This will never happen even if it does pass the ballot measure vote. By the US Constitution (Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 [1]), new states require both the consent of the state legislature (which currently has Democractic majority) and the US Congress (which currently is completely disfunctional). Never mind the internal fights that would happen over water rights. I think you are more likely to see California ruptured by science-fiction level earthquakes before this happens.
Its not really a plan to split California into six states, its a plan to propose to the federal government splitting California into six states, and to amend the State Constitution to permit each county a broad power to nullify state law within the county until and unless that partition occurs [1]. This is particularly critical to note because if the federal government were to reject the partition plan (which seems quite possible if it were to pass California voters), the changes to the State Constitution would remain.
[1] See Section 4 of the initiative [2], amending Article XI of the State Constitution.
This proposal has interesting aspects regarding percentage of representation in the US Senate. Over time, as the US population grew, each persons representation percentage has fallen. California had 1.4 million people in 1900, and 38 million people in 2012.
In 1900, each person had 0.000148 of a Senator. In 2012 that is 0.00000526 of a Senator. With the new states, that goes up approximately six-fold to 0.0000316
The Constitution says there are 2 Senators per state. So, splitting California up means 10 additional seats in the senate for the people living there, so that each person's proportional representation goes up - i.e. it's easier to get the ear of your senator because you are competing with fewer people for his attention.
Not sure what would happen in the US House -- I think the number of Representatives is set at a fixed number (435) by law. So the results of the next census would be .. interesting.
There are two things the federal government is extremely unlikely to do.
* Let any part of what is now California cease being part of the union.
* Assign twelve senators to what is now California.
There are only two ways to avoid both pitfalls.
* California remains one state.
* The US Constitution is amended to allow only two senators for six states (which used to be one).
Any proposal for splitting California without including that constitutional amendment is effectively a call for secession, and is likely to be treated as such by the federal government.
>> Let any part of what is now California cease being part of the union.
That's an interesting point. If five new states are created, do they have to petition the United States to become part of the Union?
>> Assign twelve senators to what is now California.
The other states will likely object to this, as it will be a reduction in their own voting power in the Senate. Aside from the "joining the Union" part though, I don't think they have any say in it.
> If five new states are created, do they have to petition the United States to become part of the Union?
For five new states to be created by removing territory from an existing state, the split would have to be approved by Congress; the new states don't have to be admitted to the Union separately from Congressional permission for them to create them in the first place -- allowing them to be created would admit them to the Union.
Each house district is supposed to have about the same population, so California's 53 districts would have to be redrawn if any of them crossed the new state lines, which follow current county boundaries.
People are mostly focusing on the political effects of splitting CA, but I think this particular set of boundaries is not a good one from a practical perspective, even if CA were somehow to be split. They look drawn almost solely on the basis of voting patterns. On the basis of commute patterns, economic ties, etc., they make little sense. For example, the proposal splits the LA metro area between two states, which I don't think will improve things for LA residents. For one thing, Metrolink would become an interstate commuter-rail system, which will just add another layer of bureaucracy in the way of getting anything done. And as a former resident of the Inland Empire, I don't see why it should be attached to San Diego when it is clearly part of the LA metro area; putting a state line right through the middle of the 10/210 corridor is silly.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_Stat...