California Proposition 9, Three States Initiative (2018)
| California Proposition 9: Three States Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Statehood | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 9, the Three States Initiative or Cal 3 Initiative, was not on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. The California Supreme Court ordered Proposition 9 to be removed from the ballot in Planning and Conservation League v. Padilla.[1]
Proposition 9 would have tasked the state government with petitioning Congress to divide the state of California into three states: California, Northern California, and Southern California.[1]
Removed from ballot
On July 18, 2018, the California Supreme Court removed Proposition 9 from the general election ballot on November 6, 2018. The unanimous order stated that Proposition 9 was removed "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.[2] Questions about the initiative's constitutionality were brought before the court in Planning and Conservation League v. Padilla.[3]
Planning and Conservation League v. Padilla
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 9 violate the California State Constitution's prohibition on ballot initiatives making major change to the state's constitutional framework? | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Removed from the ballot pending a formal ruling; Draper dropped his defense of the ballot measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Planning and Conservation League | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Tim Draper |
| Plaintiff argument: The Planning and Conservation League stated that Proposition 9 would make "sweeping changes in [the] state’s basic constitutional framework," which is a misuse of the ballot initiative process in California. | Defendant argument: Tim Draper said Proposition 9 would not be a constitutional revision, but rather a nullification of the California Constitution. |
Source: The Mercury News
The Planning and Conservation League (PCL), a Sacramento-based nonprofit environmental organization, filed a lawsuit in the California Supreme Court to remove California Proposition 9, the Three States Initiative from the ballot. The PLC’s lawsuit claimed, “Proposition 9, which would make sweeping changes in our state’s basic constitutional framework, constitutes a patent misuse of California’s initiative process.”[4][5]
The lawsuit focused on the question of whether Proposition 9 would make a major change to the state's constitutional framework.[4] Article 18 of the California Constitution says that ballot initiatives can amend the state constitution; however, constitutional revisions require a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber or a vote of delegates at a constitutional convention and voter approval. The California Supreme Court has defined constitutional revisions as changes that alter the basic governmental framework and concluded that initiatives cannot make revisions.[6]
On July 12, 2018, Citizens for Cal 3 responded to the litigation, saying, "This lawsuit is just another example of how Sacramento politicians, powerful unions and their high-priced lobbyists are trying to hold onto power at the expense of California voters."[7] Tim Draper, who proposed the ballot initiative, said, "the result [of Proposition 9] would be nullification of the California Constitution, not its ‘revision." He added, "[Proposition 9] will not be a ‘revision’ of the old Constitution any more than the current state Constitution is a revision of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo."[8]
On July 18, 2018, the state Supreme Court agreed to take up the case and removed Proposition 9 from the ballot pending the case's resolution and legal questions about the initiative's constitutionality.[9]
On August 2, 2018, Draper wrote a letter to the court, which said, “I wanted it to be on the ballot this year. The political environment for radical change is right now. The removal of Proposition 9 from the November ballot has effectively put an end to this movement.”[10]
Overview
How would the state of California be divided into three states?
Proposition 9 proposed dividing California into three states: California, Northern California, and Southern California. The people of each state would have been allowed to choose a different name for their state. The following map illustrates how the existing state of California's counties would have been divided into three states:[1]
How would dividing the state impact federal elections?
Partitioning California into three states would have increased the size of the U.S. Senate from 100 to 104 members and divided the state's 55 (as of 2018) electoral votes between three states. The new states of California and Northern California would have been considered safe Democratic states, based on 2016 voting trends, whereas Southern California would have been considered competitive between Democrats and Republicans, according to Geoffrey Skelley of Sabato's Crystal Ball. Skelley said, "Splitting California into thirds would put about one-third of the state’s electoral votes in play for the GOP, while the additional Senate seats might benefit the Democrats."[11]
In 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton defeated Republican Donald Trump for president in California. Trump won the presidential election nationwide. Clinton received 61.73 percent of the vote in California, while Trump received 31.62 percent. If California was divided into the three states proposed by Proposition 9 in 2016, Clinton would have won all three of the states. Clinton's total vote in the new state of Southern California, however, would have been her smallest among the three states at 51.57 percent. In 2012, Barack Obama's margin over Republican Mitt Romney in the new state of Southern California would have been just 0.63 percentage points.
| California Three States Initiative (Proposed) |
|---|
Could a ballot initiative divide California?
The ballot initiative could not order the federal government to partition California into three states. Section 3 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution requires the consent of the California State Legislature and the U.S. Congress to divide California. The initiative itself stated that the initiative fulfills the role of the legislature.[1] Vikram David Amar, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, argued that in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a ballot initiative could possibly fulfill the role of a state legislature; however, he noted that there would likely be lawsuits to determine the meaning of state legislature in Article IV, Section 3. A state ballot initiative, on the other hand, could not fulfill the role of the U.S. Congress.[12] Tim Draper, who developed the initiative, acknowledged this, stating, "To be clear: The vote this November is just the first step toward greatness... From there, we will need the U.S. Congress to approve our right to be three."[13] The initiative would have tasked the governor with asking Congress to divide the state of California into three states.[1]
California would not have been the first state to be divided. Kentucky was formed out of Virginia in 1792, Maine out of Massachusetts in 1820, and West Virginia out of Virginia in 1863.[14] Proposition 9 would have made California the first state to be divided into three states at one time and the only state where a ballot initiative started the partitioning process.
Who was behind this ballot initiative?
Tim Draper, a venture capitalist and cryptocurrency investor, proposed the ballot initiative.[15] Draper first proposed breaking the state into multiple states in 2013. He called his first plan Six Californias, which, as the name suggests, would have divided the state into six states. Draper contributed $5.27 million to the campaign, which collected 752,685 valid signatures for the initiative—about 55,000 short of the 807,615 required. With Draper’s proposal to divide California into three states, he needed to collect less than half of the number of valid signatures that he collected for Six Californias. Draper contributed $3.25 million to the effort behind Proposition 9.[16]
Draper said the goal of his partitioning initiative was to "create three state governments that emphasize representation, responsiveness, reliability and regional identity."[17] He explained his motivation, stating:[18]
| “ | There's a monopoly government in California, and I’m a start-up guy. When there’s a monopoly industry or an oligopoly industry where the service is bad and the price is high, I look at that as an opportunity for an entrepreneur or somebody to come in and create a better service at a lower cost.[19] | ” |
Steve Maviglio, a consultant who was part of a committee to fight Six Californias, said that he opposed Draper's three-state initiative, saying, "This just goes to show that a billionaire with a wacky idea can get about anything on the ballot."[20] Responding to arguments that voters would reject the initiative, Draper contended that California's nature is to dream big.[21]
How close did California come to dividing in the past?
"[M]ore than 200 times since the state was formed, would-be separatists have pushed to bisect or trisect the state," said Vicki Haddock, an editor of CalMatters. Haddock added, "Many of those attempts were windmill-tilting publicity stunts, but others came closer to prevailing than you might imagine.” The closest the state had come to partitioning into multiple states was in 1859. State Asm. Andres Pico introduced legislation to divide the state at the 36th parallel north into two states. The 36th parallel north was the northern border of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernardino counties in 2018. Asm. Pico's legislation passed both state legislative chambers and received the governor’s signature. However, the secession events that led to the Civil War began in 1860 and the federal government never addressed California’s request.[22][23]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[24]
| “ | Division of California into Three States. Initiative Statute.[19] | ” |
Petition summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[24]
| “ | Divides California into three states subject to approval by Congress. Assigns each county to a new state. Upon passage, directs Governor to request that Congress grant approval within twelve months. If Congress approves, directs Legislature to divide California’s assets and liabilities between the new states. Provides that, if Legislature fails to act within twelve months of Congressional approval, debts shall be distributed among new states based on population relative to California population as a whole, and assets within boundaries of each new state shall become the assets of that new state.[19] | ” |
Fiscal impact
- Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is prepared by the state's legislative analyst and director of finance.
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[24]
| “ | Assuming this measure is approved by voters and the federal government and allowed by the courts, all tax collections and spending by the existing State of California would end. California’s existing state assets and liabilities would be divided among three new states. These states would make their own decisions about state and local taxes and spending.[19] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the measure was as follows:[1]
A. California is the nation's most populous state, nearly six times larger than the average population of the fifty states. However, much of the state's population is concentrated in certain urban and coastal areas, particularly in Southern California. B. California is the nation's third largest state by geography, over two times larger than the average of the fifty states, with enormous and diverse economies, including agriculture, energy, technology, and entertainment. C. As a consequence of these and other socio-economic factors, political representation of California's diverse population and economies has rendered the state nearly ungovernable. Additionally, vast parts of California are poorly served by a representative government dominated by a large number of elected representatives from a small part of our state, both geographically and economically. D. It is not surprising that efforts to divide the state have been part of its history for over one hundred years. In fact, voters overwhelmingly approved the splitting of California into two states in 1859, but Congress never acted on that request due to the Civil War. E. The citizens of the whole state would be better served by three smaller state governments while preserving the historical boundaries of the various counties, cities, and towns. SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE A. The people, acting as the legislative body of the State of California pursuant to their reserved legislative power provided by the California Constitution, hereby:
SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE CONSENT FOR THE CREATION OF THREE NEW STATES WITHIN THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES OF CALIFORNIA. Article 3.1 of Chapter 1 of Division 1 of Title 1 (commencing with Section 173) of the Government Code is added to read: §173(a) Upon enactment of this section, the legislative consent required by Section 3 of Article IV of the United States Constitution for the creation of three (3) states within the current boundaries of the State of California, as provided by Article 3 of Chapter 1 of Division 1 of Title 1, is given by the people. (b) The boundaries of the three (3) new states shall be as follows:
(c) On January 1, 2019, the Governor shall transmit a copy of the certified election results enacting this Article to Congress, with a request that Congress act upon the consent of the people within twelve (12) months. §174(a) Upon enactment of this section the California State Legislature shall provide for the division and transformation of California. If the State Legislature fails to reach resolution of such matters within twelve (12) months of congressional assent to the division of the state, the debts of the State of California shall be distributed among the newly created states based on the population of the new states proportionately to the whole population of California at the time of Congressional action, and the assets within the boundaries of each newly created state shall become the assets of that new state. (b) The legal relationship between the counties and the State of California shall continue until the organization and establishment of a separate government in a newly created state, including the adoption of a Constitution by convention or popular vote within each newly created state. SECTION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS (a) If any provision of this Act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. (b) This Act is intended to be comprehensive. It is the intent of the People that in the event this Act and measures relating to the same subject shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this Act. In the event that this Act receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Act shall prevail in their entirety, and all provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void. |
Support
Citizens for Cal3 led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Tim Draper, a venture capitalist, developed the measure.[25]
Supporters
- Asm. Joel Anderson (R-38)[26]
Arguments
- The Citizens for Cal3 website stated, "It will simply divide the state into smaller, more manageable populations. Think of North Carolina and South Carolina; North Dakota and South Dakota; West Virginia and Virginia -- California is already known for its Northern and Southern identities."[27]
- Tim Draper, the initiative's sponsor, said, "People know the state provides the worst education and the highest taxes and that it’s not doing anything to make it better. Three new states could become models not only for the rest of the country but for the entire world. ... The closer you get to government, the better it’s going to be. When you have all the power delegated to someone very distant, it creates a problem."[28]
- Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, did not state his position on the ballot initiative. However, he argued that interjurisdictional competition between multiple states would have positive effects. He said, "Because California is extremely large and controls most of the warm-weather coastal territory on the West Coast, people have been willing to put up with a lot of bad policies for the opportunity to live there. Competitive pressure on the state government would be much greater if there were three or four states occupying California's present territory instead of one."[29]
- Asm. Joel Anderson (R-38) said that he planned to vote for the initiative. He stated, "There is no greater insult to the one-party rule in California. It’s a barometer of the potential unhappiness of the state."[26]
Opposition
OneCalifornia, also known as No on Proposition 9, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 9.[16]
Opponents
Officials
- Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), 2018 gubernatorial candidate[26]
- Businessman John Cox (R), 2018 gubernatorial candidate[30]
Former officials
- Asm. Fabian Nunez (D-46)[31]
Parties
Organizations
- California Chamber of Commerce[33]
Arguments
- Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who was a candidate for governor in 2018, stated, "California’s success is in being a cohesive state, particularly in a time of Trump and Trumpism. And now we’re the fifth-largest economy in the world — why would we cede that?"[26]
- Businessman John Cox (R), who was a candidate for governor in 2018, said, "Tim Draper has alerted people to the mismanagement of the state, which I agree with him on, but I don’t think that’s the answer."[30]
- Steven Maviglio, a Democratic political consultant, said, "This just goes to show that a billionaire with a wacky idea can get about anything on the ballot. This doesn’t solve a single problem in the state or add a single job."[28]
- Eric Bauman, chair of the California Democratic Party, stated, "There have been repeated attempts to break up California, and the voters have said over and over and over again that we aren’t interested in doing that. It’s going to be more money flushed down the toilet. Only one guy is behind it, and everyone is against it."[26]
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $3,253,761.39 |
| Opposition: | $10,000.00 |
There was one ballot measure committee registered in support of Proposition 9—Citizens for Cal3. Tim Draper, who developed the ballot initiative, also provided in-kind contributions to the campaign independent of the committee. Between Citizens for Cal3 and Draper's independent spending, the support campaign had raised $3.25 million and spent $2.94 million.[16]
There was one committee registered to oppose to Proposition 9—No on Proposition 9, OneCalifornia. The committee had raised $10,000 from Fabian Nunez's (D) campaign committee.[16]
Support
The contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of Proposition 9 were as follows:[16]
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Donors
The following was the top donor who contributed to the support committee:[16]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timothy Draper | $1,220,000.00 | $2,030,790.39 | $3,250,790.39 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to Proposition 9:[16]
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Donors
The following was the top donor who contributed to the opposition committee:[16]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fabian Nunez for Treasurer 2018 | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
Polls
- See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
| California Three States Initiative (2018) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| SurveyUSA 6/26/2018 - 6/27/2018 | 13.0% | 75.0% | 12.0% | +/-3.6 | 916 | ||||||||||||||
| SurveyUSA 4/19/2018 - 4/23/2018 | 17.0% | 72.0% | 10.0% | +/-3.6 | 916 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 15% | 73.5% | 11% | +/-3.6 | 916 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Background
Six Californias
- See also: Six Californias Initiative (2016)
Timothy C. Draper, a venture capitalist and the initiative’s sponsor, first proposed breaking the state into multiple states in 2013. He called his first plan Six Californias, which, as the name suggests, would have divided the state into six states. Draper contributed $5.27 million to the campaign, which collected 752,685 valid signatures for the initiative—about 55,000 short of the 807,615 required. With Draper’s proposal to divide California into three states, he needed to collect less than half of the number of valid signatures that he collected for Six Californias.
Brief history of proposals to divide California
In 1850, California was admitted as the 31st state of the United States. Since 1850, "more than 200 times since the state was formed, would-be separatists have pushed to bisect or trisect the state," said Vicki Haddock, an editor of CalMatters. Haddock added, "Many of those attempts were windmill-tilting publicity stunts, but others came closer to prevailing than you might imagine."[22]
In 1851, delegates from southern California met to discuss separation from the north, stating that "whatever good the experiment of a state government may have otherwise led to in California, for us, the southern counties, it has proved only a splendid failure." In 1855, the California State Assembly approved a plan to divide the state into three states. However, the state Senate did not pass the plan.[22]
The closest that California came to partitioning into multiple states was in 1859. State Asm. Andres Pico, a Democrat from the Los Angeles area, proposed legislation to divide the state at the 36th parallel north into a northern state of California and a southern state of Colorado (this was before the current state of Colorado existed). The legislation passed both chambers of the state legislature and was signed by Gov. John B. Weller (D). Voters in the proposed state of Colorado also approved a ballot measure calling for the state.[23] U.S. Sen. Milton Latham (D) advocated for the U.S. Congress to take action to divide the state. The secession events that began in 1860 and led to the U.S. Civil War in 1861 resulted in the proposal being tabled, with the federal government never addressing the proposal.[22]
Since at least 1941, the far-northern region of California and far-southern region of Oregon had been proposed as a separate state named Jefferson. According to the Los Angeles Times, the start of World War II stymied the movement to create Jefferson.[34] In the 2010s, voters in a few northern California counties voted on non-binding measures on forming Jefferson. Voters rejected the measures in Lassen County, Del Norte County, and Siskiyou County. Voters in Tehama County approved a measure.
In 1965, the state Senate voted to divide the state into two states at the Tehachapi Mountains. In 1992, the state Assembly voted to divide the state into three states. Neither bill was passed in both chambers of the state legislature.[23]
Presidential elections
In 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton defeated Republican Donald Trump for president in California, receiving the state's 55 electoral votes. Trump won the presidential election nationwide. Clinton received 61.73 percent of the vote in California, while Trump received 31.62 percent. After Washington, D.C. and Hawaii, California provided Clinton with her highest vote margin. If California was divided into the three states proposed by the Three States Initiative in 2016, Clinton would have won all three of the states. In California, which would include Los Angeles, Clinton would have received 69.00 percent to Trump's 24.86 percent. In Nothern California, which would contain San Francisco, Clinton would have received 64.91 percent to Trump's 27.94 percent. In Southern California, Clinton would have defeated Trump by almost 10 percentage points; however, Clinton's total vote would have been her smallest among the three states, receiving 51.57 percent.
In 2012, incumbent President Barack Obama defeated Republican Mitt Romney in California and nationwide. President Obama received 60.34 percent of the vote in the existing state of California, and Mitt Romney received 37.18 percent of the vote. Under the proposal to divide California into three states, President Obama would have won each of the three states. His margin in Southern California, however, would have been just 0.63 percentage points above Mitt Romney. In the new state of California, Obama would have received 66.95 percent of the vote. In Northern California, Obama would have received 65.03 percent of the vote.
| Presidential elections in the three states of California, 1976-2016 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidates | (New) California | Northern California | Southern California | ||||||
| Election | Democrat | Republican | Democrat | Republican | Democrat | Republican | Democrat | Republican | |
| 2016 | Clinton | Trump | 69.00% | 24.86% | 64.91% | 27.94% | 51.57% | 41.86% | |
| 2012 | Obama | Romney | 66.95% | 30.53% | 65.03% | 32.69% | 49.13% | 48.50% | |
| 2008 | Obama | McCain | 67.01% | 30.99% | 65.56% | 32.35% | 50.11% | 47.89% | |
| 2004 | Kerry | Bush | 59.51% | 37.35% | 59.26% | 38.21% | 41.20% | 48.80% | |
| 2000 | Gore | Bush | 60.38% | 35.17% | 56.25% | 37.78% | 43.23% | 52.72% | |
| 1996 | Clinton | Dole | 56.56% | 33.32% | 54.32% | 34.29% | 41.76% | 47.85% | |
| 1992 | Clinton | Bush | 52.54% | 29.04% | 50.63% | 28.99% | 36.13% | 39.60% | |
| 1988 | Dukakis | Bush | 50.11% | 48.65% | 53.59% | 44.88% | 37.14% | 61.58% | |
| 1984 | Mondale | Reagan | 42.66% | 56.19% | 47.26% | 51.39% | 31.81% | 67.07% | |
| 1980 | Carter | Reagan | 38.62% | 51.28% | 39.19% | 46.92% | 28.42% | 61.94% | |
| 1976 | Carter | Ford | 49.05% | 48.36% | 50.15% | 45.84% | 42.00% | 55.52% | |
| Sources: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections and California Secretary of State | |||||||||
Basic information on three states
The largest of the three states, in terms of square miles, would have been Southern California.[35] Southern California would have also been the largest population and the second highest population growth rate (2010–2017). California, which would have included Los Angeles, would have had the highest population growth rate at 7.4 percent.[36]
| Basic information on the three states of California | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Data | California | Northern California | Southern California |
| Area (sq mi)[35] | 16,659 sq mi | 67,198 sq mi | 72,290 sq mi |
| Population (2017)[36] | 12,247,502 | 13,311,514 | 13,977,637 |
| Population Growth (2010–2017)[36] | 3.74% | 7.40% | 7.08% |
Voter registration in the three states
Counties reported voter registration data to the state on May 21, 2018. Combining data across counties in the new states of California shows that the new state of California would have had the highest rate of voter registration (81.7 percent), the highest percentage of Democrats as a percentage of total registered voters (49.7 percent), and the lowest percentage of registered Republicans (19.7 percent). The new state of Southern California would have had the highest percentage of registered Republicans (33.2 percent).[37]
| Voter registration in the three states of California | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Data | California | Northern California | Southern California |
| Voter Registration (May 2018)[37] | 81.68% | 75.02% | 71.31% |
| Democrats (May 2018)[37] | 49.68% | 46.78% | 36.55% |
| Republicans (May 2018)[37] | 19.69% | 22.48% | 33.16% |
| Independents/Others (May 2018)[37] | 30.64% | 30.74% | 30.29% |
Socioeconomics of the three states
Using the U.S. Census Bureau's data on socioeconomic variables for California's counties, the new state of Northern California would have had the highest percentage of bachelor's degrees among persons who are 25 or older (37.2 percent), the highest mean household income ($101,202), the highest per capita income ($37,067), the lowest rate of unemployment (5.3 percent), and the lowest poverty rate (13.4 percent).[36]
| Socioeconomics in the three states of California | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Data | California | Northern California | Southern California |
| Education: Bachelor's Degree (2016)[36] | 30.72% | 37.15% | 27.97% |
| Income: Mean Household (2016)[36] | $86,915 | $101,202 | $83,438 |
| Income: Per Capita (2016)[36] | $29,660 | $37,067 | $27,732 |
| Unemployment Rate (2016)[36] | 5.52% | 5.27% | 5.73% |
| Poverty Rate (2016)[36] | 17.54% | 13.37% | 17.14% |
Demographics of the three states
The populations of the states of California and Southern California would have been over 40 percent Hispanic/Latino, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Southern California would have also had the largest population of individuals who identified as white of the three states. Northern California would have had the largest population of individuals who identified as Asian of the three states.[36]
| Sex, race, and ethnicity in the three states of California | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Data | California | Northern California | Southern California |
| Sex: Male (2016)[36] | 49.42% | 49.60% | 49.97% |
| Sex: Female (2016)[36] | 50.58% | 50.40% | 50.03% |
| Race: White (2016)[36] | 56.72% | 60.15% | 66.36% |
| Race: Black (2016)[36] | 7.21% | 5.60% | 4.88% |
| Race: American Indian/Alaska Native (2016)[36] | 0.65% | 0.77% | 0.79% |
| Race: Asian (2016)[36] | 12.82% | 18.38% | 10.48% |
| Race: Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (2016)[36] | 0.26% | 0.59% | 0.32% |
| Ethnicity: Hispanic/Latino (2016)[36] | 47.51% | 24.97% | 43.31% |
Path to the ballot
Process in California
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.
The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2018 ballot:
- Signatures: 365,880 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 28, 2018. However, the secretary of state suggested deadlines for turning in signatures of March 7, 2018, for initiatives needing a full check of signatures and April 24, 2018, for initiatives needing a random sample of signatures verified.
Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.
Initiative #17-0018
On August 18, 2017, Tim Draper submitted a letter requesting a title and summary for the initiative. The attorney general's office issued ballot language on October 24, 2017, allowing proponents to begin collecting signatures. On December 21, 2017, the campaign reported collecting at least 25 percent of the required signatures. Proponents had until April 23, 2018, to file 365,880 valid signatures for the initiative to make the ballot.[38]
Tim Draper announced that more than 600,000 signatures had been collected as of April 11, 2018, and that signatures would be filed the following week. He said, "This is an unprecedented show of support on behalf of every corner of California to create three state governments that emphasize representation, responsiveness, reliability and regional identity."[39] Counties had until June 13, 2018, to complete a random sample of the filed signatures.
On June 12, 2018, the secretary of state's office reported that the initiative was eligible to appear on the ballot for November 6, 2018. The random sample of filed signatures estimated that 463,328 were valid. As 605,025 were filed, around 76.6 percent of signatures were valid.
Compared to the 15 ballot initiatives certified for the ballot in California in 2016, a 76.6 percent validation requirement was about 15 percentage points above the average for an initiative to make the ballot. The 15 ballot initiatives from 2016 had an average validation requirement of 61.9 percent, with a range between 58.1 and 67.4 percent.
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in California
Poll times
All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[40]
Registration requirements
- Check your voter registration status here.
To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.[41]
Automatic registration
California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website.
Online registration
- See also: Online voter registration
California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.
Same-day registration
California allows same-day voter registration.
Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.[42][43]
Residency requirements
To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.
Verification of citizenship
California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.[42]
As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application.[44]
All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment.[45] Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.
Verifying your registration
The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online.
Voter ID requirements
California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.[46][47] On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting.[48]
The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.
| “ |
|
” |
State profile
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,993,940 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 61.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.4% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 31.4% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,818 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in California
California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
More California coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in California
- United States congressional delegations from California
- Public policy in California
- Endorsers in California
- California fact checks
- More...
See also
External links
Information
Support
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 California Attorney General, "Initiative 17-0018," accessed August 21, 2017
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "State Supreme Court removes measure to split California into three states from November ballot," July 18, 2018
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Splitting up Calif.: State Supreme Court takes initiative off the November ballot," July 18, 2018
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 The Mercury News, "Green group asks high court to block three-Californias initiative," July 10, 2018
- ↑ ABC 7 News, "Opponents sue to strike measure splitting California into three states from ballot," July 10, 2018
- ↑ California Legislative Analyst, "Initiative #17-0018 Analysis," October 9, 2017
- ↑ The Mercury News, "Three-Californias campaign answers call to strike initiative from ballot," July 13, 2018
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "California split: Sponsor of measure to carve up state argues to let voters decide," July 16, 2018
- ↑ The Hill, "California Supreme Court blocks ballot measure to divide state into three," July 18, 2018
- ↑ NBC San Diego, "Billionaire Drops Quest to Split California Into 3 Parts," August 9, 2018
- ↑ Sabato's Crystal Ball, "California Dreamin’: Carving the Golden State Into Thirds," April 26, 2018
- ↑ Justia, "What California Voters Should Focus on When Voting on Tim Draper’s 'CAL 3' Initiative," April 19, 2018
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "3 California states are 'just the first step toward greatness,' says ballot measure's backer, Tim Draper," June 14, 2018
- ↑ Tri County-Times, "California’s three state initiative and admission to statehood," June 19, 2018
- ↑ Bloomberg, "This Cryptocurrency Billionaire Is Trying to Split California Into Three States," May 10, 2018
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed April 4, 2018
- ↑ Sacramento Business Journal, "California dreaming? Billionaire VC Tim Draper tries yet again to split up the state," April 13, 2018
- ↑ USA Today, "This is why Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper wants to break California into three," June 13, 2018
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Splitting California in 3 would be different. That’s the only sure thing," April 13, 2018
- ↑ CBS News, "Voters could decide whether to split California into three smaller states," April 13, 2018
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 California Magazine, "Splitsville: Californians Have Tried—and Failed—200 Times to Divide the State," Summer 2012
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 KPCC, "Splitting up California: 7 times they've tried to break up the Golden State," April 13, 2018
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed March 6, 2017
- ↑ Cal 3, "Homepage," accessed April 16, 2018
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 San Francisco Chronicle, "Gavin Newsom shrugs off three Californias measure. John Cox is silent," June 13, 2018
- ↑ CNN, "Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot," June 13, 2018
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 San Francisco Chronicle, "Splitting California in 3 would be different. That’s the only sure thing," April 13, 2018
- ↑ Reason, "Should California be Broken Up?" June 13, 2018
- ↑ 30.0 30.1 San Francsico Chronicle, "Don’t split up California, says GOP governor candidate John Cox," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Venture investor Tim Draper is back with a pointless plan to split California three ways," June 22, 2018
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Republican and Democratic leaders finally agree on something: They hate the three Californias plan," July 9, 2018
- ↑ California Chamber of Commerce, "CalChamber Board Votes to Oppose Three States Initiative, Gas Tax Repeal," June 1, 2018
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Modoc becomes second California county to back secession drive," September 25, 2013
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 National Association of Counties, "About Counties," accessed May 2, 2018
- ↑ 36.00 36.01 36.02 36.03 36.04 36.05 36.06 36.07 36.08 36.09 36.10 36.11 36.12 36.13 36.14 36.15 36.16 36.17 U.S. Census Bureau, "Fact Finder, accessed May 2, 2018
- ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 California Secretary of State, "Report of Registration as of May 21, 2018," May 21, 2018
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Ballot Measures," accessed August 17, 2017
- ↑ PR Newswire, ""CAL 3" Initiative to Partition California Reaches Unprecedented Milestone," April 11, 2018
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ 42.0 42.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
