Does this have a chance in a cold hell of passing? What if, hypothetically, it does happen? Would that be good for New York City State/Gothan/New Amsterdam, or New York State, for that matter?
First of all, this doesn’t have a chance of passing.
Second, if it does happen:
-
It will causing redistricting problems, as there are several congressional districts that are in both NYC and the surrounding counties.
-
New York and NYC would both have an open Senate seat, as one of the New York’s Senators (Schumer) lives in the city, while the other (Clinton) does not. As the Governor of New York State and the Mayor of New York City are both Republicans, this will result in a Republican net gain of two Senate seats.
-
I have no idea if this will be a good thing, but it will make life interesting on the L.I. suburbs, which will be isolated from the rest of the state.
(As a hijack, who do you think Bloomberg and Pataki will appoint to the open Senate seats?)
O boo frikken hooo. SO it doesnt get 3.5 Billion dolars back from the state. Big frikken deal!
California is the highest contributor of federal taxes and it shafts us with 58 Billion dollars currently with an upward trend.
Maybe California should secede from the US?
That’s only NYC’s net contribution to NYS’s coffers. Its net contribution to the Feds can’t be broken out, because it isn’t a state, but I can guarantee you it ain’t chump change.
What a rip! The title says “secede”, dammit, New York to secede! Had my check book out, and everything, just needed the address!
Personally, I like the idea of a Bear Flag Republic. So you’ll have my support.
From a Texan ;),
Blackeyes
Both resulting states would need new congressional districts, but the “problems” with such redistricting would be no more “severe” than for any redistricting after a regular decennial census. New York just went through that process after the 2000 Census, and both State and City managed just fine.
This question makes several flawed assumptions. First, in New York City-turned-state, the City’s mayor would not automatically become the new state’s governor. The new state would need a constitution, under which an election would be held for the new state’s first governor and other officers. Mayor Bloomberg might or might not run for governor and, if he did, he might or might not get elected.
Second, the incumbent senators would not necessarily keep their seats in the new state. New York City-turned-state would be a new and different body politic than the one that elected the incumbent senators, and would not be bound by those elections, in which almost half the voters would have resided outside the new state’s borders. New York State, on the other hand, would presumably keep its existing political identity, although the deal establishing the new state could provide otherwise–for example, if the arrangement broke the State into two entirely new states, neither of which was the existing state’s direct legal successor, rather than broke the new state off from the existing one.
Third, establishing the City (and perhaps its environs) as a new state would not result in any “open Senate seats” to be filled by gubernatorial appointment, at least not in the new state (and probably not in the existing one either). A new election would be held. The Constitution provides that “no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state . . . without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.” The New York legislature has a Senate with a Republican majority and an Assembly with a Democratic majority, so any plan establishing a new state would need both parties’ consent. The Democratic-controlled Assembly would not pass any plan that lets a Republican governor simply appoint a new United States senator to a seat formerly held by a Democrat.
Not necessarily. Some proposals for New York City seceding from New York State place Long Island in the seceding state, together with New York City.