Amid passage of Prop. 50, Shasta supervisors will consider supporting the formation of a new state
Just two days after California voters considered Prop. 50 on Election Day, Assembly member James Gallagher will present a proposal to split the coastal and inland parts of the state to Shasta supervisors.
As of the latest tally, a majority of California voters have approved Prop. 50, with 63.9% voting yes on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan. The proposition gerrymanders California’s conservative-leaning congressional districts in an attempt to disempower Republican representation at the federal level.
California’s move to disenfranchise conservatives was one motivation cited in a draft resolution that will come before supervisors tomorrow. If approved by a majority, the resolution will declare Shasta’s support for a proposal to bisect California into two separate coastal and inland states.
Naming the specific counties that would comprise a new state, the resolution documents intent to follow the official process through which new states can establish themselves, as spelled out in section 3 of article IV of the U.S. Constitution.
Assembly member James Gallagher, who represents California’s District 3, has put forward the proposal known as Assembly Joint Resolution 23. Board Chair Kevin Crye was the sponsor of the agenda topic. Gallagher will visit Shasta in person to share his vision at the Nov. 6 board meeting.
“Shasta County residents have historically expressed frustration with the lack of representation in state government,” the county’s draft resolutions states, “where decisions on critical issues such as water rights, wildfire prevention, and resource management are dominated by politicians from densely populated coastal areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco.”
Gallagher’s proposal would partition California vertically from top to bottom. District 3, which Gallagher represents, comprises several rural counties just south of Shasta, all of which will also be affected by Prop. 50’s congressional redistricting.
The assembly member spoke with Shasta Scout a few weeks ago about the motivations behind what he is calling his “Two State Solution.” Speaking to legislators in August, Gallagher did not frame his map in partisan or ideological terms. Rather, he said his new configuration of inland California would give its rural residents a sense of “self determination.”
Echoing Gallagher’s sentiment’s, Shasta’s draft resolution of support describes the county as “a rural community with unique economic, cultural, and geographic interests, including agriculture, forestry, tourism, and recreation, which are often overlooked by urban-centered policies in Sacramento.”
In Gallagher’s statehood resolution he speculates that “creating two states would generate competition in governance, leading to more efficient, effective, and responsive state governments for all citizens.”
But the bisection as proposed will leave rural counties far behind when it comes to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicate that the GDP of the rural counties that would end up in the new state, with Shasta, would total 491 billion in 2023, versus 2.8 trillion for the coastal counties.
As it stands, rural counties already lag behind urban counties when it comes to personal income, health resources, educational opportunity and employment. Many local residents currently rely on public infrastructure financed fully or in part by the state of California, such as Medi-Cal, CalWorks programs and the state grants provided to Shasta’s public school system.
At the same time, the state of California’s multi-billion dollar agricultural industry and major sources of water — even if federally controlled — are situated in what would become the new state carved out of inland California. Disentangling rural and urban counties would likely complicate the interdependency between California’s resource-rich inland counties and the economic hubs found in cities along the coast.
The agenda item for tomorrow’s meeting — which expresses opposition to Prop. 50’s gerrymandered map — was released to the public less than a week before Election Day. According to the Institute for Local Government guidelines, officials are prohibited from using public funds to “disseminate information in a manner, style, tenor or tone that urges a particular vote,” although they may provide “accurate, factual and impartial information to the public about a ballot measure.”
Do you have information or a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (16)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Shasta election official Clint Curtis presents to Riverside County board
Curtis attended a board meeting in Riverside this week where he claimed that he’s eliminated fights over elections. His presentation occurred the same day that the Shasta board discussed allegations by the public that Curtis misused public resources.
Jury trial for Steven King case delayed, now scheduled for April
Steven King has been held on attempted murder charges for nearly a year after shooting Michael Hale, who lost the use of his right arm as a result of the shooting.
Shasta and Lassen Counties face ‘dire’ health care access challenges, according to new report
The report, published by the California Health Care Foundation, highlighted the region’s physician shortages, high rates of mortality and recent federal cuts that impact rural health care systems. It also said that political tensions are impacting Shasta’s health care.
…the ongoing mission of finding the middle ground among all points of views…
The Democrat donkey tail from Shasta County to Marin County will not last. Those district lines were drawn up by Democrat lawyers and put on the ballot. The north state has nothing to do with the central state or the southern state of California. We can’t have the Marin Bay Area vote for our north state Congress. That’s not legal freedom of representation. Lawsuits are going to be flying.!
Thank you, Clint Curtis for making it timeless and without pain! So much more organized than any election has ever been in Shasta County! I doubt that the “other” candidate could have done this in her dreams
Yes, that two issue ballot was a real test of the system for sure. LOL
I would agree that California is too large in terms of, diversity of citizen needs, priorites, it’s land mass and it’s population. It is operated as if it is it`s own country within the democratic republic of the US. All too often the state is a huge elephant in the room when determining national policies and agendas. On a state level, the cities and counties of the bay area and So Cal throw their weight around and usually get their way, leaving the rest with the crumbs. I have seen this time and time again on statewide projects and initiatives. The San Diego, Los Angeles, San Fran and Oakland areas drive the formation of requirements, regulations, polices and funding decisions. That is simply because the highest concentration of people (voters) as well as the highest overall amount of taxes that go to the state.
With that said, this was a waste of Shasta`s time and money (what was the cost per hour for all county staff, resources, contracted services (security) to spend an hour “discussing” it`s merits? Most of all, why does KC call out Plummer for politcal grandstanding for having the County controller called to give an opinion on what a new state creation look like for Shasta County`s finances. Let me be more clear. KC has repeatedly killed projects or did political grandstanding based on “not having a clear understanding or analysis of the economic impact on Shasta County” (Northpoint being the most recent). Mr Plummer was 100% correct in wanting more information and clarity on if Shasta County would be at status quo, a better position or a worse position economically if it was to be a part of a “New California”. That is, and has been for over 75 years, the key of all Board Members for Shasta County- as well as a fundamental principle of the Republican party- Fiscal Responsibility.
Back to my point, KC was being a very transparent hypocrite for calling out Plummer for political grandstanding when at the end of the day it was plain for all to see. This was nothing more than KC putting the “letter of support for New California” up for a vote, with no real analysis on the impact to the county, for the plain and simple purpose of having individual sitting board members “vote on record” for either supporting or not supporting the formation of a new state. That was the true political grandstanding for sheer virtue signaling to voter bases in Shasta County. Plummer, nor Long, NEVER stated an opposition to the exploration and analysis or even SUPPORT for “New California”. They voted NO to send a official County Board letter of support endorsing a movement in which nothing tangible was available for identifying if Shasta is better or worse off by inclusion in the effort. They did not vote for or against the movement. The voted NO against a political stunt letter that endorses an idea, without pertinent and needed details, related to governance and administration of County business and services.
Pablum for the right-wing morons out there. You would need to collect taxes, generate fire, police and security/emergency forces, maintain roads, schools, airports, medical resources, water, power, etc., etc…. About as much of a chance of becoming reality as Trump has to become a decent president. And an utter waste of time and money howling and yowling while beating their chest(s) to impress their base for the media. If Shasta (has) “historically expressed frustration with the lack of representation in state government, ” then maybe Shasta should consider stopping their continuing installation of the unqualified MAGA losers they favor…
The only reason prop 50 passed is the Democrats let people from other countries vote as well. Which should not have been allowed to happen. The Democrats cheat again to make sure they win. Also they are holding out til they get what they want no matter who suffers hence the government shutdown.
April: Please cite a source for this information.
This isn’t your usual smooth brained facebook group chat. If you make things up, people will ask for proof. Normal human beings don’t believe every vague thing on the internet
It’s our land and our money is going south and west to pay for things we do not want to happen.
This, or similar, proposal(s) have been dragging on since 1929.
When are we going to take a stand and say “here is the new state line”, like it or not.
What are they going to do, bomb us?
I do not want to be pare of the Shasta state split. So we dovthis for one area and Noone else gets a say where we want to be. That’s nuts. If you don’t like california the way it’s always been you can’t just wake up one day and divide the state so you’re happy! If it ever had to be split up do it in half, north
and south. I personally don’t like any split though.
Leave our state alone!
I hope that Lake County is included in the new state spinoff as we are a RED county now and do not want to be affiliated with the left coast libs.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Shasta is a parasite county in California. It shows up empty handed and demands steady support to even function. This latest whackjob idea is literally like a bedraggled traveler showing up starving and sick to a liberal household who of course lets them in and feeds them and the next thing you know they demand to move in and own half of the kind person’s house. Start paying your own bills and then we can discuss what part of the state you can own. Sheesh! The lies in the Bible force the religious to have a fundamental issue with the truth. They are raised on hypocrisy by their families who say don’t lie out of one side of their mouth while screaming that their religious teachings are “truth” out of the other side which everyone knows is a big fat lie. This is exactly why religious citizens make terrible leaders, they wouldn’t recognize the truth if it parked on top of them.
Whatever happened to the tried and true notion of “If you don’t like it, leave!” I guess with Trump’s economy, being so super fantastically great, the cost of moving or buying a new house is out of reach for most MAGA? Definitely more cost effective and less insane to just split the state and stay put? LOLOLOL! Farewell, logic, Shasta County hardly knew ye!
Would it not be better if all those that want to divide us could use all of that energy toward coming together. This proposed division will make their new state poor and become a burden on the rest of the country.
Right?! It’s like a child running away from home. And then it’s oh wait… forgot about how I will get food. And it’s cold and scary out here. Geez!