"Who will pay to mow the greener grass in Jefferson, Joe Harrop OpEd, Red Bluff Daily News, June 4, 2017
There has been a lot of commotion recently about the so-called state of Jefferson. A frivolous court case was filed, and a rally was planned in Sacramento. I believe these are wasted energy and money at this particular time, and that the possibility or need for Jefferson is improbable at best.
I thought it would be helpful to put the state of Jefferson into some perspective by comparing it with existing states.
Some Jefferson supporters claim we lack proper representation and that the 19 counties in Northern California and Southern Oregon will achieve that with the new state. The reality is that within our existing state we do have equal representation. Throughout the state there is one State Senator for each 931,349 people; for the State Assembly, there is one assembly member for about 450,000 people. Our state senators represent more people than our congress members do. Nevertheless, it is equal representation within the state.
Before the Supreme Court case in 1968, Reynolds v. Sims, the distribution of State Senators was different, and no county, however large, could have more than one State Senator. The Reynolds v. Sims ruling said the composition of both houses of all state legislatures had to be based on population. Therefore, Los Angeles County went from one State Senator to 13 overnight. Some Jeffersonians blame that decision for the need to form a new state. Some Jeffersonians feel slighted by this.

The State of Jefferson would have the same population as Hawaii and the same area as Wisconsin; based on per capita income it would be relatively poor when compared to the two states it would be carved from, and Tehama County would be the second poorest county. Our county would be a relatively sparsely populated area as well. Nevertheless, it would have a population of just over 63,000 compared to the 1.4 million in Jefferson; Tehama County would be a middle-sized fish in a small pond, as opposed to a micro-minnow in the state of California.

There needs to be a lot more clarity before thoughtful people will support the panacea of a Jefferson. There can be no magical transition from being 19 counties in two states to becoming a new state. It will take careful planning based on deep study.
So, if and when the state of Jefferson becomes more than a wink and a smile, what kind of state government will it have? Will it have a unicameral government or two houses like California? Do the 19 counties maintain their boundaries, or will they be divided someway. Will the citizens need 76 state legislators like Hawaii, or can they settle for fewer?

What will be the tax base? Will it have a sales tax like California, or no sales tax like Oregon?
Where will the capitol be?
What will happen to the various state colleges and universities? Will the new state be able run them and support them? Will out of the State of Jefferson students have to pay more than residents? Will in state Jeffersonians have to pay out of state tuition to the UC and State Universities in California?
How will the public-school system be governed? Will counties like Tehama be able to rely on state aid to fund its schools like they do now. Will past court decisions apply to the new state schools?

What kind of state law enforcement will there be? Will law enforcement personnel transferred from California and Oregon retain the benefits and pensions?
What will happen with current state prisons? Will Jefferson need to build their own prisons, or can the “rent” space in Oregon and California.
Jefferson’s population will be spread out all over; roads will be important. How will the highways be maintained?
The list of “will and how” goes on and on. In the meantime, people drive around with XX yellow flags and proclaim the vague great State of Jefferson, as if a snap of a finger can get rid of the grievances they proclaim.

The devil is in the details, as they say. A goodly amount of detail needs to be worked out before any transition to a new state is made. It would be nice to see what our model state would actually look like before any action is taken.
Some equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office needs to review the implications of the proposed state and tell us what the consequences of living there might be.
It would be nice to know what public services will be needed and what would be the cost for them; it would be nice to know forecasted tax rates to maintain those services. Without that information, and much more, we will never know if the grass in Jefferson is greener and if we could afford to mow it.

My guess is that it will cost us individually more to maintain and improve the services we receive now because we rely so heavily on California to help us have the services we need and expect.
Joe Harrop is a retired educator with more than 30 years of service to the North State. He can be reached at [email protected].


"Our View: State of Jefferson proposition not based in reality," The Union editorial, January 30, 2016
When a group of residents hand-delivered more than 5,000 signatures to the Nevada County Elections Office Thursday, the action put in motion a process that will likely result in the State of Jefferson being brought before voters as a local ballot measure.
 
We understand the reasons those who support the creation of a State of Jefferson share in making their case for a 51st state — largely that Nevada County and its neighbors in the north state lack representation in Sacramento and in Washington D.C., that we underutilize our natural resources as economic engines and that the state of California residents and businesses are overtaxed and overregulated.
 
But the suggestion that the State of Jefferson would solve the issues does not seem to be one based in reality. Even if Nevada County voters —who will foot the bill for the measure — were to vote in favor, the approval would simply be symbolic.
 
So what’s the point?
 
The question — shall the County of Nevada separate from the State of California to join a new state to be created? — would have no binding effect if it passed at the polls. Instead, as The Union reported this week, it would act as leverage for Jefferson supporters, urging the Board of Supervisors to eventually pass a resolution in support of the new state.
 
(W)e believe solving problems requires taking a seat at the table, not leaving it all together.
 
If that’s the goal, that would require an about-face from the current supervisors, who made clear in the Jan. 15 “Friday Memo” from County CEO Rick Haffey that “The County of Nevada has not taken any action on this issue and has no plans to take action,” Haffey stated. “It is not something the Board of Supervisors is considering.” That statement came largely in response to media coverage of State of Jefferson event at the Capitol, which incorrectly counted Nevada County among the counties that support the movement.
 
The supervisors' stance, with which we fully agree, might be based partly in research provided by Haffey in his May 2015 memo to supervisors, offering a comparison among some potential “Jefferson” counties, which among other aspects showed Nevada County with the lowest unemployment rate, the highest per capita income, along with lower crime rates and jail populations. State of Jefferson proponents, who made a presentation before the Board of Supervisors days later in May, questioned the CEO’s motives for sharing that information prior to the group’s presentation.
 
Perhaps, Haffey felt it necessary due to the lack of actual concrete data and plans put forth by Jefferson supporters. Although there are multiple websites advocating for the formation of the State of Jefferson, information on how the proposed 51st state would be financially viable is lacking. At http://www.soj51.net, supporters have posted a spreadsheet, outlining the revenue and expenditures of the counties considered, and suggest the bottom line would produce an $8.3 billion surplus. However, the explanation key states, “This model uses the current California tax rate structure without any corporate income taxes or other fees charged by state or counties. This proves Jefferson is viable and has the ability to sustain itself from day one.”
 
Yet California’s current tax rate structure is one of the reasons supporters say we must create a new state. If taxes were lowered, as supporters claim will be the case, would the revenue be adequate to be fiscally viable? That’s not clear from the spreadsheet, nor from the “Model Definition” accompanying it, that falls short of details on the figures provided.
 
The county revenues listed are from the current fiscal year, but how much of each county’s revenue comes from the state of California? How would social services, which the site states would be “revamped” be impacted without grants from the state of California? At what level would our nonprofit organizations, which number in hundreds in Nevada County alone, be able to provide services to the community that are assisted through state funding?
 
The answers to those questions, and more, should be shared in advance of voters making such a decision. To date, supporters have not fully made their case on how the State of Jefferson would sustain itself.
 
But even if Nevada County voters approve the nonbinding resolution, and county supervisors were to change their stance, there is essentially zero chance that such a separation would ever be approved by the State of California — so highly dependent upon north state resources, such as water in the midst of a four-year drought — or the United States congress, which has yet to grant statehood to the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico.
 
Supporters would suggest that even if the measure fails, they have helped bring to light the issues they outline. That is certainly true. And the State of Jefferson movement is among many other evident examples of Americans expressing frustration with their government all across the country.
 
But we believe solving problems requires taking a seat at the table, not leaving it altogether.
 
The weekly Our View column represents the opinions of The Union Editorial Board. Contact the board at [email protected].


"Good News! the Jeffersonians don't need our vote!" Lassen County Times editorial, January 26, 2016
Let’s be perfectly clear. The proponents of the effort to create the new state of Jefferson have absolutely no right to speak for the voters of Lassen County.

Last week, the Lassen County Board of Supervisors made good on a resolution it passed in March and passed a second resolution to put the question of seceding from California to join the state of Jefferson on the June 7 Primary Election ballot.
The newer members of the board — District 3 Supervisor Jeff Hemphill, District 4 Supervisor Aaron Albaugh and District 5 Supervisor Tom Hammond — voted to approve both resolutions while the veteran members of the board who will not seek re-election this June — District 1 Supervisor Bob Pyle and District 2 Supervisor Jim Chapman — voted no on both resolutions.
County residents and elected officials have come down on both sides of the issue, and the supervisors — responding to the call from state of Jefferson supporters — decided with so much at stake for all, the voters should make the call.
The pertinent part of last March’s resolution — a rewrite of a resolution prepared by the state of Jefferson supporters themselves — reads, the “ … authority to join this effort to separate from the state of California would be granted subject to approval of the voters of Lassen County at the June 2016 Primary Election by way of (an) advisory vote … ”
Yes, the voters of Lassen County were to weigh in on this matter in June, more than four months from now.
Ah, but there’s the rub.
According to the California Senate Journal for Jan. 6, 2015, Mike (sic) Baird presented petitions from Lassen, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Ed Dorado, Mendocino, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Trinity, Tuolumne and Sutter counties and the town of Ft. Jones “relative to the formation of the state of Jefferson.”
It’s true. Mark Baird, the Mugginsville businessman who has spearheaded the effort and chairs the state of Jefferson movement, served the California Senate with a “declaration and petition to the California State Legislature for the withdrawal of Lassen County from the state of California and to form the state of Jefferson.”
What? How can that be? Well, it all became clear at the Jan. 12 Plumas County supervisor’s meeting when a Jeffersonian told that board the group had collected signatures to present to the state legislature so the board (and voters in Plumas County) no longer had any role to play in the state of Jefferson process.
Portola resident Howard Thomas, speaking on behalf of the local Jefferson Committee, told the supervisors, “We, the members of the state of Jefferson Committee, have moved on without you.”
He told the supervisors the group had already presented a petition signed by supporters to the state government and the legislation to create the new state had already been written. The Plumas supervisors quickly responded by pulling the question from their June ballot.
Wow. Thanks for the honest revelation, Howard. Now that we know our vote is irrelevant and the Jeffersonians have already filed petitions in Sacramento in our name, Lassen County’s supervisors should also rescind the June ballot measure at today’s meeting and save the taxpayers the estimated $17,000 cost of putting the question on the ballot.

Cindy Ellsmore, Lassen County Times, January 26, 2016
January 19, the Lassen Board of Supervisors approved language for a State of Jefferson advisory measure on the June ballot by a 3 to 2 vote. The fact that the Jefferson group has already submitted petitions to the state legislature declaring that Lassen County and 20 others want to create a new state make this election an expensive waste of time and up to $17,000 of county funds according to the County Clerk. Of the 21 counties submitted, only Tehama, has had a vote of the people to determine their interest in this idea.

Why couldn’t this disruptive group wait until the June election to know the will of the voters of Lassen and instead, bypassed both the Board of Supervisors and the election process? Were they afraid you wouldn’t buy their faulty “financial viability model” and false promises of “lower taxes”? Our research has revealed major financial impacts by seceding from California.

CalPERS and CalSTRS are California agencies that cannot provide benefits for employees of other states. The current employees of the state, county and city as well as the educators contributing to the CalPERS and CalSTRS pension plans could find themselves without retirement benefits unless the new state government decides to provide them.

The thirteen counties which have taken the time to evaluate the financial consequences of separating from California realize that rural Northern California services and jobs are heavily subsidized by the urban counties. We, in turn, are stewards of the beautiful places city folk visit to vacation and recharge.

Are there problems to solve in rural California? Of course there are. This mutually beneficial relationship always needs maintenance in the form of educating urban lawmakers of the unique challenges rural California faces. Assembly Member Brian Dahle is exceptionally good at communicating and working with legislators all over the state to get important issues resolved for our district.

Keep It California is a non-partisan PAC formed to advocate for rural Northern California and to oppose creating a new state. Let’s work together to inform our elected leaders and to defeat this advisory measure. Please join us at KeepItCalifornia.org or contact us by email at [email protected].

Faith Strailey to the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, January 10, 2016
It has come to my attention that during Tuesday’s meeting the board will conduct a roll call vote on an action item to rescind the ballot measure regarding separating from California and joining the State of Jefferson.

I hope you will consider the following when you cast your vote:

1. The leaders of the State of Jefferson movement have demonstrated time and time again that they have no real interest in promoting the safety and well being of the residents of this county, or any other county in northern California. Their agenda focuses on limited government.
2. SOJ leadership has taken legitimate concerns of citizens and “cultured” anger and frustration using inflammatory rhetoric based on inaccurate and incomplete information. They have not yet produced a solid viability model for funding their state.
3. Their agenda does not incorporate democratic principles when it comes to decision making. They feign concern, but when support is not immediate, they sidestep and use other tactics to get what they want. Case in point: when you voted to place a ballot measure before Plumas County voters, they responded by stating they would gather signatures from any person in this county, regardless of voter status, and submit them to the state as evidence of our county’s support. Of the 21 counties that they say have signed “Declarations of Support”, only 6 counties have actually voted either by BOS vote(5) or citizen vote(1) to support their movement. Legislators and voters are being willfully mislead.
4. Other counties have recognized the questionable messaging and leadership of SOJ. The BOS of 7 counties decided to take no action in support of SOJ. Lake County rescinded its ballot vote in appreciation to the state for assisting them after devastating fires hit their county. Lake County realized the great benefit that California has to offer in times of disaster. California has money, materials, manpower, and the resolve to help.  Will SOJ?
5. Mark Baird has stated, “the government was not instituted to keep you safe from bad baby carriages and raw milk. It was instituted to protect liberty”. What happens when one person’s “liberty” to pursue economic gain causes health or economic hardship for another person? It does not appear that the present  SOJ leadership has a vested interest in protecting the health, well being,  and safety of all its citizens.

Plumas County residents have elected you to represent them and protect their interests. Assisting in the formation and then joining SOJ would leave our county destitute. The $50,000,000 (approx.) California provides our county in revenues and services could not possibly be made up without drastically increasing local income, property, and sales taxes. There would be little, if any, help from SOJ state government. The burden will be borne by the residents.

Without the necessary funds, our K-12 schools would be impoverished. FRC, our community college, would suffer similarly or even close. Our high school graduates would have very limited choices if attending SOJ state colleges. They would have to pay additional tuition to attend out-of-state colleges or universities. The services of our Sheriff’s Department, Fire Department, and Road Department would all be affected. How would impoverished residents support our local businesses?

• Supporting SOJ is not in our best interest!
• The likelihood of legislation being passed  to create SOJ is nil!
• Save our county  $10,000 - $15,000 and vote to rescind the ballot measure to support SOJ!

Sue Gallagher, "Counties that actually support State of Jefferson"
Red Bluff Daily News, January 9, 2016
I am dismayed to see the Jeffersoners’ article Saturday [January 2] under the heading of  POLITICS with no byline.  How do we find out who is responsible for that piece?  Without an author, it appears to be written and approved by you or your staff.  It unfortunately contains misleading and untruthful information.
 
The Jeffersoners’ claim that ...”Six counties have already filed with the state” is not correct.  In Tehama County, only a resolution was approved and it was not filed with the state.  And who knows where the declarations from the Counties of Siskiyou, Modoc, Glenn, Yuba and Sutter went?  Actually, the leaders of the movement will bring copies of the paperwork to Sacramento, then claim to “file” them with the state.  Not the other way around.
 
The Jeffersoners’ statement that in addition to the six counties:  .... “another 15 and possibly a couple of more are expected to file declarations on Wednesday” is just not true.  A total of 18 counties will NOT have signed on by Wednesday.  The truth is that Del Norte County voted down the State of Jefferson last year.  Shasta County rejected their request.  Butte County heard them and asked how the finances would work, but got no follow up.  Trinity County voted to declare to remain with the State of California.  Lake County had voted to have an election, but on December 15, 2015, voted to rescind putting the issue on any ballot.  After the devastating fires and the extensive help from the State, their Representatives, and many California firefighters, Lake took a stand to stay in California.  Seven counties, having heard from the Jeffersoners took no action.  Lassen and Plumas Counties will hold elections in June.  The movement leaders have not yet made their demands in Calaveras, Humboldt, Mendocino, or Tuolumne.
 
The State of Jefferson article implies that up to 24 counties support them when only six are on record.  To claim that counties that said no are counties that have said yes is misleading in the extreme.  Does it make you wonder about the claim of thousands and thousands that have joined the movement?  I have come to expect mistruths and exaggerations from the separatists.  However, I believe the Daily News could do a lot more to examine the truth for Tehama County if we were forced to join the 51st state.
 
Jon Kennedy, "The State of Jefferson, why I agree but disagree"
Resilient Sierra, December 3, 2015
It's no secret I'm not a fan of turning part of California into the State of Jefferson. What may not be so obvious is how much I agree with some of the comments made by Mark Baird, the main spokesperson for the SOJ movement. I agree there are terrible decisions made in Sacramento and I agree there are self-serving and corrupt legislators, but I don't agree with Baird’s blanket accusations, as evidenced by the latest video presentation published on November 28, 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4yCdK03M5g&feature=youtu.be

Because I don't agree with the movement and am right there with the Keep It California supporters regarding the finances (because they're right) I get accused of being a nasty liberal, or "libtard" as some so eloquently put it, when in reality, I can't stand much of the crap that goes on in Sacramento and have been considered a conservative Republican when it comes to budget management.

A few years ago the state was about to decimate Distinct Part Skilled Nursing Facilities (DP/SNF) statewide. As I rolled up my sleeves to fight for dozens of counties, I met Senator Steinberg on the street in Sacramento and politely demanded to walk with him and talk this thing through; he assured me the new budget reflected what we were looking for, even though it didn’t. As we all stood "together" on the issue, including SEIU, with our main focus on the patients that would be sent packing, SEIU made a back room deal with the State and all of a sudden they weren't so concerned about the issue. Despite Steinberg lying to me without blinking an eye and despite the turncoats representing SEIU, we still essentially won the fight.

The Cal Fire fee is another poorly thought out decision but people like Senator Gaines doesn't have enough sense to make an argument that has a chance of winning, instead he keeps on keeping on with the illegal tax angle. Although his heart may be in the right place, his blind logic and reasoning defeated him repeatedly.

A few months before I left office in Plumas County, Mark Baird gave a presentation to the BOS and I was the Chair. After his presentation, our County Counsel leaned over and whispered to me, "Wow, he's an eloquent speaker" - I leaned back and said, "Yeah, that's the problem." I've wondered all along if I'd be this passionate fighting against the movement had Mark Baird been the only spokesperson. Lucky for us, as hard as they try to regurgitate the words of Baird, the true sentiment comes through loud and clear when others take the stage. And despite Mr. Baird's attempt to create a humble and endearing persona, his true colors are shining bright as well.

I'm never going to win a debate with Mark Baird on the history of our nation and state's constitution and I'm certainly not going to be able to recite every step it takes to form a new state. But what I can share, is 50 years of real life experience in Rural California, working, living, raising a family, creating lifelong friendships, and most recently, governing the county in which I was born. I have no shame in saying I love California and will fight just as hard to make it better as the SOJ advocates are at giving up on it.

It would take a good hour, thousands of words and a half dozen graphs to accurately dispute the finances and rationale provided by the SOJ analysts as “evidence” to prove the new state's viability, so I'm not going to do it. Instead, I'd rather provide a few truths about how rural counties would be affected without the rest of the state subsidizing our small counties. 37 counties receive an aggregate amount of $18,500,000 per year to law enforcement through AB 443 legislation. That's $500,000 each that is desperately needed for general law enforcement that otherwise wouldn't be received, and you can bet your local Sheriff's appreciate the revenue. Mental illness is always a hot topic and the millions provided to every county in California through Prop 63 (MHSA) would vanish. Our school districts would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is where I have to stop listing the amounts we'd lose that would not be replaced by property, sales and other taxes, contrary to what we've been spoon fed by the SOJ supporters.

I sincerely feel the public has been deceived and have been led down a path of untruths. I also sincerely feel that the motivation behind Baird and others come from their religious beliefs, deep hatred for anyone receiving public assistance and absolute disregard for any rules and regulations. They're also oblivious to, let's say for sake of argument, the other half of the population that doesn't want the SOJ.

As I've preached forever as it comes to representation, elect better county supervisors and city council members. Your local elected officials have an open door to the State's Capital and a seat at its table. The next time you hear your County Supervisor complain about how he/she can't get anything done in Sacramento, start looking for another supervisor, because I, along with dozens of other supervisors, are living proof it can be done.

Jason Christian
Resilient Sierra, December 3, 2015
My name is Jason Christian. I am one of the owners of Salmon Lake Lodge, and founder and proponent of the Loyalton Biomass Project.

The simple, strong argument against Sierra County's participation in a "51st State of Jefferson" is we can't afford it. Others will make that argument. I find it persuasive, and hope you will too.

The Jefferson project is a response to visible and important failings in political and policy arrangements, that Sierra County shares with its neighbors and the other mountain counties. The State of Jefferson footprint---essentially the mountain counties---is an appropriate and useful identification of a region with common needs and interests, and an inability to express those needs and interests effectively, both in Washington, DC, and in Sacramento. Failing woodlands policy is one of the results of the existing arrangements. The Jefferson project aims, in part, to address the crisis in the National Forests among which, upon which, these mountain counties depend.

The Mountain Counties, the Jefferson Counties, can better influence Federal policy through the development of effective alliances within and through wealthy California than as a small and impoverished rural State. The challenge for the Jeffersons is to find and mobilize our allies Down Below.

The Mountain Counties must continue to work together, as they have in recent years under the leadership of our Sierra County Supervisors, to develop and promote Healthy Forests policies and practices. At the Federal level, this involves interaction with the 3 Congressional representatives--today LaMalfa, McClintock, and McCarthy---whose districts contain the Mountain Counties. Our challenge is to make the Mountain-County interest, specifically in Healthy Forests policy, a higher priority than it has been in recent years. My friends know, and are sometimes surprised, that I think one very good way of raising this priority would be to give a carpetbag to one of our Supervisors, and persuade him to run for Congress in the District just to our South.

The people and elected officials of the Mountain Counties should participate in the redistricting process that will follow the 2020 Census, both by seeking membership on the Citizens' Redistricting Commission, and by asserting the existence of a strong community of interest joining all the rural communities that depend on the National Forests. A feasible and valuable outcome of the Jefferson movement would be the creation of a Mountain County 1st Congressional District of Jefferson.

May we all be Jeffersonians. Inside California.

Piers Strailey to the Plumas County Board of Supervisors
October 2, 2015
That the Plumas County Board of Supervisors is still considering support for a state of Jefferson is incredible and an affront to the citizens who elected you to oversee the important workings of Plumas County and its considerable financial and regulatory relationship with its home state of California. Clear evidence of the futility of such support, along with the economic disaster that would ensue, has been apparent for some time.
 
The state of Jefferson would be comprised of relatively poor, sparsely populated counties with inadequate assets to be self-sufficient. Its borders would be fragmented and some of its counties potentially isolated because many northerner counties have better sense than to get involved with such a losing proposition. Plumas County presently receives millions of dollars more in tax-based revenues from California than it sends to the state through taxes. For all of the counties that might comprise Jefferson, the dependency on greater California for basic infrastructure, health, education, law enforcement, fire control, and social services amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. For us to reject the help of 38 million other Californians to meet our basic needs in the belief that we can provide for ourselves in some imaginary land of enhanced personal freedom and deregulation is ludicrous. We would either have to tax ourselves beyond the breaking point or be content with crumbling and disappearing services –the kind of situation that depresses property values and income, causing people to leave and discouraging new people and employers from moving in. Jefferson would have no major universities for its students, no first-rate research or medical facilities, no transportation or shipping centers, and no change in federally owned lands within its borders.
 
The California legislature would have to approve of the split. There is no chance of that happening. While unloading portions of the north state would free the rest of California from a big financial burden (not really big compared to the $167 billion state budget), we do have one resource that California cannot get anywhere else-water. Why would California turn the headwaters of much of its economic life-blood, vital to agriculture, industry, and citizens, over to a new, hostile political entity? Jefferson would have no other significant resources as bargaining chips to try to be financially solvent, so it would have to seek compensation for its water. Water use laws are convoluted and controversial enough already, without introducing a new, desperate player. How many generations would it take to sort out?
 
The United States Congress would have to approve of the birth of a new state. Every existing state would diminish its own power in the Senate by granting four senators to land that, as one California, has had two (like everybody else). And a 51st state would set precedent for many more- any rural region where small populations, due to the nature of democracy, have little law-making influence over their urban and suburban counterparts. Why would any other state in the United States be interested in opening that Pandora’s box?
 
Yes, we are quite powerless in California government, and many laws and regulations that are passed in Sacramento are not appropriate for our locale. But on the other hand, were it not for the other 38 million Californians who annually subsidize our local government and the many services it struggles to provide, living here would cease to be attractive for most of us. There would be serious deterioration in job and educational opportunity, access to health care, social programs, and safety-related services. There is a legitimate frustration and concern on the part of many rural Californians concerning their lack of influence in state government. The state of Jefferson is not a viable solution to the problem, and its supporters have questionable political motives and pre-conceived notions about exactly what a new state would look like for them, and the rest of us.  I urge you all to cease wasting time, considering its supporters’ misinformation. If Jefferson proponents are so sure of the merits of their quest, then they should invest the time and money required to get a measure of support on next year’s general election ballot. It is neither desirable nor appropriate for you, as a group of as few as three individuals, to assume to speak for the citizenry of all of Plumas County by endorsing the concept of a State of Jefferson on our behalf.
 
Thank you for making the time to consider the facts and opinions presented above.

Faith Strailey, KIC Plumas County Coordinator, "Keep It California"
Feather River Bulletin, October 1, 2015.
The Board of Supervisors has placed the SOJ proposal to secede from California and form a new state as an action item on the October 6th board meeting Agenda. The supervisors should vote “NO”.

The impetus behind the present State of Jefferson movement centers around the belief that the residents of rural California are underrepresented and have no voice in state government. Many of the SOJ supporters believe that the State of California has imposed too many regulations and has too many taxes. SOJ proponents are urging county supervisors in rural northern California counties to sign a declaration that will signify a county’s intention to separate from California and establish a new state, the State of Jefferson. By taking this step, counties will earn themselves a “seat at the table”. This “seat” will enable representatives (county supervisors?) of these counties to be part of the decision making group which will negotiate separation and discuss policy for the new state.

To gain the support of county supervisors, SOJ proponents have promised more power and control over local issues including school curriculum and textbook choices, determining which social and behavioral health services are made available, law enforcement policy, and state highway maintenance.

Monetarily, the information presented by SOJ misleads citizens with unsubstantiated or inaccurate facts and figures.  Suggestions for funding and operating this new state continue to evolve as concerns and faulty assumptions are identified. One such assumption is that the California debt which Jefferson would assume could be paid off at 0%.  In short, SOJ proponents are asking counties to join their movement in the “blind faith” that SOJ has something better to offer rural counties and their citizens than the State of California.
“Keep It California” recognizes that rural counties do have a list of grievances which the State of California legislature needs to address, and we want to pursue addressing these concerns through state legislative action. But we also recognize that the State of California provides invaluable services that our counties and our citizens could not access under the viability models presented by SOJ proponents.

California’s rural counties are heavily subsidized by the citizens in urban areas of the state. The figures presented to the board on June 2nd by “Keep It California” supporters indicated that in 2014-15, Plumas County received at least $68,000,000 in state revenues to operate governmental programs which benefitted our county. These programs included public schools, law enforcement, highway maintenance, state parks, and county budget operations. Around $18,300,000 was collected by the state from Plumas County residents. Our county received almost 50,000,000 more dollars from the state than we paid out to them! (The figures cited were accessed from public records and cross checked with agency personnel. )The State of Jefferson could not possibly provide the same level of services we presently enjoy as it would not have access to the funding that California’s huge state population generates unless it drastically increases the tax rates for individuals. There would be no help from business  as Jefferson “big business” proposes zero corporate taxes.

Supporting the the SOJ Declaration, reflects a willingness to significantly reduce our county’s level of services and financial security.  CalTrans spends $19,000,000 a year to keep our roads open. That’s more than the total we pay to the state of California each year for all our services! And it’s not just services that we would lose if the board votes to support SOJ; we would also lose jobs. Any employee who is paid through state funds would be at risk of losing his/her job. Depending on enrollment, FRC alone has 180 employees; approximately half of FRC’s funding is from the state. Plumas Rural Services employs between 65 and 100 employees; 97% of its budget is government funded. People move when they have no employment.  In 2013-14, Plumas Eureka State Park brought in over 78,000 visitors to our county. It is completely funded by the State of California. How many businesses will be affected if the park is not able to be kept open and tourism lapses? Our local businesses already know the sad consequences of declining population and reduced tourism on their own viability.

Seceding from the State of California would be an economic disaster for our county. Our county supervisors should act on behalf of their constituents and vote against support of the SOJ Resolution. They need to make it very clear that separating from the State of California is not in the best interests of its citizens now or in the future. Our board of supervisors would better serve the citizens of Plumas County if they were to work more aggressively with our state legislative members to be more effective in advocating for solutions to rural county issues.

Keep It California is a non-partisan citizen group. It is already engaged in educating urban members of the Assembly and Senate regarding rural issues. Visit us at KeepItCalifornia.org

Ruth Jackson
Feather River Bulletin, October 1, 2015.
 I am well beyond annoyed that the State of Jefferson supporters are once again proposing to tie up a large chunk of the Board of Supervisors’ time with their repeated pleas to have the Board support their idea of secession from the state of California.  It does not seem to matter to them that the Board has already heard from them innumerable times, as well as having heard from others with a different viewpoint who have clearly pointed out the political impossibility and the economic devastation inherent in their proposal.  The would-be Jeffersonites seem to feel that they can just wear down the Board by their repeated harangues.

If a child kept pestering his parents for a piece of candy, or a toy, or a pony, any rational parent who had said no would pretty quickly put the child in ‘time out’ or send the child to his room until the child gave up whining and complaining.  So why does the Board of Supervisors keep listening to the repeated complaining of this one group?  It is high time – really, past time – for the Board to say a final ‘no’ and close the door on this complaint.

I understand that some Board members seem to be in favor of a ‘State of Jefferson,’ notwithstanding all the flaws and liabilities contained in that proposal.  I can only encourage them to heed the deliberations of several counties near us [Shasta, Butte, and Trinity, to name a few] that might have seemed to be like-minded but which, in fact, have rejected this idea.


Stephanie Leaf to the Plumas County Board of Supervisors
October 1, 2015
I'm writing to tell you how strongly opposed I am to the State of Jefferson. I am not merely opposed.  I am OUTRAGED that members of the board of supervisors are considering voting in support of this concept.
 
I’m not going to spend time presenting facts and figures showing why the State of Jefferson is fiscally unworkable.  That’s already been extensively done, most notably in the reams of material presented at the June 6th board meeting.
 
What I do want to say is this:  If you think that by voting in favor of the state of Jefferson, you are reflecting the views of a majority of the residents of this county, you are wrong.  You are merely reflecting the views of an extremely visible and vocal minority. The vast majority of Plumas County residents are going quietly about their lives. When you ask them what they think about the State of Jefferson (in many cases having to first explain what it is), the response is something like “oh, that’s ridiculous.” When you ask those who are against it why they don’t do something to show their opposition, the response is “because it will never happen.”  This is especially true among people who are politically aware enough to know that establishing a separate state requires approval of the California state legislature.
 
So there is a “silent majority” of state of Jefferson opponents.  Meanwhile, the State of Jefferson advocates are very vocal, especially at board meetings.  But I wonder how many there would be if you eliminated all the ones who are not Plumas County residents. They are also very visible in their uniform green t-shirts, and very well-organized.   But please do not mistake visibility and organization for representation.
 
The majority of people in this county appreciate and value being part of California and recognize the contribution that the state of California makes to their lives and the life of their community.  Just read the article on the escapees from the Plumas County Jail and ask the sheriff where that grant money would come from for the new facility that he says we so desperately need.
 
A vote in favor of the state of Jefferson would be a betrayal of the people you’ve been elected to represent and a slap in the face to all of us. Please do not be swayed by a loud minority to engage in actions that divide us rather than unite us.

Robert Minch
Red Bluff Daily News, September 25, 2015
Speaking of the move to divide California, those opposed to such a venture will be pleased to learn that Trinity County has recently demonstrated some back bone, and published the following: 'WHEREAS, the State of Jefferson proponents have failed to prove financial viability or that forming a new state will solve the above problems and will likely never be approved by the California Legislature and the United States Congress; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that the Trinity County Board of Supervisors be informed of all the possible financial impacts and practical consequences of separation from California; and WHEREAS, the State of California has an economic output that surpasses most countries, and jobs funded by the state through our schools, county, parks, police and nonprofit community provide living wage employment which helps support our local economy and Trinity County will lose millions of dollars in funding for roads, education, and social services for youth, families and seniors, if we separate from California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The Trinity County Board of Supervisors has carefully examined and considered the proposal by the "State of Jefferson" proponents and does not agree that forming a new state will solve the above problems and that the financial risks and uncertainties outweigh the possible benefits of forming a new "State of Jefferson."'

Christina Billeci, California Democratic Party Opposes the Formation of the State of Jefferson
Territorial Dispatch, August 25, 2015
On August 16th in Burlingame, California, the California Democratic Party officially adopted a Resolution opposing the formation of the State of Jefferson. A copy of the Resolution will be forwarded to the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate.

Sponsored by the Sierra County Democratic Central Committee and supported by the Rural Caucus, Northern rural counties stressed the lack of financial viability, the lack of clarity over water rights, future endangerment to the environment, the loss of jobs, weak infrastructure, a threat to at risk populations, especially children and the elderly, and a decrease in school funding, as all cause to oppose the State of Jefferson's formation.

With a 21.6% poverty rate and a high unemployment rate, the State of Jefferson is a direct threat to the wellbeing of the residents of Yuba County.

The caseload numbers for state programs administered by Yuba County are high for a county of its size. They include: 4,127 under Cal Works; 9,197 on MediCal; 698 elderly and disabled receiving In-Home Support Services, and 147 children in Foster Care. These figures do not include those being served by Yuba-Sutter Mental Health, or First Five Yuba which assists families with children 0-5 thru State of California tobacco taxes. Proponents of the State of Jefferson have not answered how they will provide services to these at risk children, elderly, disabled or mentally ill. There is also a state share to SSI payments. That share is higher in the State of California, but would be much lower or nonexistent in the proposed State of Jefferson. There are 3,801 blind/ disabled residents who are at risk of having their ben- efits cut under this financially poor state. Yuba County residents who receive health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act would risk losing or will have a lapse in coverage. Individuals and families who currently receive expanded Medicaid funding would no longer be
covered. Yuba County schools receive $69,480,534 or 66.9% of their funding from the State of California. The education of Yuba County children is at risk. How much will our schools receive from the State of Jefferson?

The State of Jefferson puts the people of Yuba County at risk, and when people are at risk, the economy is at risk. Under the State of Jefferson Yuba County would lose millions of dollars in funding for roads, education, and social services for youth, families, and seniors. The financial risks and uncertainties outweigh the possible benefits of moving any further down the path to form a new state that has no financial viability.

The California Democratic Party recognized the importance of protecting our most vulnerable populations, our water, economy, infrastructure, and environment, and took action. Yuba County must reject the failed State of Jefferson, and start working with the State legislature to address the issues facing the North state before it is too late.

Robert Minch, "The Economic Reality of the State of Jefferson"
Red Bluff Daily News, August 14, 2015
I recently observed a pickup proudly displaying the flag of the proposed State of Jefferson and realized there were other deluded people — besides the Tehama County Board of Supervisors — who think this separation from the State of California will happen if they just close their eyes, click their heels together and say, “There’s no place like home in the state of Jefferson.”

Fortunately there are clear minded counties working diligently to see this fanciful event does not happen. One such, Trinity County, has compiled a model of what revenues the citizens of SOJ might expect if the separation came to pass. Here is the summation regarding just county roadways.

“From what it appears, leaving the State of California would significantly impact the maintenance that could be provided to County Roadways. Funds for construction of projects will be affected, but since the source is federal, the impact is not critical. Transit funds will be dependent to what extent a fuel tax, or some other type of revenue, is determined. If there was a gas tax, it could be assumed that a transit component would be included. Given the conservative nature of the counties that would be joining together to form Jefferson State, adoption of a new gas tax or other forms of roadway funding are speculative and the final product would truly be unknown.”

From this we could conclude that forming the State of Jefferson would be analogous to jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Tom Koski, Upper Lake: "Short Stories from the State of Jefferson"
Lake County Record-Bee, August 11, 2015
“Mr. Baird! Mr. Baird! Come quick! A WILDFIRE has broke out in the hills! What are we gonna do?”

“No worries, Citizen! Round up the Greenshirts and pass out the shovels and before you can say ‘We don’t need you, Sacramento’ we’ll have that bad boy put out!”

“Oh, thank you, Mr. Baird. Bless you!”

NEXT WEEK: Higher Education comes to Jefferson

Victoria Brandon: "State of Jefferson" Through the Looking Glass
Lake County News, May 17, 2015
On Tuesday May 12 the Nevada County Board of Supervisors heard a presentation from “State of Jefferson” proponents that managed to be even more fanciful than the similar sales pitch made in Lake County last winter. It included the usual litany of complaints -- northern California is somehow “unrepresented” in Sacramento, environmental regulations are destroying the economy, the state is wallowing in a morass of debt and taxes and crime, individuals and businesses are leaving in droves, etc. Several speakers also made a passionate though equally delusional appeal for an unspecified form of “liberty” that seems to boil down to the elimination of any restrictions on their capacity to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible by any means possible, and as usual abundant patriotic rhetorical flourishes were accompanied by verbal assaults on both the state and the federal governments and by rampant confusion regarding our nation’s history.

But there were a few novelties this time, such as testimony by a self-styled “constitutional expert” from Santa Barbara (an “expert” with no academic or professional credentials) who spent more time arguing that what the state really needs is more state legislators than in opposing the one person/one vote principle of equal representation that has become the chief target of SOJ proponents. The fantasy that elections are controlled by government employees who make up “50 percent or more of the electorate” also struck an inventive note.

Likely to be of particular interest to Lake County was the assertion by chief spokesman Mark Baird that “eight county governments” agree with the proposal to split the state -- an outright falsehood uttered just seconds before his promise to “tell the absolute truth.” Actually only six counties have endorsed secession: Glenn, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, and Yuba. The total of eight is arrived at by including Lake and Lassen, whose Boards of Supervisors voted instead to put the issue on the 2016 ballot for the PEOPLE to indicate their preference. The effrontery of the SOJ proponents in listing these counties among their supporters demonstrates almost as much arrogance as it does deceptiveness.

For more information about the complex issues surrounding this proposal and a link to the video of the meeting visit KeepItCalifornia.org

Plumas News editorial (Feather Publishing Group), May 1, 2015
Proponents of the state of Jefferson lobbied the Plumas County Board of Supervisors for the third time for a declaration of support, and for the third time they walked away empty-handed. Proponents stress that the board can structure the declaration in any way it chooses and that it won’t commit the county to anything but having a “seat at the table,” but we hope that the board just says “No.”

We agree with those hoping to form a new state that life isn’t perfect in California, and that it’s hard for rural, underpopulated areas to be heard. But the answer isn’t to secede.

During last week’s board meeting, proponents presented financial information that indicated Plumas County would enjoy a multimillion-dollar surplus annually. But the county would also be required to pay for most of the services that the state now covers, such as roads, higher education, the judicial system, fire protection … and the list goes on. When it comes to details, proponents say those will come when the new state constitution and articles of confederation are written. Even they admit that it’s going to be a long and challenging road. It’s a road we don’t want to take.

A far better avenue is the approach taken by some of our county leaders and by Assemblyman Brian Dahle. Dahle, a former Lassen County supervisor and member of the Quincy Library Group, knows our corner of northeastern California and he is sharing it with his urban counterparts. To date he has hosted more than two dozen members at his home in Bieber. By doing so he has forged valuable relationships and helped his fellow legislators understand the different needs of rural areas. When a one-size-fits-all approach to skilled nursing funding didn’t fit Eastern Plumas and other rural hospitals, then Supervisor Jon Kennedy went to Sacramento and lobbied for a change.

California isn’t perfect, but we think it’s better to work within the state to make it better than to expend more time and resources on an effort that is unlikely to ever come to fruition — and that we wouldn’t want to be a part of if it did.

Editorials are written by members of the editorial board and should be considered the opinion of the newspaper. The board consists of the publisher, managing editor and the appropriate staff writers.

Columnist Robert Minch: Sanity Regained
Red Bluff Daily News, April 17, 2015
A group of California citizens has formed a new multi-county, non partisan political action committee named “Keep It California PAC”.  Sources say that concerned citizens from throughout rural California met in Redding and voted to form this new group.  It was assembled to oppose those in favor of separation from California.  "Our mission is to advocate for better representation of rural California and oppose breaking away to form a new state," said Plumas County Supervisor Lori Simpson.  She reports that her constituents are telling her to “get on with the work of the county and quit this nonsense.”  Right on.

Richard Cole: Show budget for Jefferson state
Trinity Journal, March 11, 2015
I have one response to Don Mullen’s letter of Feb. 25 defending the Jefferson state movement — show us the money.Most of the letter was the same old tired verbiage we hear from the snake-oil salesmen who try to convince us that leaving the wealthiest state in the union to create the poorest state in the union will somehow be good for us.

But one specific piece of malarkey stood out. Mr. Mullen makes the bizarre statement that “skipping to the bottom line, the State of Jefferson will be financially in the green on day one, while maintaining all the present financial obligations.”

Really? How about if we don’t “skip to the bottom line.” How about if you show us how you are going to get revenue from one of the poorest areas in California, and how you are going to spend enough of it to maintain our roads, our schools, our police, a state college system, etc. etc. California tax money flows into Trinity County to a far greater degree than it flows out. How will the State of Jefferson match that? Show us your revenue projections — and the basis for them — your budgets, and your expenditures — county by county. Show us how the State of Jefferson will support our Trinity County schools, maintain and plow our Trinity County highways, pay the Medi-Cal bills of our low-income families, and finance the many other programs now paid for or subsidized by the state of California. My bet is that if we ever see those figures, they will be laughable, financially disastrous, or both.

Show us the money, Mr. Mullen.

Becky Curry: Representation in the State of Jefferson
Lake County News, 28 February 2015
In 1791, Tom Paine, wrote, in the “Rights of Man,” ‘The county of Yorkshire, which contains near a million souls, sends two county members; and so does the county of Rutland which contains not a hundredth part of that number. The town of Old Sarum, which contains not three houses, sends two members; and the town of Manchester, which contains upwards of sixty thousand souls, is not admitted to send any. Is there any principle in these things?’

In 1832, by act of British Parliament, The Representation of the People Act of 1832 was made law. One of the reforms of the Act, was to eliminate “rotten boroughs” and redistributed representation to the citizens. Rotten boroughs were a product of an ossified system resistant to change, one where fathers passed on constituencies to their sons as if they were personal property. These electoral districts had a very small electorate and could be used by a patron to gain undue and unrepresentative influence within the House of Commons.

In 1964, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state legislative districts must be apportioned on the principle of “one man, one vote.” In an 8-to-1 decision, the court upheld the challenge to the Alabama system, holding that Equal Protection Clause demanded “no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens ...” Noting that the right to direct representation was “a bedrock of our political system,” the court held that both houses of bicameral state legislatures had to be apportioned on a population basis. Chief Justice Warren wrote that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres” and “legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.”

So, here we are in Lake County in 2015, being asked by radical secessionists to rewind our democracy 200 years into the past. The foundation of a republic is based on power residing in the people, and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law, rather than inherited or appointed from divine mandate.

The leaders of the secessionist movement are proposing a return to feudalism by establishing a new state whose government would look like the pre-Reform Act of 1832 United Kingdom.

Their proposal for the government of this new state elect two state senators from each county. In this new “State of Jefferson,” Sierra County with 3,000 citizens, would get two senators and Placer County with close to 400,000 citizens would get two senators. How is this in any way, fair and equal representation for the citizens who live in those counties? One man, one vote and the right to direct representation is the foundation of our democracy.

So, to the secessionists, again, “Is there any principle to this thing?”

Nancy Harby: Jefferson rolls over in his grave
Lake County News, 16 February 2015
Citizens of Lake County: Beware of the secessionists among us! A small-but-vocal minority of states-rights libertarians are attempting to pack the county supervisors’ chambers on Tuesday, Feb. 17, with a cockamamie scheme to separate from the state of California and form their own state called Jefferson. The state they’re proposing would be an impoverished rural backwater, lacking a major university, an international airport, a deep-water harbor or a city of any significance. During a previous failed effort, separatists in 1941 actually proposed Yreka as the capital of Jefferson. Have you ever been to Yreka? Yikes.

They hearken back to the good old days of the Civil War, when West Virginia became a state by first seceding from the union, then seceding from Virginia to rejoin the union. And their example of West Virginia is actually an excellent case study in poverty, pollution, and poor health when a small, rural area cuts itself off from the larger, more prosperous, more functional state. Compare West Virginia to the rest of the country now to see just how bad it could be for Lake County to exit California. Here are Quick Facts from the most recent census

Lake County already suffers from the dubious distinction of being the poorest county in the state of California. I care about my property value and you should too. We should be emphasizing our place at the heart of the prosperous Wine Country rather than considering joining the potato farmers to the north in a sentimentalized fantasy of bygone agrarian independence. This entire State of Jefferson effort would be laughable if the secessionists didn’t take themselves so seriously. It’s little wonder that their propaganda is swaddled in half-truths and half-baked “patriotism.”

On Tuesday a small number of libertarian malcontents will swarm the supervisors chambers, shouting about taxes and the 10th Amendment. Remind them of West Virginia and maybe they’ll go away.

Victoria Brandon: 'State of Jefferson' presents obvious disadvantages to Lake County residents
Lake County News, Thursday, 19 February 2015

As Lake County News has reported, on Feb. 17 the Board of Supervisors appears to have voted (the end of the meeting was extremely confusing) to support the county's secession from California to become part of the (so far fictional) “State of Jefferson,” with Supervisors Farrington and Steele in dissent. This action was taken despite obvious disadvantages to the residents of Lake County, despite the absence of anything approaching a comprehensive financial analysis, despite the last minute news from proponents that a resolution of support would probably involve us in litigation to overturn Reynolds v. Sims (one person/one vote), and without the benefit of the coherent list of options offered by County Counsel Anita Grant.

As a particular touch of irony, one of the most frequent arguments given for the formation of a new state is rural Northern California’s supposed “lack of representation” in Sacramento. This unfortunate state of affairs may apply to counties such as Siskiyou and Modoc, but its relevance to Lake County was decisively refuted the morning after the meeting by the announcement that Assemblymember Bill Dodd and State Senator Mike McGuire have introduced legislation to provide $2.4 million in funding to protect and restore Clear Lake. Our supervisors need to work with these excellent legislators for the benefit of the community instead of seizing self-indulgent opportunities for grandstanding and making reckless accusations.

The actual motion, with its wording determined after rather than during the meeting, states “Upon approval by the State Legislature of the petition for withdrawal from the state of California and to form the state of Jefferson, the Lake County Board of Supervisors will consider the measure for placement on the ballot of the next general election.”

Does this mean that the county will be listed as a secession supporter in the meantime?

To clarify the situation, the subject is coming back to the board at 9:15 a.m. on Tuesday March 3. Although the opportunity for public comment is likely to be restricted to details surrounding the timing and legal standing of a popular vote, it is nonetheless vital to attend this meeting. In the meantime please write or call your supervisor: Tell him that you oppose the secession of Lake County from California, and that at the very least the people of the county should have an opportunity to express their will at the ballot box BEFORE the board takes it upon themselves to speak for us on such a momentous matter. Unless the Board of Supervisors is willing to back away from this destructive proposal immediately, they should act to place it on the ballot at the first reasonable opportunity, and in the meantime refrain from stating an opinion in our names.

You can leave a voice mail for any of them by calling 707-263-2368 or send a fax to 707-263-2207. Email addresses are [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] and [email protected] .

Pierre Cutler: Why are supervisors discussing state of Jefferson?
Lake County News 07 December 2014
As a resident of Lake County, I was surprised to hear that the county Board of Supervisors invited advocates of the proposed state of Jefferson to speak at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting.

Our county has many pressing issues, and I am not convinced that the Board of Supervisors should be spending any time considering the pros and cons of Lake County joining the effort to make “Jefferson” a state. My premise is based on the notion that Lake County has no jurisdiction in creating a new state from an existing state, based on Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Board members – why do you think it is a good idea to discuss this issue as a part of the Board of Supervisors duties and responsibilities?

Mark Mihevc to the Plumas County BOS, January 20, 2015
Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Fasten your seat belts – this could get bumpy. To me, there is no doubt that our democracy is disintegrating into an oligarchy or more to a point, fascism. Or maybe we are already there and people just don’t know it yet. Today’s agenda description is ‘discussion and possible action on support of the State of Jefferson’. Under normal circumstances, this would be a welcomed discussion. I could see the larger states being divided and changes to our Constitution to support proportional representation based on many parties.

I am not against adding a new state like Jefferson. What I am against is who is doing it. The State of Jefferson advocates are ‘extreme right-wing tea party republicans’. Their handouts and flyers say it all. They believe in smaller government. Government isn’t described by size – it is described by effectiveness. They believe in lower taxes, less taxes (which translated into English means fewer taxes), fewer agencies, and ‘social services re-evaluation’. They don’t believe in paying for anything or our Constitutional mandate of ‘providing for the General Welfare’. Education and welfare will be underfunded – if at all. They will destroy our education system with their new curriculum and textbooks. And forget about Obamacare. The handouts say they don’t believe in Air Quality laws, renewable energy & energy storage, or Green House Gas Reductions. They want less regulation and a better business climate. What all this means is that businesses will pay no taxes and are free to pollute the air, land, water. And forget about any progressive energy sources like solar and wind.

But their main motivation is - our natural resources. They will cut down the forest. They will destroy our critical watershed. They will pollute the air and the water. While the few ‘stakeholders’ – the ones offered a ‘seat at the table’ - would be financially rewarded – the residents and the environment will gravely suffer.

These are the people who think Agenda 21 is out to get them. They’ll probably want to erect a fence around the entire state and put up a sign that says ‘whites only’. Yes, they want freedom. Freedom. Freedom. Freedom... Pavlovian buzzwords. Yes, they want the freedom to create a disastrous form of governance.

I cannot see this Board supporting *this* State of Jefferson. I respectfully request that you make a direct motion of non support. However, because of I believe in democracy, may I suggest that the most democratic and most diplomatic path to take would be to make a motion that this Board recommends that the residents of Plumas County vote on the State of Jefferson.

Victoria Brandon: The Worst Idea of 2014
Lake County Record-Bee: 12/05/2014
On December 2 some Siskiyou County activists came to the Board of Supervisors meeting to make a well-rehearsed pitch for the creation of a proposed "State of Jefferson." Consisting of a dozen or so northern California counties possibly augmented by a chunk of southern Oregon, this new state would instantly become the most impoverished in the United States, bankrupt at birth. Without the infrastructure of a modern economy - no east-west interstate highway or railroad, no deep water port, no significant airport, no major medical center or university (and next to no opportunities for higher education at all), and nothing remotely resembling a metropolitan area, its prospects would be most unlikely to get better anytime soon.

Proponents say the region is underserved by Sacramento despite receiving far more in state services than it pays in taxes. After secession, the new state would continue to be geographically isolated, sparsely populated and economically disadvantaged, lacking the resources to fund public education, highways, parks, or law enforcement to anything remotely approaching an acceptable standard. This is progress?

Why would anyone advocate for such a ruinous proposal? Just look at the beneficiaries, starting with multinational resource extraction corporations. Without the protections provided by California's strict environmental regulations, the region's abundant natural resources would be ripe for the plucking. As an even more significant motivation, rich political prizes - two US Senate seats and three Electoral College votes - would fall to the most reactionary wing of American politics.

Membership in a "State of Jefferson" offers no advantages to the residents of Lake County. So it was dismaying to see members of the Board of Supervisors taking the idea seriously, seizing the opportunity to make wisecracks, playing to the gallery of imported green t-shirted supporters, and taking cheap shots at state government. Rather than wasting time in this irresponsible manner, they should learn to work with our newly elected state representatives to obtain concrete benefits for our community.

Becky Curry: State of Denial
Lake County Record-Bee

On November 27, 1941 a band of radical separatists stopped traffic on Interstate 99 near Yreka,waving their rifles,  proclaiming that they would continue to "secede every Thursday until further notice." Less than two weeks later, on December 7, 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and secessionists decided that the protection of the Federal Government of the United States and the State government of California was an asset to their survival.

Now this scheme to secede is back on the agenda of some fringe Tea Party types in California and they want to include Lake County in this irresponsible proposal. On Tuesday Dec 2 at 9:15 a.m. the Lake County Board of Supervisors, at the request of the District 5 Supervisor, will entertain this item. Our County Supervisors have absolutely no authority  to hand our homes and property over to another jurisdictional government entity. None.

*The County of Lake, over fiscal year 2011-2012, according to an online report from our State Treasurer, John Chiang,  received about $31 million dollars in revenue from local collected property taxes, fees, benefit assessments, licenses and fines. The  county received $48.5 million dollars from the State of California to augment our local revenues in order to provide health, safety and infrastructure services to county residents. Our county received around $19 million from the Federal government as well in that year. The total combined budget revenue for the county that year was $113.3 million dollars. Simple arithmetic concludes that we get much more back from the state than we can raise to perform public services that we all rely on. These are  public services that our Board of Supervisors is elected to implement and oversee.

Where will the State of Jefferson make up that revenue?

Lake County is one of the poorest counties in the state. So are the surrounding counties that would make up the State of Jefferson. Together they would form the poorest state in the union. A state poorer than Mississippi.

• How will the State of Jefferson fund highway and county road construction and on-going maintenance?
• How will the State of Jefferson fund public schools and Community Colleges?
• Where will they find funding for building maintenance, buses, teachers, administration, and insurance would be dependent on local taxes.
• How will the State of Jefferson fund law enforcement including vehicles, insurance, offices and payroll?
• How will the State of Jefferson pay to fight wild land fires? Cal Fire brings the resources of the largest state in the union to fight fires in our area.
• What funds would be used to make up for Williamson Act reimbursements?
• How will the State of Jefferson pay for the  oversight to make sure our air and water are clean, that our food is safe and that people who perform services for the public, like doctors and lawyers and nurses and pharmacists, teachers and contractors are licensed and accountable?
• How will the State of Jefferson find the funds to serve people who need food stamp assistance or MediCal, or unemployment and disability insurance or job seeking assistance?
• How will the State of Jefferson take care of our veterans?
• How would the State of Jefferson provide higher learning to its residents?

Any  public institutions of higher learning in northern California State of California would need to charge State of Jefferson students out of state tuition. The State of Jefferson is home to no campus of the California State University System.  This State would be the poorest state in the union with a largely uneducated populace - this not a recipe for success.

People favoring partition think that the new state would be able to support itself by using its many resources, but the State of Jefferson would not be free to raid its own resources. Most of them belong to the United States, and federal regulations on their use would not change.

As to those that are currently regulated by the States of California and Oregon, these states will not consent to letting the State of Jefferson go without long-term agreements on the use of resources that would not be favorable to Jefferson. The State of California, the federal government and long term commitments to big water users control river water. Most regulations on water and timber would not change. Approval of the formation of a new state requires approval of the legislature of parent states (California and Oregon) and the US Congress. This issue stands no chance of approval.  Congress is well aware that in creating the State of Jefferson, it is taking on a fiscal sink - a place that will consume substantial US resources without being able to make a substantial contribution to the US or even its own well being. Why would Congress want to take something like that on?

The proponents of  this contrivance, completely lacking in  logical foundation, claim that they receive no representation in Sacramento. They do  elect representatives to Sacramento. If they are unhappy with them, they would be better served by electing representatives who worked for them and their interests and put forward policies to address their needs. However, instead of taking responsibility, they seek to place blame for their own failure to elect effective legislators. We suffer no such fate in Lake County. We are ably represented by our Sacramento legislators and our Members of the U.S. House. The return in revenues we get from Sacramento and Washington D.C. is clear evidence.

Why does our Board wish to waste one penny of a tax dollar on this fool's errand?