Bill on Splitting State Into 3 Cleared by Assembly Panel

For the first time in more than 130 years, the Assembly will consider a measure that could lead to slicing California into three states.

That bit of history was assured Monday when a key Assembly committee approved legislation to ask voters in a non-binding election what they think about dividing their state into Northern California, Central California and Southern California.

Assemblyman Stan Statham (R-Oak Run), sponsor of the measure to split the state, called Monday’s 6-2 Rules Committee vote “a quantum leap forward for dividing the state of California,” noting that it will be “the first time (the issue) has hit the Assembly floor in 134 years.”

But even if the Legislature were to approve the split bill and Gov. Pete Wilson signed it, the proposal would face huge and seemingly insurmountable obstacles. If the measure won approval by voters in a fall, 1994, election, the Legislature would have one year to develop a plan to carry it out, which would have to be ratified by both the Assembly and the state Senate, and then sent to Congress for approval.

A press assistant to Wilson, J. P. Tremblay, said the governor “has no official position on the Statham bill at this time, but the governor would be opposed to splitting the state.”

There is no penalty should the Legislature fail to act, and no provisions for further voter action.

“If the people don’t approve this,” Statham said, “the Legislature and the Congress won’t take it seriously.”

Statham says his bill has a 50-50 chance of Assembly approval, noting that it is supported by Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco). He plans to ask for a floor vote later this month or in July before the summer recess.

For decades, separatists have launched similar split-the-state movements, but none has gained serious support since 1859.

Back then, both houses of the Legislature approved, and the governor signed into law, a bill to split California into two states. It was sent to Congress, but the effort was abandoned because of the Civil War.

Statham and other separatists believe that California is too big and diverse to be one state, and their movement has picked up momentum in recent years.

Last June, voters in 27 out of 31 Northern and Central California counties voted in favor of cutting the state in two.

Statham said that the state’s government is “totally dysfunctional” and that dividing it into three states “would give Californians a state government that is closer to its people.” The state would be divided north of Sacramento and San Francisco and in the Tehachapi Mountains between Bakersfield and Los Angeles.

He claims such a division would increase California’s clout because it would mean representation by six U.S. senators.

There was no opposition testimony at the Assembly committee hearing, but Assemblyman Willard Murray Jr. (D-Paramount) snapped, “Absolutely not” when his name was called on the roll call vote.

Asked why he voted against the bill, Murray said, “This isn’t a good idea. California is the leading state in the U.S. in economic output, representation in Congress and providing for its citizens.

“It seems fairly ridiculous to break it up into three separate units representing one-third of its economy, prestige and influence in the country. I was fairly surprised anyone takes the idea seriously.”

The Statham bill imposes conditions for splitting the state into thirds. They include provisions that the three states be economically viable and that taxes not be raised as a result of the division; that per-pupil public school spending not decrease; that existing water rights and contracts remain intact, as would existing public retirement systems; that public colleges not charge out-of-state tuition to students of the other two states and that all existing professional licenses and credentials be recognized in all three states.

The proposed southern state would include Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, Ventura and Imperial counties.

The central state would include Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Alameda, Stanislaus, Mariposa, Mono, Santa Cruz, Merced, San Mateo, Monterey, Madera, Fresno, Inyo, Kings, Tulare, San Luis Obispo, Kern, Santa Clara, San Benito and Santa Barbara counties.

And the proposed northern state would include the counties of Del Norte, Siskiyou, Modoc, Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Tehama, Sutter, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, Sonoma, Napa, Yolo, El Dorado, Amador, Alpine, Calaveras, Tuolumne and Marin. The Legislature would have the power to set the final boundaries for all three states.