Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state
-
@George-K said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
@LuFins-Dad said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
Things would change pretty drastically for the people in those counties… Different taxes, board of education, narcotics laws, and much more.
Oh, of course. I was thinking about the national implications.
Well, I imagine Idaho would get a couple more House Members and Electoral Votes. Oregon would lose a couple, by extension.
@LuFins-Dad said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
Well, I imagine Idaho would get a couple more House Members and Electoral Votes. Oregon would lose a couple, by extension.
True...
-
I just like the middle-finger shape of the possible new state. What a great flag that could be.
-
Isnt that pretty much impossible to happen however?
-
@jon-nyc said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
Seemingly so. I’m not even sure what it would take legally to do that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/09/can-portions-of-states-secede-from-those-states/
This is in the news again, in San Bernardino County—a county next to L.A., which is home to over 2 million people (AP):
The county's Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 on Wednesday to put the secession measure on the 2022 ballot, the Southern California News Group reported. One supervisor was absent.
The measure will go before the board again next Tuesday for final adoption. The initial draft would put this question to voters on Nov. 8: "Do the citizens of San Bernardino County want the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to study all options to obtain its fair share of state and federal resources, up to and including secession?"
Can they do that? Why, yes, they can, but only with permission of the state from which they're seceding as well as of the federal government. Article IV, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides,
[N]o 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.
The provision allowing such actions with the states' and federal government's consent appears to apply to both the "erected within" clause and the "formed by the Junction" clause, and indeed this is what happened when Kentucky seceded from Virginia in 1792 and Maine seceded from Massachusetts in 1820. (I set aside the West Virginia / Virginia precedent, which was complicated by the Civil War.)
Our own Eugene Kontorovich has argued that when part of State A seeks to join State B, the consent of State A might not be required, since that's neither erecting a new state within state A nor forming a new state. But I'm inclined to think state A's consent would be necessary: If San Bernardino County joins Nevada, that is in effect forming a State (albeit one that would also be called Nevada) by the Junction of two "States, or Parts of States" (the State of Nevada and Part of the State of California).
So the Constitution forbids nonconsensual secession from a state (secession without the consent of the state that loses territory); but it doesn't forbid consensual secession.
-
Yeah, they need agreement by both States’ legislatures AND the Federal Legislature.
Oregon isn’t going to give those counties away for nothing…
-
Havent there been studies that show that many of the counties that want to do this (usually somewhat rural) actually receive more in tax dollar than they pay into the state?
EDIT TO ADD: here is one study for @George-K state!!!
-
Havent there been studies that show that many of the counties that want to do this (usually somewhat rural) actually receive more in tax dollar than they pay into the state?
EDIT TO ADD: here is one study for @George-K state!!!
@taiwan_girl said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
Havent there been studies that show that many of the counties that want to do this (usually somewhat rural) actually receive more in tax dollar than they pay into the state?
EDIT TO ADD: here is one study for @George-K state!!!
That has absolutely zero to do with their value to the state, overall. When you have high concentrations of people in urban areas, the tax revenues are always going to be higher and the public expenditures lower per capita.
By the same reasoning, Alaska shouldn’t be a state…
-
@taiwan_girl said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
Havent there been studies that show that many of the counties that want to do this (usually somewhat rural) actually receive more in tax dollar than they pay into the state?
EDIT TO ADD: here is one study for @George-K state!!!
That has absolutely zero to do with their value to the state, overall. When you have high concentrations of people in urban areas, the tax revenues are always going to be higher and the public expenditures lower per capita.
By the same reasoning, Alaska shouldn’t be a state…
@LuFins-Dad said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
@taiwan_girl said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
Havent there been studies that show that many of the counties that want to do this (usually somewhat rural) actually receive more in tax dollar than they pay into the state?
EDIT TO ADD: here is one study for @George-K state!!!
That has absolutely zero to do with their value to the state, overall. When you have high concentrations of people in urban areas, the tax revenues are always going to be higher and the public expenditures lower per capita.
By the same reasoning, Alaska shouldn’t be a state…
I think you mis understand me. One of the discussion items raised by areas that want to succeed is that they pay more to the state in taxes than they receive in benefits. The opposite is generally true.
(I know that this is not the only concern raised, but is one of them.)
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
@taiwan_girl said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
Havent there been studies that show that many of the counties that want to do this (usually somewhat rural) actually receive more in tax dollar than they pay into the state?
EDIT TO ADD: here is one study for @George-K state!!!
That has absolutely zero to do with their value to the state, overall. When you have high concentrations of people in urban areas, the tax revenues are always going to be higher and the public expenditures lower per capita.
By the same reasoning, Alaska shouldn’t be a state…
I think you mis understand me. One of the discussion items raised by areas that want to succeed is that they pay more to the state in taxes than they receive in benefits. The opposite is generally true.
(I know that this is not the only concern raised, but is one of them.)
@taiwan_girl said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
@LuFins-Dad said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
@taiwan_girl said in Republicans trying hard to create a new blue state:
Havent there been studies that show that many of the counties that want to do this (usually somewhat rural) actually receive more in tax dollar than they pay into the state?
EDIT TO ADD: here is one study for @George-K state!!!
That has absolutely zero to do with their value to the state, overall. When you have high concentrations of people in urban areas, the tax revenues are always going to be higher and the public expenditures lower per capita.
By the same reasoning, Alaska shouldn’t be a state…
I think you mis understand me. One of the discussion items raised by areas that want to succeed is that they pay more to the state in taxes than they receive in benefits. The opposite is generally true.
(I know that this is not the only concern raised, but is one of them.)
Sorry, just saw this.. The counties in question “receive more in state funding than what they pay in” is only true due to state road infrastructure spending and state parks. Take a look at the 3 counties in Maryland that want to secede to West Virginia. Each of those counties have two major Interstate Highways cutting through them, I70 and I68. The state of Maryland is charged with maintenance on those roads. And while the Federal Government does pay part, that is not paid directly to the road maintenance. It goes into a Maryland Fund that the state then uses as it sees fit. So the expenditures for 70 and 68 are paid by the State, even if half the dollars didn’t originate in the state. So when WaPo does a report on state expenditure vs tax receipts, they are going to see a huge amount of expenditure for those areas. And since they are sparsely populated, the difference in expenditure vs. receipts look stark, especially per capita. But the benefit of those roads truly are for Baltimore County, Frederick, County, and Montgomery County.
