Tag Archives: 3californias

Merry Christmas! Because that’s what today is

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Christmas vacation

Thank you, Gentle Reader, for the best Christmas present a writer can wish for: an audience. If you’re reading this on Christmas morning, you are doubly valued and thrice blessed. And you might even be interested in a blog post about the blog. If you aren’t, please forgive me and be assured my usual rants insights typing will resume tomorrow. If I were reading this, I’d just click here and listen to Jimmy Buffet and Linda Ronstadt instead.

The top three posts for 2018 were about 4K television, with the number one slot going to an analysis of 4K bandwidth requirements. With video already the biggest source of Internet traffic, upgrades to 4K and 8K formats, and beyond, will determine network capacity requirements for years to come. Big thanks goes to Danielle Cassagnol at the Consumer Technology Association for the stats.

The top ten included two posts about Tim Draper’s second attempt to break up California, this time into three states. The news that it was blocked by Californian judges finished far down the rankings, though. Frontier’s California travails also hit the list twice. The top ten was rounded out by posts about vertical integration, fiber maps and wildfire prevention.

It’s tricky to estimate how many people read this blog. I think my audience is something like 5,000 unique readers a month, including social media distribution, but it’s hard to know for sure. It’s stayed more or less even over the past year. If I include my occasional articles for Santa Cruz Tech Beat, which are usually republished here, the average goes up by untold thousands. Special thanks goes to SCTB editor Sara Isenberg for her patronage.

I’ve been posting every day, seven days a week for more than six years. At one point, my plan was to cut back to something like five days a week, but I couldn’t let go. For 2019, I really mean it. After CES, anyway. I made a deal with myself, and please hold me to it: write fewer but better posts. I’ll occasionally post on weekends when something is happening, and I might skip a holiday, when something is not. During the work week, I’ll maintain the schedule. Other changes are in the works, too.

Again, thank you for reading!

“Third world” corruption or judicial prudence? California supreme court ices Cal3 initiative

by Steve Blum • , , ,

The plan to split California into three new states won’t be on the November ballot. The California supreme court put the Cal3 initiative on hold Wednesday, while it decides whether or not the proposition meets spec under the California constitution. Opponents claim it is a constitutional “revision”, which needs the concurrence of two-thirds of the California legislature, rather than an “amendment”, which can be put on the ballot by initiative alone.

Arguably, it’s neither. It substitutes a popular vote for the decision making authority of the legislature, as the initiative process is intended to do, and triggers a request to the U.S. congress to create the new states, as the federal constitution allows.

Whether that amounts to a revision of the California constitution is the question before state supreme court justices, who unanimously decided they needed more time

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, respondent Alex Padilla, as Secretary of State of the State of California, is directed to refrain from placing Proposition 9 on the November 6, 2018, ballot.

The initiative’s primary backer, Silicon Valley financier Tim Draper, was outraged, according to the Los Angeles Times

“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.”

The Cal3 initiative poses an existential threat to California’s political establishment, which includes supreme court justices: they are political appointees who must periodically face voters. There’s no doubt that the initiative would have landed in their laps if voters approved it, which is how it usually goes. It’s uncommon for them to block a vote.

If they let it proceed, the next window of opportunity is the November 2020 general election, when it and everything else will likely be overshadowed by Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. That would be a shame. Whether it’s a good idea or not, it’s a priceless opportunity to have a consequential debate over how California should be governed.

We need that.

Debate California’s future, don’t dismiss it

by Steve Blum • , , ,

The plan for dividing California into three states – dubbed Cal 3 by its proponents – qualified for the November general election this week. Reaction from the political establishment of both major parties generally ranged from I don’t think so to yawn. One exception was state senator Joel Anderson (R – San Diego County) who, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, said he will vote for it and called it “a barometer of the potential unhappiness of the state”.

On the other hand, lieutenant governor Gavin Newsom, who is the odds on favorite to win the governorship on the same ballot scorched the idea, while simultaneously downplaying it, according to the Los Angeles Times

“California’s success is being a cohesive state, particularly at a time of Trump and Trumpism,” Newsom said. “We’re now the fifth largest economy in the world. Why would we cede that to splitting the state up into three?”

Newsom said the breakup proposal would lead to “litigation, consternation, north versus south, all kinds of constitutional issues,” but he added he is not spending a lot of time dwelling on the proposal.

So far, all his opponent, republican John Cox, has offered is “no comment”.

Labelling it a protest vote or dismissing it as a time consuming distraction are equally wrong. I haven’t made up my mind whether to vote yes or no on it, but I do think it’s an opportunity for Californians to have an adult discussion about how our state is run, and who really runs it.

A spokeswoman for the Cal 3 campaign, Peggy Grande, framed the core question in a press release “the reality is that for an overmatched, overstretched and overwrought state government structure, [California] is too big to succeed”. Her premise is correct: California’s government is increasingly dysfunctional, at both the political and administrative level.

Cal 3’s conclusion, that the only solution is breaking up the state, is eminently debatable, though. Candidates for state offices should address the issue and offer their own solutions, not dismiss the initiative or turn it into an equally meaningless protest.

That might be too much to hope for.

Three Californias initiative qualifies for November ballot

by Steve Blum • , , ,

Californians will vote on whether to break up our state into three new ones this November. An petition drive led by Silicon Valley investor Tim Draper gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the general election ballot, according to the latest count released by the California secretary of state’s office. Draper needed 402,000 valid signatures to automatically qualify on the basis of random sample checking and, so far, 419,000 proved out. A handful of counties still have to report, but it’ll just be icing on the cake.

Get ready to vote on breaking California up into three states

by Steve Blum • , , ,

An initiative that calls for California to be split into three new states appears to have enough signatures to qualify for the November general election. County clerks are reviewing the petitions collected for Tim Draper’s Division of California into Three States initiative and, one by one, reporting back to the secretary of state’s office.

So far, random signature checks are complete in 48 of California’s 58 counties, with a validation rate of 76% – of the 472,000 signatures reviewed, 358,000 passed the random test. In theory, Draper only needs 366,000 valid signatures, but if this initial screening shows that at least 402,000 signatures (110% of the minimum) are good, then the measure automatically qualifies for the ballot. No further checking is necessary.

To reach the 110% threshold, of the remaining 133,000 signatures, only 44,000 need to prove out. That’s a 33% validation rate, less than half the average so far. It appears that Draper has solved the quality control problem that scuttled his initial attempt to break up California into six new states.

This new effort creates three new states – California, Northern California and Southern California – with roughly equal population, but varying income levels. Median household incomes drop from $63,000 a year in Northern California to $53,000 in the L.A.-anchored coastal strip nominally called California, to $45,000 in the new Southern California.

Even if voters approve, though, the U.S. congress has to agree and that’s a very long shot. Particularly if California’s political ruling class digs in to fight it, as they certainly will. Disruption might be a wonderful thing in Silicon Valley, where Draper calls home, but in Sacramento it means losing power, perks and privileges, which no one there wants.

The ten remaining counties have until Wednesday to complete the job, so we should know soon whether we’ll be voting to break up California, or not, in November.

Voters might get the chance to split one “nearly ungovernable” California into three

by Steve Blum • , , ,

We’re one step away from voting on whether to break California up into three states. All that’s standing between the ballot box and Tim Draper’s second try at disrupting California’s comfortable, and largely unaccountable, political class is signature verification by the secretary of state’s office. Earlier this week, he announced that he’s collected twice the number of signatures needed to get it on the ballot.

He’s been here before, collecting 1.3 million signatures for his Six Californias initiative in 2014, only to have too many of them rejected by the secretary of state. Draper seems to have learned something about crafting policy from that failure. (N.B. failure is considered a badge of honor in the Silicon Valley world where Draper earned his fortune, so long as one learns from the experience).

This time around, it’s a much simpler proposition – he’s not trying to micromanage the split up, which is only half as complicated as it was before. It’s reasonable to think he’s also figured out his quality control problem with paid signature gatherers.

Draper’s current plan is to carve California into three pieces with roughly similar population counts, but significantly different levels of wealth. One of the new states would be made up of coastal counties, running from Los Angeles County north through Monterey and San Benito counties. A line running from the eastern edge of San Benito County and across the northern borders of Fresno, Madera and Mono counties would divide the other two states.

Income levels drop steeply as you move from Northern California, where Draper says median annual household income is $63,000, through the L.A. coast strip (tagged California) where it’s $53,000, to Southern California where the average household makes $45,000 a year.

If voters approve, then the next move will be up to the U.S. congress – all Californians can do is ask politely to be broken up. Politely or not, congress and the U.S. president are then entitled to ignore us. Given that the political class – Californian or federal – puts self preservation above all else, that’s the way to bet.

Draper launches second effort to split California, this time into three states

by Steve Blum • , , ,

What do you do when the public isn’t buying your product? You slap a 50% discount on it, of course. That’s what Tim Draper has done with his Six Californias campaign. In his latest filing with the California attorney general, Draper describes California as “nearly ungovernable” and outlines his new vision for breaking the state up into three parts (h/t to Fred Pilot at the Eldo Telecom blog for the pointer).

His plan splits off a strip of coastal counties, running from Los Angeles County north through Monterey and San Benito counties, and naming it – wait for it – California. The remainder will be divided into two new states – Northern and Southern California – along a line that runs along the northern borders of Mono, Madera and Fresno counties.

So far, all he’s done is file the paperwork to begin collecting the 600,000 valid signatures he needs to get it on next year’s general election ballot. It describes what he proposes to do, but not why he wants to do it this particular way. Just from eyeballing it, the three states would have roughly comparable population counts, but I’m hoping there’s more to it.

When Draper formulated his Six Californias plan, he based the boundaries of the new states on a tall stack of demographic research. That alone made the effort worthwhile. He identified distinct economic and social characteristics, and generated a pattern of sharp regional divisions that keeps repeating itself in all kinds of unrelated data sets, including broadband availability. If his second round of number crunching produces similar insights, the effort won’t be wasted.

His chances of getting it on the ballot are pretty good. He came close last time and the reason for failure – poor quality control by paid signature gatherers – is fixable. But even if voters approve, the odds of it going any further are very poor. A new federal law would have to be passed by the U.S. congress and signed by the president, whoever that might be at the time. Increasing California’s representation from two U.S. senators to six, with at least four guaranteed to be democrats, won’t appeal to republicans, and the disruption of political power bases and the spectre of rule by popular vote won’t appeal to professional politicians of either major party.