HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.18.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ AJR 23 CA State Split.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Clerk of the Board
To:BOS
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: AJR 23 CA State Split
Date:Thursday, June 18, 2026 3:13:56 PM
Attachments:AJR23Resolution.pdf
BOS_Consideration_Request.pdf
MapChart_Map__5_.pdf
See Board Correspondence below.
From: Lauren Craft <castatesplit@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Subject: AJR 23 CA State Split
Dear Chair and Members of the Board,
We are reaching out regarding Assemblyman James Gallagher's Joint Resolution 23
(AJR 23). Please see the attached letter, proposed map and resolution for reference.
This resolution is important to many of us, particularly in light of the challenges faced
when parents are no longer notified by the schools regarding medical decisions by
the age of 12. As these children are still developing their rational skills, it is expected
that they would not fully understand medical decisions by that age, impacting both
their mental and physical health.
Given the risks to our farming communities and the increasing threat to family farms,
we believe that Gallagher's Resolution for a split California is a worthwhile initiative.
Our farming operations are under constant pressure from regulations, and many of
our family farms are at risk due to rising costs and debt. In the past decade,
numerous farms including dairies in our state have closed, with many being part of
legacy operations for five generations.
The above concerns are just a small sample, with a large impact, of the many
concerns that weigh heavy on us here in the Northern part of CA. Of course there is
the obvious: gas prices, food prices, regulations and unjust laws that we all face every
day.
The Colusa County Board of Supervisors recently voted in favor of supporting this
resolution. Additionally, many neighboring counties, including Glenn, Sutter, Yuba,
Shasta, Lassen and Modoc have also supported this resolution. We hope you will
consider joining us in our mission to provide each county with greater voice and
control over decisions that affect our families and ways of life.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lauren Manor
Chairman of the Colusa County Split CA Committee
(530) 919-8199
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 13, 2025
california legislature—2025–26 regular session
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 23
Introduced by Assembly Member Gallagher
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Castillo, Hadwick, Lackey,
Macedo, Patterson, and Sanchez)
(Coauthor: Senator Dahle)
August 26, 2025
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 23—Relative to new state formation.
legislative counsel’s digest
AJR 23, as amended, Gallagher. New state formation.
This measure would express the consent of the Legislature for
specified counties to form a new state from within the current boundaries
of the State of California, and would urge Congress to accept and
embrace that consent.
Fiscal committee: yes.
line 1 WHEREAS, California, the most populous state in the nation,
line 2 has nearly six 6 times the average population of the 50 states.
line 3 However, this population is highly concentrated in certain urban
line 4 and coastal areas, particularly in southern California; and
line 5 WHEREAS, As the nation’s third largest state by geography,
line 6 California spans an area more than twice the size of the average
line 7 state. Its diverse economy encompasses agriculture, energy,
line 8 technology, and entertainment, making it one of the most
line 9 economically complex regions in the country; and
line 10 WHEREAS, The socio-economic diversity and population
line 11 distribution have contributed to difficulties in achieving equitable
98
line 1 political representation. This has resulted in vast regions of the
line 2 state being underserved by a government heavily influenced by
line 3 elected representatives from a small, geographically and
line 4 economically distinct part of the state; and
line 5 WHEREAS, Efforts to divide California are deeply rooted in
line 6 its history, dating back more than a century. Notably, in 1859,
line 7 voters overwhelmingly approved splitting the state into two.
line 8 However, Congress did not act on this proposal due to the Civil
line 9 War; and
line 10 WHEREAS, In the last decade, several counties in northern
line 11 California, including Siskiyou, Modoc, Glenn, Sutter, Yuba, and
line 12 Tehama, Glenn, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, and Yuba have
line 13 expressed the desire to participate in, and voters from other
line 14 counties have expressed their support for the formation of, a new
line 15 state from within the current boundaries of the State of California;
line 16 and
line 17 WHEREAS, Most recently in 2022, the County of San
line 18 Bernardino passed a measure that expressed their support of having
line 19 the elected representatives of the county “research and advocate
line 20 for all methods (including secession from the state) for receiving
line 21 an equitable share of state funding and resources”; and
line 22 WHEREAS, The citizens of northern California and inland
line 23 regions have long been frustrated at being subjected to laws and
line 24 regulations that they and their representatives have overwhelmingly
line 25 opposed, but were nonetheless passed and authorized by the more
line 26 populous coastal regions of California; and
line 27 WHEREAS, The right of a people to self-determination through
line 28 the creation of a new state has long been a fundamental principle
line 29 of American democracy and is consistent with the principles of
line 30 federalism as outlined in the United States Constitution; and
line 31 WHEREAS, Dividing California into two smaller states would
line 32 better serve the citizens by fostering governance that is more
line 33 responsive and representative. The historical boundaries of existing
line 34 counties, cities, and towns would be preserved in this process; and
line 35 WHEREAS, Creating two states would generate competition
line 36 in governance, leading to more efficient, effective, and responsive
line 37 state governments for all citizens; now, therefore, be it
line 38 Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of
line 39 California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California
line 40 expresses its consent, as described in Section 3 of Article IV of
98
— 2 — AJR 23
line 1 the United States Constitution, for the County of Alpine, County
line 2 of Amador, County of Butte, County of Calaveras, County of
line 3 Colusa, County of Del Norte, County of El Dorado, County of
line 4 Fresno, County of Glenn, County of Imperial, County of Inyo,
line 5 County of Kern, County of Kings, County of Lassen. Lassen,
line 6 County of Madera, County of Mariposa, County of Merced, County
line 7 of Modoc, County of Mono, County of Nevada, County of Orange,
line 8 County of Placer, County of Plumas, County of Riverside, County
line 9 of San Bernardino, County of San Joaquin, County of Shasta,
line 10 County of Sierra, County of Siskiyou, County of Stanislaus, County
line 11 of Sutter, County of Tehama, County of Trinity, County of Tulare,
line 12 County of Tuolumne, County of Yuba, and any adjacent counties
line 13 that vote to join the aforementioned counties, to form a new state
line 14 from within the current boundaries of the State of California; and
line 15 be it further
line 16 Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of California urges
line 17 Congress to accept and embrace the consent provided by
line 18 Legislature of the State of California for those counties to form a
line 19 new state from within the current boundaries of the State of
line 20 California; and be it further
line 21 Resolved,Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly
line 22 transmit copies of this resolution to the President and the Vice
line 23 President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States
line 24 House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the United States
line 25 Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the
line 26 Congress of the United States, the Governor, and the author for
line 27 appropriate distribution.
O
98
AJR 23 — 3 —
To: Honorable Members of the County Board of Supervisors
From: Assemblyman James Gallagher
Date: April 13, 2026
Re: AJR 23: Relative to New State Formation
Dear Chair and Members of the Board-
I write to respectfully request your Board’s support for Assembly Joint Resolution 23 (AJR 23), which
expresses the California Legislature’s consent for the formation of a new state from within the current
boundaries of California. The proposed state would include the following counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte,
Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lassen, Madera,
Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Joaquin,
Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, and Yuba.
AJR 23 seeks to address long-standing concerns regarding equitable representation and governance across
California’s diverse regions, particularly in northern and inland communities. As the nation’s most
populous state and one of its largest geographically, California faces inherent challenges in ensuring
balanced representation. Population concentration in coastal and urban centers has contributed to a
growing perception among many counties that their unique needs and priorities are underrepresented in
statewide decision-making.
Efforts to explore new governance structures are not new. Historical attempts, including an 1859 voter-
approved proposal, reflect an enduring interest in more localized and responsive governance. In recent
years, several counties have taken formal steps to examine or express support for greater autonomy as a
means of improving representation and resource allocation.
AJR 23 affirms the principle of self-determination within the framework of American federalism by
signaling legislative consent for the creation of a new state, consistent with Article IV, Section 3 of the
United States Constitution. This proposal aims to foster more responsive governance while maintaining
existing county boundaries and encouraging innovation in public policy.
I respectfully ask your Board to consider adopting a resolution in support of AJR 23. Your engagement on
this issue would contribute meaningfully to the broader conversation about representation and governance
in California.
Thank you for your time and consideration. A copy of AJR 23 is enclosed for your review. Please do not
hesitate to contact my office with any questions or for additional information.
Sincerely,
James Gallagher
Assemblyman, 3rd District