The Ultimate Government Accountability Reform
Californians want one. Texans think they can get one at any time, but would prefer California go first. Glenn Reynolds writes that only losers want one.
I think it would make the ultimate accountability reform.
What I’m talking about is state-level secession. It should be very difficult to secede, and it should require a supermajority vote of the state’s citizens, but having a clear, reasonable process in place for secession would make for the ultimate heads-up not just to politicians but to voters in the rest of the country that the population of entire state thinks the national government is wronging them, and badly.
This is not something that’s going to happen now. California isn’t going to leave over Trump. California needs the possibility that the federal government will bail them out in order to keep getting loans to pay off their spending. The California secession referendum could hit 100% and the California courts will still find a way to keep it from happening. And Texas doesn’t want to leave—we still think the constitution can work, if we give it a chance.
But having a clear and reasonable secession process in place would also elevate the discussion of why the people of a state want to secede, and that would, in turn, influence the behavior of federal politicians to the better. President Trump will tell you this: when partners in an enterprise have the option of leaving the enterprise, the rest of the partners have an incentive to please the disappointed parties.
To deal, in other words.
I suggest a constitutional amendment requiring something along the lines of:
- A two-thirds supermajority of the state’s legislature, signed by the governor.
- A waiting period of six to twelve months, followed by:
- A two-thirds supermajority referendum.
Step one will require that the reasons for secession be part of the state’s regular election process. The state legislature can start the process on their own, or they might add additional requirements, such as an initial referendum to gauge the will of the voters.
Step two will give the state and the national government an opportunity to both fix their differences, and/or to decide on the nature of the break.
Step three will ensure that the vast majority of the state’s voters desire a break with the national government. You want a supermajority so that next year the majority still agrees.
In response to Why Liberals should support federalism: Federalism, or states’ rights, protects both liberal and conservative ideas. Now that liberals are in the minority, they should recognize the benefits of a decentralized political system.
- It’s Time for a Bluexit: Kevin Baker
- “You go your way, we go ours. We give up. You win.”
- Should California secede? How the state is politically out of step with the rest of the country: Michael Hiltzik at Los Angeles Times
- “Secession talk is more valuable as a pointer to all the ways that California and federal policies are likely to come into conflict during the next few years than as a formula for practical politics.” (Hat tip to Ed Driscoll at Instapundit)
- The Texas Plan: Power to the People
- Governor Abbott’s “Texas Plan” moves power closer to the people of each state. It should increase participation in government and decrease unreasoning partisanship.
- Why California’s Silly Secession Scheme Can’t Succeed: Kurt Schlichter at Townhall
- “California will never try to secede. It’s dumb, but not that dumb. The clowns in Sacramento fully understand that the folly and foolishness that flourishes on the left coast is an indulgence of, and made possible only by, the patience of better Americans in the rest of the country.” (Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit)
More secession
- Every state should plan to secede
- A state cannot secede without a plan for handling the duties of the federal government. It’s the same stuff a state would need a plan for if the federal government becomes temporarily unable or unwilling to perform its duties.