The downfall of the Cal 3 Plan
O n Wednesday, July 18, the much anticipated “CAL 3” plan was removed from the November ballot. This prompted frustration from its creator and sponsor, Tim Draper, and many who had supported the idea at its inception last August and briefly celebrated its passage last month. This is undisputed: The Cal 3 Plan acted as an initiative, or a proposal which, with enough signatures to attest, can bypass state legislative deliberation and simply appear on the ballot. It posed a trisection: Northern California, Southern California, and California. While this seemed absurd to some, those who penned one of the 600,000 signatures Mr. Draper collected obviously thought otherwise.
It does sound appealing; take the massive, diverse place we know today. Now picture it regionally demarcated, each part efficiently governed with regard to its unique climate, geography, and economy.
My question is, though, did it even have the legal composition of an initiative? To answer this, we must first distinguish between a revision and amendment to a constitution.
An amendment is a correction, an edit of an existing statute so that it may better fulfill its purpose. It ultimately conserves the original framework and nature of the law.
A revision fully alters its boundaries (no pun intended), so as to achieve a noticeably different outcome.
The Cal 3 plan then, in its aims to spawn a three-state collage, fundamentally changes not just the immediate area but the nation as a whole; it’s definitely a revision (specifically to Article III, Section 2).
Article XVIII, Section 3 of California’s constitution reads: “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” — amend, not revise. From a legal perspective, I am confused to why this proposal ever passed preliminary qualifications.
PCL, or the Planning and Conservation League, targeted this flaw. PCL, a “nonprofit lobbying organization” dedicated to environmental health, bears close ties to legislative and administrative levels of our state government. By filing a suit against the plan, I can understand why Tim Draper might yell ‘corruption.’
Essentially an arm of the state government, PCL appealed to supreme judicial powers, metaphorically asking itself, or its big brother, to step in. (For future integrity, it would be wise to restrict a state-affiliated organization’s ability to sue, especially in this context. This would avoid any accusations of third-party influence/connection.)
Nevertheless, the lead attorney for PCL, Carlyle Hall, told reporters, “The voters through the initiative process have the power to pass statutes and constitutional amendments, but they don’t have the power to revise the Constitution or abolish it, nullify it.”
Yet again, to the chagrin of some and the relief of many, we can observe America’s Constitution at work, one branch checking the power of another.
No question the Republican base would cringe at the arrival of four new liberal senators — two 1 for each new state — and the possibility of an increase in blue electoral votes.
Among other complications are water distribution, as various canals would cross the delineated borders. With more exclusive funds and regulations, though, the economies of said North, South, and Central regions would thrive under separation: technology, agriculture, and trade, respectively. Such a major transition naturally brings both encouraging prospects and daunting consequences.
Partition has been discussed within California since its admission as a state. The early establishment quickly realized its vast area, and this posed the question of practicality. The best chance came in 1859 with the Pico Act, which reached Congress but was neglected in the wake of the Civil War. As the Union became firmly situated with time, mid and late twentieth century movements were cast aside early in the approval process.
These recurring instances imply a strong connection between distribution of land and government effectiveness, the former of which is trademark of this country’s distinction, and the subject of much of its history.