To Half and Half Not: Second Thoughts on Split State

I was recently asked by CNN to say a few words on one of their shows about the most recent proposal for dividing California into two states--north and south.

I was not well-informed on the subject and had given it no thought, but who can resist a chance to spout off on television? A crew came out to my house and I offered my expert opinion for the camera. I was misinformed about the time and never saw my segment on TV; but friends told me it actually ran.

Since then I have been thinking about it, and as refreshing as the idea seems at first, I find some drawbacks.

Actually, the scheme was put on the June 2 ballot in Northern California and 27 northern counties voted for it. The three most urban counties (San Francisco, San Mateo and Solano) rejected it, along with Mariposa, one of the southernmost. (San Francisco evidently voted no out of fear that it would end up in the southern segment.)

The vote was merely exploratory. Splitting the state would require approval by both the state Legislature and Congress.

If the proposal seems outlandish, keep in mind that in 1859 the Legislature actually approved a law splitting the state in two, and it appeared on the verge of approval by Congress, but the Civil War intervened.

Why the so-called cow counties would want to split from Southern California is easy to see. They simply don’t like our lifestyle, our overcrowded cities, our crime, our social problems. (The smallest, Alpine, has only 1,140 people.) They don’t want any part of us. Besides, the sparsely populated northern counties are routinely outvoted in the Legislature by the populous south. They’d rather go their own way.

What would they call it? Simply Northern California? Then we’d have North and South California, like North and South Carolina. Not very imaginative. If we split it would not only give Northern California a chance to call itself something poetic (Ecotopia has been suggested; Eureka, perhaps?) but we could also invent a new name for Southern California, too. Orange, maybe?)

So far so good. But then a few problems begin to appear. Sacramento would of course be situated in Eureka (to use that name), leaving Orange without a capital and without a Capitol. The Capitol is indeed a beautiful structure, especially since its restoration. To re-create such a structure, plus all the other state buildings that surround it, would cost billions of dollars. Are we prepared to spend it?

Where would it be located? More often than not, Capital cities are not a state’s most populous (Albany, Austin, Olympia, Springfield, Harrisburg). It probably ought to be located in a city that is not contiguous with the metropolitan area of Los Angeles. (Compton, Whittier and Beverly Hills wouldn’t do.) Why not Santa Barbara, San Diego or even Bakersfield?

The construction of a multibillion-dollar capital might in the long run give the economy a boost, though it might drive taxes out of sight.

What about agencies that now serve the entire state? Would we have to split the Highway Patrol into two separate organizations. Would they wear the same uniforms, or would the northern entity turn to blue?

The most horrifying prospect of splitting the state, though, would be the necessity of re-creating the dozens of ABC bureaucracies that it now takes to run it. The Los Angeles phone book lists two pages of state agencies, including Alcoholic Beverage Control, Bureau of Automotive Repair, CalTrans, Cemetery Board, Board of Barber Examiners, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Board of Cosmetology, Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation Department and many more.

What about prisons? Would the prison system have to be cut in two? What about the University of California? Will Berkeley become an institution of Northern California (or Eureka) and UCLA of Orange?

Would this unwieldy bureaucracy be cut in two? Or would the more populous south retain the present establishment--reducing the number of its employees, of course--while the north was required to build one of its own from scratch?

Which new state would Pete Wilson govern? Being a San Diegan, he might wish to stay with the south. But the Capitol is in Sacramento. Wouldn’t he have to stay there? What about the rest of the state officeholders--from attorney general on down? Would the northern or the southern state retain them? Or would they all be lame ducks while each state held new elections?

One thinks of Northern California as being the new state. But Southern California would be a new state too. We would be able to start from scratch, just as they would.

I suggest we call Southern California Moronia, a name once given to Los Angeles by H. L. Mencken. And who for governor but Jerry Brown?

One thing worries me. If we split the state, who gets Fresno?