# Could California Become 5 States If...? (see post) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 21, 2020, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188 "2020-09-21T23:11:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2020, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188/42 "2020-09-25T13:18:06Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Maybe the 4 or 5 new states of California would all have identical constitutions and laws etc., etc., because it would really still be one big state in every way except it would now have a bunch more senators. It would explicitly not be one big state, it would be 4 or 5 seperate states each individually sovereign and each with as much authority to pass their own laws as California has now. They might start with almost identical laws (couldn’t be exactly identical because ‘this state’ would be different for each one), but would be able to pass their own laws, so things would rapidly diverge. And any state law or constitutional provision requiring ‘Subcalifornia A’ to get the approval of ‘Subcalifornia B’ for all of their legislative process would almost certainly be struck down as violating the constitutional requirement that states afford a republican form of government to residents of the state. > [@](#): > > A _fait accompli_ , It would be total scorched-earth, fuck-you-in-your-trachea politics. A little payback for the GOP fucking up SCOTUS and everything else. It sounds a lot more like idle fantasy about what would really be more of ‘kick-me-in-my-own-trachea politics’. California’s legislatures deciding to screw THEMSELVES up for the sake of someone else’s fantasy is just not very likely, and actually doing this requires the participation of California’s legislature. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2020, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188/43 "2020-09-25T13:43:45Z")
> [@glowacks](#): > > “Deserve”'s got nothing to do with it. > > Wyoming is a sovereign state, and DC is merely a possession of the US, much like any other where the people’s representatives get no say in their government except locally and those local officials can be overruled by people elected elsewhere. Population is irrelevant. Everyone except 3 people could leave Wyoming, and they’d all be in Congress one way or another; they’d probably still argue over which has to sit in the house. > > So that’s the reason. I can’t answer “deserves” because that’s not relevant. This is another one of those arguments about what the rules are instead of what the right thing to do is. The rules about DC statehood are wrong and we as a nation should be attempting to correct them. People and their rights matter, not the fucking rules. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2020, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188/44 "2020-09-25T16:07:36Z")
Both things _matter_, but for different reasons. If your goal is to get DC admitted as a state, you can talk about the moral imperative of DC residents having representation in the federal government all you want, but it’s simply not going to change anything. States don’t get admitted without the consent of Congress, and Congress isn’t interested. If changing the rules are impractical, as they are in this case, then the only other solution is to find another idea which is practical. And practicality is often at the mercy of idealism. I think a constitutional amendment granting DC some representatives probably has a better chance of success than statehood. We already managed to do it for presidential electors. Another option is ceding the remainder of the district back to Maryland, perhaps with the exception of the White House and Capitol district. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2020, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188/45 "2020-09-30T13:54:12Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The Constitution later says that the President gets to veto anything passed by both houses of Congress, except for resolutions on adjournment. And except for constitutional amendments. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188/46 "2020-10-01T10:30:28Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > I think a constitutional amendment granting DC some representatives probably has a better chance of success than statehood. I’m not really sure how that’s possible. DC statehood is quickly becoming a rote party-line issue, which is very bad for amending the Constitution but very good for passing an ordinary bill the next time there’s one-party Democratic control in Washington. The amendment option was also already tried in in the 70s, when the political climate was probably _more_ receptive to pro-democracy reforms to the Constitution, and only 16 states ratified it. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188/47 "2020-10-01T15:16:19Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Yes. Altering all the flags to accommodate a new state would probably be an couple orders of magnitude more expensive than altering the seating arrangements of the senate. Maybe it would be time to abandon the “one star per state” thing. Just leave it at fifty and says “it represents that there’s a whole bunch of states.” Or maybe wait? Back in the day, they didn’t change the flag EVERY time. For instance, between the admission of #22 Alabama and #23 Maine, there was never a 22-star flag; they just went to 23 in 1820. They also skipped a 42-star design after the addition of five states in 1889 and went directly to 43 after adding Idaho in 1890 (the 43 star flag was probably the worst ever.) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188/48 "2020-10-01T15:59:06Z")
In those cases, they knew that additional states would be added soon, so waiting wasn’t a problem. If DC or Puerto Rico is added, it might be decades before another state follows. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188/49 "2020-10-01T17:43:51Z")
They were not consistent that way though. A 49-star flag was officially adopted upon the entry of Alaska though the entry of Hawai’i was just months away and obviously in the works. (I don’t even know if anyone bothered to actually make any 49-star flags.) The 49-star flag was official until 1960, in fact, since by tradition new flags are adopted on July 4. Hawai’i was made a state in August. Interestingly, the 50-star version is, by a fair margin, the longest-serving version ever. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188/50 "2020-10-01T21:35:26Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Or maybe wait? Back in the day, they didn’t change the flag EVERY time. For instance, between the admission of #22 Alabama and #23 Maine, there was never a 22-star flag; they just went to 23 in 1820. They also skipped a 42-star design after the addition of five states in 1889 and went directly to 43 after adding Idaho in 1890 (the 43 star flag was probably the worst ever.) That’s because stars are added to the flag on the Fourth of July after their admission North and South Dakota, Montana and Washington were admitted in November 1889. Idaho was admitted on July 3 1890 so we skipped from a 38 star flag to one of 43 stars. Similarly Alaska was admitted in January 1959 while Hawaii was admitted in August 1959. So there was a 49 star flag. It was 7 rows of 7 stars each. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2020, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188/51 "2020-10-05T04:19:45Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > (the 43 star flag was probably the worst ever.) No it was the 38 star flag considering how easy it would have been to make the canton symmetrical by offsetting the 2nd and 4th row in the style we have today. The 21 star flag is pretty bad too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-become-5-states-if-see-post/921188.md?page=2)