Baird said.
In fact, three U.S. Representatives will shift from California to the new state, and those seats tend to be held by Republicans, who Baird says often ignore rural Californians.
Despite some 200 attempts to divide California into two or more states even before California entered the Union in 1850, including one effort that was on the verge of succeeding when, it too, was blown up by a war, in this case, the Civil War, these efforts have been derailed by political and legal opposition.
In January, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper—claiming 40 million Californians were not adequately represented either in the state legislature or the United States—collected more than 400,000 valid signatures to split California into three states, qualifying it for the November ballot. Draper also launched failed campaigns to break up California into six states in 2012 and 2014.
Draper’s current bid fizzled when the California Supreme Court unanimously concluded “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.”
 Mark Baird, a rancher and reserve deputy sheriff from Siskiyou County, started to breathe new life into the State of Jefferson separatist movement five years ago.
PHOTO BY STEVE MAGAGNINI
|
Even if voters had approved Draper’s proposition, it couldn’t become reality without Congressional approval—the same obstacle Jefferson faces, assuming it can persuade the California legislature to go along with it. But in the era of Trump, the possibility of giving California—the bluest of blue states—more Republican seats in the Senate and House of Representatives may not be that far-fetched.
Meanwhile, without mentioning the State of Jefferson, Citizens for Fair Representation sued California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, arguing that Californians have the worst proportional representation in the nation—each of the 40 senators represent about 1 million people, while each of the 80 assembly members represent about half a million. California’s 53 U.S. representatives each represent nearly 740,000 people.
The plaintiffs, which include the American Independent Party of California, the Libertarian Party of California, several northern counties, Mark Baird and other Jefferson leaders, have made a fairly strong case that the California Senate and Assembly need to increase their membership “so we can all have access, not just the lobbyists,” Baird wrote in his supporting document.
The plaintiffs sought to get the U.S. Supreme Court to have their case heard by a three-judge panel, but the court rejected their request. They lost that round, but they’re hoping the Sacramento federal judge who handled their case, Kim Mueller, can still be persuaded to let them argue their case in court. If not, they will appeal to the 9th circuit, Mark Baird said.
The Jeffersonians have no quit in them. Over barbecue at the House of Chicken in Antelope, Mark Baird, joined by Steven and Dianna Baird, said California has historically kept the number of state senators low to keep Chinese, African-Americans, Mexicans and other minorities from being represented.
“In 1879 there were six different African-American representatives when the legislature held a Constitutional Convention that led to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act,” Baird explained. He said Californians took up the chant, “The Chinese must go,” leading to deportations that could have been prevented had Chinese communities had the right to elect state representatives. The same thing happened to disenfranchised Mexican immigrants, Baird said. Between 1929 and 1936, the United States launched the Mexican Repatriation program, which deported anywhere from an estimated 400,000 to 2 million Mexican Americans, the majority of them from California.
That “tyranny” continues today, he said, adding that the Jefferson movement embraces people of all races.
Despite its rebel beginnings, Jefferson has attracted an increasingly diverse following.
Lisa Pruitt, a UC Davis law professor specializing in rural and urban differences, said she has seen Jefferson signs in El Dorado, Amador and Calaveras Counties.
“I saw a Jefferson decal on a Prius in Fair Oaks, and on I-80 near Davis,” she said. “It’s all over rural California and creeping into urban California. I’ve seen their stickers on cars in Target parking lots.”
The further north you go, the bigger the signs, Pruitt said.
“There’s a lot of agitation on the part of rural Californians who feel their interests are not being heard or taken seriously in Sacramento,” Pruitt said. “The example is the state gas tax: people in rural areas who drive long distance don’t feel they get anything for their buck.”
Mark Baird argues that there’s a historic precedent for Jefferson: Vermont left New York and New Hampshire in 1791, Kentucky left Virginia in 1792, Maine bolted from Massachusetts in 1820 and West Virginia—which argued that Virginia committed sedition by breaking away from the union to join the confederacy—got its independence in 1863.
Pruitt, however, disagrees.
“It’s not a winning analogy,” she said, adding that West Virginia’s split happened more than 150 years ago.
“People are intrigued by it, but peeling themselves into a separate state would not solve their economic woes, and might make them worse,” she said. “I’m not convinced they would be in a better situation if they got more representatives, rural interests would still be greatly outnumbered by urban interests in Jefferson. Legislators represent people, not cows and trees.”
‘The moment has come’
The struggle ahead didn’t dampen the enthusiasm for Jefferson at the Auburn Home Show last month—the Jefferson booth proved to be one of the most popular destinations.
“We’ve filled up four sheets with about 20 people each today,” said Chris Page, a 55-year-old real estate appraiser from Granite Bay on a recent Saturday afternoon.
“Close to 90 percent said if we don’t regain our property and water rights, lower our taxes and restore our political representation, they will leave California,” said Page, a Republican who owns farmland in El Dorado County.
Jean Colegrove, 64, worked the booth in a pink State of Jefferson hat and a Jefferson T-shirt declaring “Ha Llegado El Momento De Los 51 Estados"—"the moment has come for the 51st State.” Colegrove said one of Jefferson’s strongest Hispanic voices, David Garcia of Valley Springs recently died, but there’s still solid Latino support.
Colegrove, a Libertarian, confessed she lives in Sacramento County, “behind enemy lines,” but said she sees support for Jefferson growing in Citrus Heights, Orangevale and Folsom.
“When Jerry Brown signed the anti-cow farting and manure legislation in October 2016, I said I’ll be leaving the state before I put a contraption on my cow’s butt,” said Colegrove of the state’s plan to curb cow-generated methane to reduce greenhouse gasses.
Stephen Johnson, a retired mechanic and chiropractor from Applegate, was doing a brisk business selling $15 shirts, caps, signs and flags. Some hats proclaimed “Jefferson Militia,” while others featured a gun and the slogan, “Mama Didn’t Raise No Victim.”
“We’re having fun with it,” said Johnson, 74. “Any militia will be done through our county sheriff’s departments. Jefferson’s going to have maybe 50 state agencies, while California has over 500.”
Aleksei Ugachenko, a 17-year-old student from Pioneer High School in Woodland, was intrigued by everything Jefferson has to offer.
“How would Jefferson deal with federally controlled resources and federal funds for schools? They might have to privatize their schools,” he pondered. “Still, I think we should have better representation up north.”
Mark Baird, Jefferson’s leader, agrees. His conversations with everyday people have made it clear that the State of Jefferson’s future holds promise.
“The oligarchy that runs Sacramento doesn’t care what the voters think,” he says. “We have been over-taxed and over-regulated, and more and more people every day are willing to stand up and fight.”
Tags
Who is online
234 visitors
They really don't hide what this is really about do they.
"Here's what Jefferson would look like based on the census records from the 23 counties that have signed on and two others on the fence."
"69% Caucasian"
Might as well have just said "Are you white and feel like you're becoming a minority? Join us in Jefferson where we'll be back in charge!".
And of course the elephant in the room...these counties are a fucking drain on California and can't pay their own way now, how do they expect to fund their own State? And not many want to go spend tourism dollars in towns that remind them of a scene out of Deliverance.
"Critics both inside and out of Jefferson’s boundaries, including Chamber of Commerce officials and park rangers, fear a state made up of California’s poorest counties won’t have the resources to provide quality services—they say the state sends more money back to those counties than it collects from them."
So? The United States - as of the 2010 census - is 72.4% white. Jefferson would be more racially diverse than the country as a whole.
The graphic lists nine characteristics and you can only focus on the one you think makes these people racists so you can feel superior to them.
The fact that the graphic is all about what the State would look like based on race shows the intent of the graphic. The constant rants from "Jeffersonians" about the browning of California, about the growing Hispanic population legal and illegal, the anger they exhibit towards diversity and the urban areas where many minorities live, all goes to prove this graphic was obviously trying to garner support from other like-minded xenophobes. It's their attempt to claim the bottom two thirds of California are gangrenous and need to be amputated to save their white majority. If they ever succeed they'll find the amputated leg thriving while they shrivel up on the bone since their livelihood comes from the part they are trying to cut off, the heart and lungs of California.
Gee, whatever they will do with the 21% hispanic population? Or did you even read that far? Maybe you think they'll all go into concentration camps.
They won't get rid of them. Who else is going to do those labor-intensive, low-paying jobs like picking produce and cleaning toilets?
Considering it's about half the 39.1% Hispanic makeup from the rest of the State it's still a selling point for these xenophobes. Why else put up a graphic spelling out the racial divides? It's pointing to low minorities and high percentage of non-Hispanic whites compared to the rest of California which has just over 40% non-Hispanic white population and 39.1% Hispanic population according to the 2010 census. That's what this graphic is selling to xenophobes, a difference between being nearly tied with Hispanics versus making their own State where they are again the majority with nearly 70% non-Hispanic whites to Hispanics 21%.
"Maybe you think they'll all go into concentration camps."
More likely to just be discriminated against, spit upon and abused by the xenophobes who unjustly blame them for all their problems. And with the majority firmly back in non-Hispanic white hands they believe they'll be able to defend their discrimination and prejudice. Of course it's always disguised by claims of reverse racism, violations of their supposed religious freedoms, or blaming illegal immigrants for all their problems and taking out their anger on anyone they suspect of having Mexican heritage.
The article wasn't 'written by' N&R. N&R publishers is a PR company that publishes promotional pieces. It's an 'entertainment' rag.
Oh, You tell us..
"Here's what Jefferson would look like based on the census records from the 23 counties that have signed on and two others on the fence."
"69% Caucasian"
Oh, So you are looking at race!!! What a shock! As opposed to what? All the illegals living in the state?
And of course the elephant in the room...these counties are a fucking drain on California and can't pay their own way now, how do they expect to fund their own State? And not many want to go spend tourism dollars in towns that remind them of a scene out of Deliverance.
A drain on the state? I'll tell you what a drain on the state is: 1) taxing the middle class away 2) Spending $23 Billion on illegal aliens. I have an old friend who lives ion San Fransisco. He tells me there are homeless tents under & along highways. He also told me it was a running joke about homeless people being paid $10 each to go in and vote the democratic ticket. All this from an area of the country where an illegal immigrant was cleared from the murder of Kate Steinle despite admitting it. A state who's officials stand in defiance of the Constitution of the United States and are most likely violating election laws.
" A lawsuit brought by forth by the watchdog group Judicial Watch is forcing Los Angeles County to excise an estimated 1.5 million inactive voters from its voter rolls, and the state of California must update its voter registration rules so it complies with federal law."
Actually if you look at the counties surrounding Shasta, they are all in the very high 80's or very low 90% range.
Now, being California, it's not surprising to to find a few of the counties who are actually listed as 69% to 72% have up to 12% who chose "other", refusing to identify with any of the dozen options for race.
So, the area is much, much whiter than 69%
Why the heck would you say, take the graphic and add in Stanislaus County, which is 76.4% white? Averaging 76.4% into the equation will raise the White number.
Sorry, to disagree, but the farther north you travel in the state, the whiter it gets. Been there, done that, have the tee shirts,
and like I said, it IS typical of California to allow people to arbitrarily choose "other" which skews the data by more than 12% for several counties.
When you can get people to meeting or a protest, with or without raffling off booze and guns, they are predominately older white people.
Maybe a few of these Counties should consider merging if times are that tough.
I mean, like Trinity County has less than 13,000 people, Alpine, about 1,200, Modoc 8,000, Sierra 3,000.
Statistics? Lies, more lies, and damnable lies...
Only 2 of those counties have voted to join Jefferson Xx. Why are you citing the other counties.
Parts I find hilarious from the article.
Democratic BS for we have no law to base the denial on; so we are making something up.
What she really is saying.
"I understand their frustration; but we don't really give a shit. We have the system rigged to make sure they are underrepresented."
"I have nothing to prove they get more money for anything; but it is the standard Democrat response whenever anyone questions where their tax payer money is going. So I am sticking with it."
Forgetting that people actually own those cows and trees and want to actually be represented by someone that will protect their interests. Something the current Californian government has not interest in. "Shut up, pay your taxes, and we will gift you whatever we feel you deserve to maintain your roads, schools, and utilities. Don't think for a second you will get back what you put in. We have our constituents that keep us in power to placate. Also any laws we pass are for your own good, since you don't know what is good for you."
The state of Jefferson will never be formed; but it is funny watching Democrats defend not representing people (under representation is what they like to call it) . I hope the rebels keep it up if only for the entertainment value.
The jefferson supporters weren't supporting that initiative anyway because the map of jefferson included San Francisco. It's not about representation in the legislature. Representation in the legislature is based upon population. They have the same as everybody else in CA. It's about carving a tiny new red state and seating 2 conservative US senators. jefferson is nothing but the gerrymandering of state lines. This is a bubble dream. Seems like a great idea from inside the bubble but bubbles have a way of distorting reality.
So it is OK to keep them under represented and under the Democratic gerrymandered thumb? Will have to remember that next time someone posts any article about Republicans repressing Democrats by gerrymandering.
As for their legal block garbage. They based that off of zero laws on the book. Would it have won support, probably not- but not letting get to a vote is inexcusable. More legislating from the bench.
In case you didn't read the article they are already suing the Secretary of State for under representation; but chances are that will be blocked as well given CA overly liberal judges.
No, it is about "shut up and pay your taxes. We will tell you what laws are good for you." Also keeping as many conservatives as possible under Democratic rule. As for tiny, not according the map that is provided. Or do you mean by population? That doesn't matter either. Congress (not the Senate) is based on population. If we can have small population states like Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming with less than a million people then Jefferson can be a state as well.
I agree it is a dream; but anything the rebels do that point out the Democrats hypocrisy is worth it.
They are represented based on population, just like everyone else in CA.
CA doesn't draw their districts via the legislature, it's done by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.
FAIL.
But Xx didn't support THAT initiative.
Repeating stupid doesn't make it smart. They want an outsized political voice that isn't supported by their population.
That suit you're talking about was laughed out of court last year. It was written be a legal neophyte and contained more whining than legal citations. It was like reading a Trump speech.
LAND MASS doesn't qualify for representation.
So every other American is represented based on population but ONLY in the 'State of Jefferson' population doesn't matter? The REASON Xx and his Jeffersons didn't like the Cal 3 thingy was that it the Northern area wouldn't be religiously regressive enough and out of the 6 total Senators, the 2 from the North wouldn't be RW.
Legislative districts are drawn by population. They have the same legislative representation as any other districts in the state. By tiny I meant by population. It would be the smallest state by population.
Sooooo,,, you realize it is a stupid idea and you're only doing it to piss democrats off? Insanity!
“Close to 90 percent said if we don’t regain our property and water rights, lower our taxes and restore our political representation, they will leave California,” said Page, a Republican who owns farmland in El Dorado County.
I say good riddance, California is already over populated. If more people leave property value might stabilize and allow people who actually like living there an opportunity to get in on the cheap.
I don't know if it's a good idea for the people of Jefferson, but shouldn't that be their concern? The economic viability of the area isn't really the concern of people who aren't going to be living there. Places like New Mexico and Louisiana have lots of poverty but we don't have referendums to decide if they should remain states.
This shouldn't surprise us though, considering we're talking about California. The compulsion to make judgments like that for other people has been a feature of progressivism from its earliest days.
I also don't know if it would ultimately be a good deal for what remains of California, but I do believe that the matter should be seriously considered and with humble respect for the wishes of the people who are talking about leaving.
This is just such utter bullshit. Instead of living in a fantasy, either go to a state that fits your requirements or quitcherbitchen. California will NEVER split. NEVER. Texas might be a good fit.
You mean like immigrants who think borders and language don't matter? Should we tell them to go back to their home country?
I don't care enough to help you out of the fantasy. Continue.
I'm guessing you missed the demographics of that region?
I don't see how that has anything to do with whether or not these people should have the liberty to chart their own course in the land where they already live.
Is race seriously all you people think about?
They have the exact same opportunity to 'chart their own course' as you and I do.
Since race isn't the ONLY demographic, perhaps you are the one thinking about it...
You think demographics are just about race? "Why must all you people always so defensive about race?"
Touche'
It's the only demographic I have seen leftists talking about here, but I would be happily surprised to be wrong. Which demo were you referring to then if not race?
Apparently you missed the "69% Caucasian" cracks. It's ok. I admit I don't always read the whole thread either.
You can assume that if it makes you feel better.
Perhaps the same one you were refereeing to when you mentioned immigrants.
Perhaps? You mean to say you don't know what you were talking about?
Ya know what? That actually explains a lot.
It wasn't an assumption. It was a logical inference based on the information available. Considering your vague, evasive response, I'd say you just confirmed it.
So, the only thing available to you is race when none was mentioned?
You just keep making it clear that I wasn't wrong.
Keep telling yourself that.
This is what I'm hearing...
"We're tired of being the dependent child of California, we want our independence so we can be the dependent child of the US Government"
That's just what we need, another Red State to suck taxpayer money nationwide. Another Republican debtor state that will never straighten out their books.
Exactly. Red States constantly scream and yell about having to pitch in to the Federal government in any way and claim they believe everyone should pay their own way and pull themselves up by their bootstraps as it were, but a few hours into a big storm and they're all crying about the Federal government not giving them more aid or giving it fast enough. They bitch and moan about Democrats or those in blue States on welfare or other federal entitlement programs, yet red State conservatives are actually slightly more likely (+4%) to use those benefits than liberals, yet still they claim it's the liberals who want all the "free stuff".
"the survey finds virtually no difference in the share of conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) or political moderates (53%) who have been assisted by at least one entitlement program ."
No one is going to give a region of crackpots their own state. There are enough right wing extremists in Congress already without adding more.
Your own seeds and comments are a perfect reason why it will never happen.
Whatever slim chance you had passed away Democrats began to retake governorships and statehouses in the last election.
There are not enough red states to ratify statehood for Jefferson into existence.
I think we should make Cook County a state and we can stop having the leeches from downstate getting benefit of our tax base.
I just had a chilling thought about Waco, Tx.
Not really. But I didn't expect a reply much in terms of depth either.
Funny, the British had a lot of the same feelings about their colonies in America...
First thing I noticed on that poster was the "69.1%" white population.
"69.1%" white, [deleted]
I could see some pro-Jeffersonian T-shirts that could say:
"69.1% white, removed for context
They would match the "Proud Deplorable" T-shirts I've seen them wear.
I'll let the ONE person who commented on the seeded article @ the source tell it like it is:
Information long forgotten. When this 'Jefferson Succession' was first announced, the trail led back to the FSB in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Democracies are being undermined all over the world. The best tactic to achieve this is to use the populations against each other.
No. And no to that too.
In other words Hans is pissed off about not being born into a Caucasian royal family during the Middle Ages.
California's Department of Finance says the CA portion of the State of Jefferson receives about $20 million more from the state than it provides. Proponents of secession say that secession would create new opportunities and funding. (How? It takes money to make money, the state has to be willing and able to invest in these new industries, which it would not be able to)
I gave up on Stalinist Kalifornia and fled that cesspool of totalitarianism like many of my friends
its such a welcome change to now live where open carry is welcomed in stores, where there immorality of the left is universally repulsed, where gas prices just across the the state line from Kalifornia are 30% lower. Where farmers and ranchers are still respected and appreciated. Where there isn’t a Starbucks on every corner and churches are still centers of influence and respected
You probably "fled" because you couldn't afford to retire in Cali.
ou probably "fled" because you couldn't afford to retire in Cali.
Are you trying to make his case for him?
If a state costs too much for it's residents to retire in, it seems like a failed state to me.
If I were in a red state and left cause I couldn't afford to retire there would you be singing the same tune ? No, you'd say it was my fault for not saving enough.
I left because I despise the radical leftist ideology of the state.
as I said I now live in a state that rightfully allows open firearms carry without any licensing or registration
a state that doesn’t lead the nation in welfare and food stamp recipients
a state that doesn’t give illegals free medical care, drivers licenses, and discounted college education over US citizens
a state that isnt run by the extremist environmentalists
There aren't any because those states are not destinations. Supply and demand, xx, supply and demand.
There a lot of other places in CA then the ones you named that you can afford to retire in if you choose. Your property tax depends on when you purchased the home and the price paid. I have two properties in CA. one urban elite enclave of Huntington Beach and the property tax is $2500 year. It was purchased in 1983. The other is a ranch in Siskiyou county. Right up there in the mythical kingdom of Jeffrerson...LOL...You have not been able to get this Jefferson nonsense on the ballot in 5 years and there are a very large number of people there that have no intention or wish to become part of the mythical kingdom.
So I'm fairly familiar with the state and what areas are high rent and those that are not. Also how property tax works in the state.
So you consider it 'Stalinist' totalitarianism to have restrictions on firearms, strong welfare, sanctuary cities, liberal benefits to illegals and strong environmentalism?
Do you just toss labels about regardless of meaning? After all, Stalinist totalitarian rule involved a brutal dictatorship murdering millions of people, controlling the economy into poverty for all (except officials of the state) and basically a horrid standard of living for everyone. To compare that to American contemporary liberalism (even when it is extreme) makes absolutely no sense.
It is not Stalinism you see, it is s t a t i s m with a liberal agenda. (And California is not Marxist, facist, socialist, communist, ... either.)
Many thumbs up !!
Describe to all of us how California is totalitarian. First look up the meaning of the word.
Describe to all of us how California is a Stalinist state. First review what Stalinism was - take close note of the brutal murder of political opponents (and suspected opponents) by the millions. Take note of the centrally planned economy and the exploitation and oppression of the people to benefit party officials.
You will need to buy more than one vowel.
Stealing...
Given freely to those, like you, who know how to use it.
You shouldn't be surprised when that Stalinist totalitarian state starts putting the mythical Jeffersonians into the gulags that they are building in the lava fields in NE CA...
It is disgusting that some diminish the horrors of the Stalinist USSR by equating it with the state of California.
Oh, please, provide us links for this accusation.
perhaps it's because A - it never happened
or B
the National park Service runs it as an educational program acknowledging the shameful racism that was practiced during WWII.
( instead of bulldozing and erasing it as if it never happened, like some other countries have tried to do )
But please, put on your MAGA hat and tell us about almost being interned at The Tule Lake Unit, WWII Valor in the Pacific National Monument.
At least you could spell Tule Lake correctly.
The ignorance of your of your statements regarding Stalinist/totalitarian/fascist is symptomatic of the entire Jefferson movement.
You're aware that Earl Warren (republican) was a strong advocate of Japanese interment as AG of CA and the as Governor of California. Learn your history XX.