DOCSLIB.ORG

Massachusetts V. U.S. Epa, Part Ii: Implications of the Supreme Court Decision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Massachusetts V. U.S. Epa, Part Ii: Implications of the Supreme Court Decision MASSACHUSETTS V. U.S. EPA, PART II: IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 13, 2008 Serial No. 110–29 ( Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming globalwarming.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 61–530 WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JAY INSLEE, Washington Wisconsin, Ranking Member JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan South Dakota JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOHN J. HALL, New York JERRY MCNERNEY, California PROFESSIONAL STAFF DAVID MOULTON, Staff Director ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director (II) VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING C O N T E N T S Page Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Common- wealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 3 Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 Hon. Jay R. Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wash- ington, opening statement ................................................................................... 5 Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, opening statement, .............................................................................. 7 Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 8 Hon. Marsha W. Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, opening statement ........................................................................ 9 Hon. John J. Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, opening statement ...................................................................................... 10 WITNESSES Panel I: Hon. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency ........................................................................................................... 11 Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 13 Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 120 Panel II: Ms. Lisa Heinzerling, Esq., Professor, Georgetown University Law Center ...... 48 Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 51 Mr. David Bookbinder, Chief Climate Counsel for the Sierra Club .................... 63 Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 65 Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 131 Mr. Roderick Bremby, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment ......................................................................................................... 75 Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 77 Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 134 Mr. Joshua Svaty, Representative of the Kansas House of Representatives, senior member of the Energy and Utilities Committee and ranking minority member on Agriculture and Natural Resources ................................................ 82 Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 84 Mr. Peter Glaser, partner in the law firm Troutman Sanders ............................ 92 Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 94 Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 135 (III) VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING IV Page SUBMITTED MATERIAL Hon. Edward J. Markey, invitation letter of January 15, 2008, to Adminis- trator Stephen L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ............... 20 Hon. Edward J. Markey, letter of March 7, 2008, from Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ......................................... 23 Hon. Edward J. Markey, letter of March 7, 2008, to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ......................................... 25 Hon. Edward J. Markey, letter of March 11, 2008, from Administrator Ste- phen L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................................ 27 VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING HEARING ON MASSACHUSETTS v. U.S. EPA, PART II: IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 1334 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Edward Markey [chairman of the Committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, Cleaver, Hall, Sensen- brenner, Walden, Sullivan and Blackburn. Chairman MARKEY. Good morning, and welcome to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, and thank you all so much for being here today for our second hearing to focus on the afternoon of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Bush administration’s approach to climate change policy has been to deny the science, delay the regulation, and dismiss the crit- ics. The administration’s denial of its own authority to regulate car- bon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act led to the Su- preme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA almost one year ago. The Supreme Court decision made a few things exceedingly clear. Greenhouse gases are pollutants that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. EPA’s excuses for its failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, including its excuse that the Department of Transportation sets fuel economy standard were all inadequate. Under the Clean Air Act EPA must determine whether these emissions cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reason- ably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, a deter- mination often referred to as an endangerment finding. And, finally, if the EPA does make a positive endangerment find- ing, it must regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehi- cles. In May of last year, the President directed EPA along with other agencies to prepare a regulatory response to the Supreme Court de- cision. In June the Select Committee held a hearing at which EPA Administrator Johnson appeared. He told us he was working on both the endangerment finding and the proposed regulations, and numerous statements made by him and other administration offi- (1) VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING 2 cials during the next six months indicated that the EPA was on track to issue a proposed rule by the end of last year and have final regulations in place by the end of this year. Well, that did not happen. Instead, what we have learned from a steady stream of press reports and congressional hearings is that EPA, in fact, concluded that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public welfare and submitted its finding to OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, in December. EPA, in fact, drafted greenhouse gas regulations for motor vehi- cles and submitted its draft to other agencies in December, and then according to numerous reports, EPA stopped all of its work in this area, except for its work to deny California, Massachusetts and more than a dozen other states the right to move forward with their own motor vehicle emissions standards. And instead of cooperating with Congress, EPA has answered congressional inquiries for information with delays and denials that interfere with the work of this Committee and other Commit- tees in the House. In stark contrast to EPA’s failure to lead, we have here today two witnesses who have been climate heroes in the State of Kan- sas. Unlike
Load more

Recommended publications
  • By JEFF GOODELL Illustration by MATT MAHURIN
    The Pentagon & Climate Change The leaders of our armed forces know what’s coming next: melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and mass migrations that will take a toll on much of our military infrastructure and create countless new threats. But climate deniers in Congress are ignoring the warnings and putting our national security at risk By JEFF GOODELL Illustration by MATT MAHURIN 48 | Rolling Stone | RollingStone.com The Pentagon aval station norfolk is the seven feet of sea-level rise by 2100. In 25 headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Atlan- years, operations at most of these bases are likely to be severely compromised. With- tic fleet, an awesome collection of mil- in 50 years, most of them could be goners. itary power that is in a terrible way the If the region gets slammed by a big hurri- crowning glory of American civiliza- cane, the reckoning could come even soon- tion. Seventy-five thousand sailors and er. “You could move some of the ships to other bases or build new, smaller bases in civilians work here, their job the daily more protected places,” says retired Navy business of keeping an armada spit- Capt. Joe Bouchard, a former command- shined and ready for deployment at any er of Naval Station Norfolk. “But the costs would be enormous. We’re talking hun- moment. When I visited in December, dreds of billions of dollars.” the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roos- Rear Adm. Jonathan White, the Na- evelt was in port, a 1,000-foot-long floating war machine that was central to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • California Initiative Review (CIR)
    California Initiative Review (CIR) Volume 2014 Article 3 1-1-2014 Cover University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/california-initiative- review Part of the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation University of the Pacific, cM George School of Law (2014) "Cover," California Initiative Review (CIR): Vol. 2014 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/california-initiative-review/vol2014/iss1/3 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Initiative Review (CIR) by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Introduction The California Initiative Review (CIR) is a non-partisan, objective publication of independent analyses of California statewide ballot initiatives. The CIR is a publication of the Pacific McGeorge Capital Center for Public Law and Policy and is prepared before every statewide election. Each CIR covers all measures qualified for the next statewide ballot, and also contains reports on topics related to initiatives, elections, or campaigns. This edition covers the six statewide ballot measures that will appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot, as well as presents reports on Proposition 49, which was removed from the ballot, Measure L, a history of Three Strikes and the initiative process, and comparative initiative law. The CIR is written and edited by law students enrolled in the California Initiative Seminar course at University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. This fall, 20 students were enrolled in the seminar.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Committee Packet
    AGENDA BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, August 15, 2014 12:45 p.m., Peralta Oaks Board Room The following agenda items are listed for Committee consideration. In accordance with the Board Operating Guidelines, no official action of the Board will be taken at this meeting; rather, the Committee’s purpose shall be to review the listed items and to consider developing recommendations to the Board of Directors. AGENDA STATUS TIME ITEM STAFF 12:45 p.m. 1. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES (R) A. NEW LEGISLATION Doyle/Pfuehler Plan Amendment 1. SB 633 (Pavley D-Agoura Hills) – State Parks Energy Costs Report 2. AB 1922 (Gomez D-Los Angeles) – Greenway Development and Sustainment Act. (I) B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Water and park bond updates 2. Bike bill update 3. Other issues Doyle/Pfuehler (R) II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 5220 (Graves R-MO) No More Land Act – prohibits LWCF dollars from being used for acquisition (I) B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund update 2. Other issues III. ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX (R) Doyle/Pfuehler MEASURE IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS V. ARTICLES (R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information Future 2014 Meetings: (D) Discussion September 19, 2014 November 21, 2014 Legislative Committee Members: October 24, 2014 December 19, 2014 Doug Siden, Chair, Ted Radke, John Sutter, Whitney Dotson, Alternate Erich Pfuehler, Staff Coordinator DRAFT Distribution/Agenda Only Distribution/Agenda Only Distribution/Full Packet Distribution/Full Packet Distribution/Full Packet District: Public: District: Public: AGMs Judi Bank Director Whitney Dotson Carol Johnson Ann Grodin Yolande Barial Bruce Beyaert Director Beverly Lane Jon King Nancy Kaiser Afton Crooks Director Ted Radke Glenn Kirby Ted Radosevich Robert Follrath, Sr.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works
    UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works Title Enacting the California State Budget for 2015-2016: The Governor Asks the Stockdale Question Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0283s54r Author Mitchell, DJ Publication Date 2021-06-28 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California CHI\PTER 6i Enacting the California State Budget for 2015-2016: Ttre Governor Asks the Stockda le Question / \ ntb L\ t/ \' 0\ n U Danriel J.B. Mitchell Professor-Emeritus, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs ano UCLA Anderson School of Management, daniel,i.b,rnitchell@anderson,ucla,edu This article is based on information onlv l.hrough mid-August and does not reflect subsequent developments Who am l? Whv om I here? Admiral James Stockdale Ross Perot's Third Partv Vice Presidential Candidate at a 1-992 television debater Jerry Brown is the only governor to be elected to frour terms, albeit in two iterations.' Unless term limits are Iifted, no subsequent governor will match his record, But even il he had a ntore conventional gubernatorial history, i.e., if he hadn't been governor in the mid-to-late l-970s and early 1-980s, Lry 2015, he would have "owned" the condition of the state budget. After all, his second iteration began with his (rer)election as governor in 201-0. When he took off ice in January 2011-, and for six months into that terrn, he was under the budget of his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, But by the time the 201-5-16 state: budget was being proposed and enacted, there had already been three purely Brown state budgets during his second iteration, The budget of 2O1,5-L6, whose enactment we review below, was Brown's fourth.
    [Show full text]
  • Planners Discuss Future Fresno County Rail Hub Written by Jonathan Partridge Patterson Irrigator, Wednesday, Oct
    Planners discuss future Fresno County rail hub Written by Jonathan Partridge Patterson Irrigator, Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2007 Rail Dreams: Developers are negotiating with Stanislaus County to develop 4,800 acres in and around the former Crows Landing U.S. Navy airfield into a short -haul rail hub. Above, a train rolls into Crows Landing earlier this year. Developers of a potential industrial park and inland port in Crows Landing are talking with ag exporters about an additional short-haul rail hub in Fresno County. PCCP West Park transportation consultant D.J. Smith estimated the entire project could cost $80 million to $100 million, but it’s too early to know for sure, he said. It’s unclear who would develop the facility, but agricultural exporters and members of West Park’s team are discussing it with regional planning agencies. Advocates for the Fresno County “transloader system” say the project could provide a great service for southern San Joaquin Valley agricultural exporters. “We’re having our civil engineers look at it,” Smith said Friday. PCCP West Park is also negotiating with Stanislaus County to develop 4,800 acres in and around Crows Landing’s former 1,527-acre U.S. Navy airfield, now owned by the county. A key component of West Park’s proposal is an inland port where trains would pick up and drop off containers from the Port of Oakland. West Park developer Gerry Kamilos said the Crows Landing facility remains his top priority and that the Fresno County proposal is not a West Park project. Smith said the idea for a Fresno County port came after West Park officials met with southern San Joaquin Valley agricultural industry representatives in July.
    [Show full text]
  • Reporter Behind Michigan's 1994 Prohibition
    About Kevin Dayton Research Publications by Kevin Dayton California Government Project Labor Agreement List California Local Government Logbook Reporter Behind Michigan’s 1994 Prohibition of Capital Appreciation Tweets by ​@DaytonPubPolicy Bonds (CABs) Watches and Writes about Kevin Dayton the CAB Frenzy at California School @DaytonPubPolicy “…agreed to comply with the State’s Districts Prevailing Wage law, which, it said, added May 14, 2012 / Kevin Dayton / 2 comments $8.9 million to construction costs” pasadenanow.com/main/kimpton-h… Here is a follow-up to my May 11 post entitled Please Read This, Even If You Think Municipal Bonds Are Really BORING: We’re Setting Up the Next Generation of 4h Californians to Pay Staggering Property Taxes. Kevin Dayton A speaker at the California League of Bond Oversight Committees annual conference on @DaytonPubPolicy May 11 mentioned that the State of Michigan banned Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) Union Project Labor Agreement mandate on in the 1990s after a reporter for the Detroit Free Press named Joel Thurtell exposed the agenda for Palomar Community College extent of the scheme to the public in his April 5, 1993 investigative article board meeting tonight (May 23, 2017) palomar.edu/gb/2017/2017-0… “Michigan Schools Load the Future With Debt.” It turns out Mr. Thurtell has a personal blog called Joel on the Road, in which he has been tracking and opining on the excessive use of CABs in California, including the mind-boggling one at the Poway Unified School District in San Diego County. He has 4h posted four articles about CAB abuses at California school districts in the past five days.
    [Show full text]
  • The Other California Neeraj Bhatia
    115 Review Article The Other California Neeraj Bhatia The Other California increasing divide between the realities of resource In 2018, a group led by Robert Paul Preston and consumption and the exploitation of land and Tom Reed released their New California proposal communities to extract these resources. to consolidate the rural hinterlands of California into a separate and distinct economy from the coastal We could say that the simultaneous division and urban cities. The New California plan is strik- and interdependence between ‘cultures of extrac- ingly similar to the 2016 Six Californias plan – a tion’ and ‘cultures of consumption’ are tied to the proposal by venture capitalist Tim Draper to split structural arrangement of historical capitalism, the state into distinct geographic and economic which required continual expansion both horizon- zones. Critics of the plan stated that the proposal’s tally – across the landscape – and vertically – into intention was to draw lines between economically the earth, for resources. These forms of expansion rich and poor zones of the state and form segre- were contingent on what Marx referred to as the gated enclaves.1 While the Six Californias plan ‘free gifts of nature’ – exploiting and commodifying failed to qualify as a California ballot measure, a the unpaid work of nature.2 More recently, Jason likely fate for the New California plan as well, the W. Moore has expanded Marx’s notion through re-emergence of such plans point to the fact that his concept of ‘cheap natures’. Moore’s cheap in California, there are highly regionalised poli- natures are found where one or more of the ‘four tics, economics, and cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Six Californias
    January 31, 2014 Hon. Kamala D. Harris Attorney General 1300 I Street, 17th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Attention: Ms. Ashley Johansson Initiative Coordinator Dear Attorney General Harris: As required by Section 9005 of the Elections Code, this letter analyzes the proposal (A.G. File No. 13-0063) to end the existing State of California and replace it with six new states, subject to approval of the United States government. The text of the proposal states that it is an initiative measure, which would amend the California Constitution and the state’s Government Code. BACKGROUND California’s Existing Boundaries History of Current Borders. The current borders of California are specified in the California Constitution and a few other state laws. These borders resulted from: (1) an 1848 treaty with Mexico that ceded California to the United States and (2) the decision of delegates at California’s 1849 constitutional convention to set the state’s eastern boundary near the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and along the Colorado River. Congress and President Fillmore agreed to admit California to the union as a “free state” as part of the Compromise of 1850. Proposals to split California into two separate states were not approved at that time. Efforts to Split California Since Statehood. Discussions of splitting California into two or more states continued after statehood and have emerged periodically ever since. In 1859, the Legislature passed a measure consenting to the separation of areas south of the Tehachapi Mountains (including Los Angeles County and San Diego County, among others) into a separate territory or state.
    [Show full text]
  • State Secession and What to Do About It
    University of Tennessee Law Legal Scholarship Repository: A Service of the Joel A. Katz Library UTK Law Faculty Publications 3-2018 Splitsylvania: State Secession and What to Do About It Glenn Harlan Reynolds Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.utk.edu/utklaw_facpubs Part of the Law Commons SPLITSYLVANIA: STATE SECESSION AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT Glenn Harlan Reynolds* INTRODUCTION From Is New California Unconstitutional? A Centennial Reflection, 210 CALIF. L. REV. 1 (2122): Brace yourselves for this one, Desert Riders. New California might not legitimately be a State of the Union, but a mere illegal breakaway province of the State of California. In the summer of 2021, following the California financial crisis and CalPers pension collapse, public employee-supporting Democrats from the California General Assembly absented themselves from the state, preventing a quorum so that legislation slashing pension payouts could not be passed. That absence stretched from days into weeks, as the state government largely shut down for lack of funding. Seizing on this moment, thirty-four counties from the eastern and rural parts of what was then California organized themselves and sent representatives to Fresno, where those representatives declared themselves the new, official California General Assembly and designated individuals of their choice as the new, official Governor and Attorney General. The new legislature and officials were quickly recognized by President Trump, who, citing his authority under the Insurrection Act and Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, deemed them the official government of the state, and sent federal troops from the 101st Airborne Division to Fresno to ensure that what he called “leftovers” of the “old, failed state government” were unable to “cause trouble.” President Trump’s recognition was echoed in a joint resolution of the Republican-controlled Congress, which perhaps anticipated the addition of two new Republican Senators.
    [Show full text]
  • Six Californias” Initiative and the UC System
    “Six Californias” Initiative and the UC System Executive Summary The “Six Californias” initiative would divide the current state of California into six smaller states. In this scenario, students of the University of California could be forced to pay out-of-state tuition rates if they were to attend a campus in a different state as established by the Initiative. Based on current attendance statistics at UC, the Six Californias plan would reclassify more than 109,000 California residents currently paying in-state tuition as out-of-state students. Nearly two out of every three current UC students from California would be stripped of their in- state tuition classification. If the UC were to charge out-of-state tuition to these students, the total additional cost to these students and their families would be more than $2.5 billion per year. Methodology As noted in the LAO’s fiscal analysis of the proposed initiative, the UC system would have campuses in five of the six new states. Notably, the proposed state of Jefferson would not have a UC campus, meaning all students from this state would pay out-of-state tuition to attend a UC. Distribution of UC Campuses Among the Six Proposed States New State UC Campuses Central California Merced Jefferson North California Davis Silicon Valley Berkeley, Santa Cruz, San Francisco South California Irvine, Riverside, San Diego West California Los Angeles, Santa Barbara Source: “Six Californias Initiative,” Legislative Analyst’s Office, January 31, 2014 According to data published on the UC website, a majority (65.1%) of undergraduate freshmen attending any of the nine UC campuses would become “nonresidents” under the Six California plan (University of California).1 1 The Six Californias map differs from the residency map provided by UC by including Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties as part of North California as opposed to Silicon Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics and Regional Realities in the Golden State
    Purple California: Politics and Regional Realities in the Golden State Samuel Jeremy Abrams Sarah Lawrence College “Important geographical divisions . are at the heart of the very close national battles between Democrats and Republicans. American politics becomes much more interesting when party bat- tles are examined region by region” (Black and Black 2007, xi). Introduction and Background The idea of California has captivated artists, writers, dreamers, scholars, explorers, and free spirits for generations. People flock to the Golden State to find themselves and their fortunes in countless forms and the socio-political world has looked to California as the harbinger of future movements from the rise of the right and Ronald Reagan to the massive demographic shifts that made California the first majority-minority state in the United States (CBS News 2001; Panzar 2015). Classifying California politically and geographically has been problematic for decades be- cause, as scholars and politicos have repeatedly noted, there is no single idea of California. Due to its remarkable and changing socio-economic, demographic, and geographic diversity, concep- tions about the state and its regionalism have changed notably over time. One of the most enduring regional spatial models of California is Wolfinger and Greenstein’s (1969) view that California of the 1960s was divided between the North and the South with San Francisco and Los Angeles representing very different ideological leanings and histories. The view was a natural outgrowth of an1859 movement by the California Legislature to split the state in two that was disallowed by the US Congress. Not only is this idea no longer in fashion, Douzet and Miller (2008, 28) have shown that the model has not been empirically valid since the 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • Six Californias
    SIX CALIFORNIAS INITIATIVE MEASURE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO VOTERS SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS A. California is the nation’s most populous state, nearly six times larger than the average population of the fifty states. However, much of the state’s population is concentrated in certain urban and coastal areas, particularly in Southern California. B. California is the nation’s third largest state by geography, over two times larger than the average of the fifty states, with enormous and diverse economies, including agriculture, energy, technology, and entertainment. C. As a consequence of these and other socio-economic factors, political representation of California’s diverse population and economies has rendered the state nearly ungovernable. Additionally, vast parts of our state are poorly served by a representative government dominated by a large number of elected representatives from a small part of our state, both geographically and economically. D. It is not surprising that efforts to divide the state have been part of its history for over one hundred years. In fact, voters overwhelmingly approved the splitting of California into two states in 1859, but Congress never acted on that request due to the Civil War. E. The citizens of the whole state would be better served by six smaller state governments while preserving the historical boundaries of the various counties, cities, and towns. F. Moreover, the voters in any given county should be permitted to choose a different state then assigned by this law, thereby creating competition in proposed governance which will lead to better and more responsive governance. G. The legal processes for division of the State will take time.
    [Show full text]