Do you have to get 50% of the whole state to support a petition before you can force a referendum on the matter? What is a sufficient percentage?
Texas has differing petition signature requirements depending upon the nature of the issue. At the lower end the requirement is 5 percent or 20,000 qualified voters, whichever is less, for a citizen-initiated petition for municipal charter
amendments. A higher ballot access threshold is in Houston where a petition triggering a recall election 25 percent PDF Cite Getting on the primary ballot to run for president is MUCH easier, requiring only 5000 signatures or a filing fee of $5,000.
At this point, 25-30K signatures is not a huge percentage. But if that was 25-30% then, IMHO, a referendum would be warranted. And *if *such a referendum passed then Congress would be foolish not to consider it seriously.
The general discussion in Canada was that a significant majority, not just 50%+1, would be required for such a huge disruptive step as splitting off a chunk of the country. You don’t want the whims of current public opinion to determine something with immense costs and permanent impact. A bad choice for president or congress can be undone at the next election. Major surgery on the institutions of state - citizenship, legal structure, government departments, international treaties, and evrything else impacted - would take years to sort out. You want to be sure that there aren’t a few percent voting that way simply because the prime minister of the time is a dipwad, or they dislike a recent tax increase… or worse yet, something like “the price of gas is too high” that the government can’t control but the referendum campaign might promise to fix even though they can’t.
It has to be a definite yes for the right reasons.
As I said above, 100% is not sufficient to “force” a referendum on the subject.
That would be about 4,500,000 more signatures, or about 50 times the number they have now. I think we can wait. This is just Fantasyland at this point.
Think of secession as a divorce: there was a time before “no fault” divorce when you couldn’t split from your spouse just because you were tired of them; the other party had a vested interest in the marriage, and you had to either show just cause or persuade the other partner to part on terms. Similarly, the union as a whole has a vested interest in it’s self-preservation which unilateral secession would violate. If a majority of 3/4ths of the states were so pissed at the Federal government that they could get an amendment passed permitting secession, then in theory the Federal government would have to accede. It would take that sort of hypermajority for it to actually happen- and, frankly, to win the civil war that might result.
First, we need to see a proper formal declaration (e.g. “When in the Course of human Events, a bunch of Wingnuts suffers Butthurt because the Black Guy won the Election again…”)
