With 39 million residents, California is by far the most populous state, a fact that often works out to the political disadvantage of its inhabitants under American federalism. California gets just two senators, the same as Wyoming, which has 67 times fewer people. California’s immense size also makes such a state with diverse interest sometimes difficult to govern. So how might things look if California were split into multiple states?
Although it’s extremely unlikely to happen, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper is backing a proposed 2018 ballot measure that would do that very thing by splitting California into three. Draper’s push to carve up the Golden State likely stems from his desire to see Republicans gain more power in Southern California, but it’s an intriguing idea to ponder.
As shown on the map above, there’s a more reasonable way to split up California than Draper’s proposal. In this post, we’ll look at the political impact of splitting California up into three states. The coastal North would hold 8 million people, the Central Valley 7 million, and Southern California a staggering 23 million. If California became three states based on these lines, Democrats could stand to gain four more Senate seats, forcing Mike Pence to have to act as tiebreaker.
Our hypothetical division of California into three states produces two that are solidly Democratic, with Hillary Clinton winning the North by a 73-20 landslide and the South by a strong 61-32, very similar to her margin in all of California. However, the Central Valley would be far more competitive, having favored Clinton just 47-45 and Mitt Romney by 49-48. Going back even further, the North has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1984, while the South has done so since 1992.
But the Central Valley would have long been a swing state, having voted 49-48 Obama in 2008, 57-41 for George Bush in 2004, 54-42 for Bush in 2000, 49-44 Dole in 1996, and 40-39 Clinton in 1992. However, the region is likely to trend Democratic over time thanks to its growing Latino population, and this swing state would be fertile territory for Democratic gains. Democrats could consequently add two to four more senators, while they’d also have gained four Electoral College votes in 2016.
Things get more interesting at the state level, where Republicans would gain simply by virtue of being deep in the minority in the actual state of California, where Democrats narrowly hold a two-thirds legislative supermajority needed to pass tax increases. Democrats would expand those supermajorities in the new states of Northern and Southern California, but the Central Valley’s legislature would be much more competitive.
Looking at the eight state Senate and 15 state Assembly districts whose populations are largely located in the Central Valley, Republicans would hold a 6-to-2 Senate majority and an 8-to-7 majority in the state Assembly. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown lost the 2014 general election in the Central Valley by just 50.1-to-49.9 against Republican nominee Neel Kashkari, which would just barely give this new state a unified Republican state government today.
However, the GOP’s grip on the Central Valley would be tenuous at best. Two of their six state senators hold seats that voted for Clinton by more than 20 points, and losing those two seats would produce a tie. Their Assembly majority would be a bit sturdier; all eight Republicans hold seats that voted for Donald Trump, although the bluest of those districts backed Trump just 51-44. As California as a whole trends blue, Democrats could retake the hypothetical Central Valley’s state legislature in a good 2018 electoral cycle.
Although California almost certainly won’t split into three states any time soon, breaking up the state into three more manageable regions would likely be a boon to the Democratic party. It could also boost Latino and Asian-American representation, with Southern California being much more heavily Latino than California as a whole, while Northern California has a considerably larger Asian population than the entire state. Regardless, it’s simply unfair that a diverse state with 39 million people only gets two U.S. senators, just like every smaller state.