LAKEPORT, Calif. – At the same time as Lake County residents decide on a new US president next year, they'll also be deciding whether or not to split their county off from California and join the movement to create a 51st state.
On Tuesday morning, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to place on the November 2016 ballot an advisory measure asking Lake County residents to indicate whether or not they want the board to adopt a declaration of support for the county's separation from California in order to join the formation of a new state, Jefferson. Board Chair Anthony Farrington and Supervisor Jim Steele voted no.
The November 2016 general election – rather than the June primary – was settled upon by the board after Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley advised there would be higher voter turnout.
On Feb. 17, also in a 3-2 vote with Farrington and Steele dissenting, the board had approved a motion that stated that upon approval of the petition for withdrawal by the California Legislature, the board would consider placing the matter before voters.
However, County Counsel Anita Grant had suggested that if the matter went first to the state government, by the time voters had a chance to decide it would be a fait accompli.
That led to the board bringing the matter back for some clarification. In the intervening weeks, Grant drafted a proposed resolution that was among three alternatives presented to the board on Tuesday and that, with some modifications, the board finally accepted.
Before the discussion on taking any action on the State of Jefferson item, Farrington clarified that the meeting minutes for the Feb. 17 meeting were incorrect as to the vote tally, recording it as 4-1, not 3-2.
He said a roll call vote would be held during the Tuesday meeting to make the outcome clear.
Steele thanked him for the clarification, stating that he – like Farrington – had voted against the matter at the Feb. 17 meeting and hadn't changed his vote, as had been suggested.
The board then moved into the discussion of what action to take, considering three options.
Those options included revising the previous petition declaration to incorporate language per the board's direction, presenting a revised petition declaration prepared by the State of Jefferson proponents and the third, Grant's, which called for an advisory vote in the next general election – which, in this case, also is a presidential election.
The board still remained largely split on support for Jefferson, but united in the desire to see the question go to voters for a decision.
“The government of California is disastrous. It's destructive,” said Supervisor Rob Brown, who has consistently supported the Jefferson proposition.
He said the goal was to let voters decide.
Farrington said he had issues with putting the matter on the ballot at voter expense, and said he felt the State of Jefferson supporters – most of whom he noted during the meeting appeared to be from outside of Lake County – needed to get the signatures to place it on the ballot.
Ultimately, however, the board's action placed it on the ballot without the need for signature gathering by proponents.
Farrington and Steele would both raise issue with breaking away from California at a time when the county's two new state legislative representatives – Assemblyman Bill Dodd and Sen. Mike McGuire – were taking more actions on the county's behalf in just a few months that previous representatives had done in a decade and a half.
On the day that the board took its initial vote on the Jefferson matter, Farrington pointed out that Dodd was introducing a $2.4 million legislative bill to benefit Clear Lake.
During the meeting he also pointed out that Dodd was working on a water bill that would benefit Lucerne, which is beset by high water rates, and also is addressing issues like the gender gap in wages.
He was concerned about damaging the relationships with Dodd and McGuire. “They have shown us interest that we have not seen historically,” he said.
Farrington also pointed to a large state funding award announced later on Tuesday to benefit Lake County, for which McGuire had successfully lobbied. “It's huge,” Farrington said.
Brown said he appreciated that, adding that Dodd and McGuire would have plenty of opportunity to persuade Lake County voters to stay in the state of California.
Farrington estimated the email correspondence he has received regarding Jefferson has ranged between 20 and 30 to one against joining the new state.
Steele also was concerned about sending the wrong message to government entities with which Lake County needs to forge relationships.
“This is the business of separatists from the government of California,” he said, and it should go directly to the people, not the government of the state from which they're trying to separate.
While Steele said he agrees with a lot of the reforms Jefferson supporters propose, “They don't own that message.”
Supervisor Jim Comstock remained in support of joining the new state, citing an email from Lake County Public Services, which is having issues with different regulations related to the county landfill and getting differing and confusing guidance from different agencies.
“That's one of the major problems with the state of California,” he said, adding that the “one man, one vote” law – which resulted from a 1960s US Supreme Court ruling – has been one of the worst things that has happened to California.
As the board considered next steps, Grant said the Feb. 17 action by the board was more of an advisory vote, and suggested that in order to remove any doubt whatsoever, it might be better for the board to start with a new slate.
She said it had appeared at the Feb. 17 meeting that the entire board preferred the matter go before voters, but they just needed the mechanism.
Grant explained that the state formation process under the US Constitution calls for the matter to go before the California Legislature and then to Congress, which then determines what process to follow, including placing it before voters.
“Your board could lose control of this, potentially,” Grant said.
Farrington said he was interested in making California more functional, but said of Jefferson, “This proposal has problems with it,” noting the geography makes no sense and adding, “The financials don't make sense. They don't.”
Returning to the potential ramifications, he referred to a no confidence vote taken by the board regarding former county Assemblyman Wes Chesbro several years ago, which caused friction and harmed the county's representation.
Supervisor Jeff Smith acknowledged that “big things” are happening now thanks to Dodd and McGuire, and he said he had the utmost confidence in them. Along with that, he wanted to make sure the voters had a chance to voice their opinions.
Like Farrington, he said he had concerns about the Jefferson proposal and wanted to know how it would affect the county, but the rest of the board had determined that it was too much work to gather that data.
“It's going to affect every county differently,” he said, explaining that he didn't know how much less in services the county would receive.
Steele sought a “gut and amend” of Grant's original proposal, removing 21 lines of introductory text to make it focus on placing the matter before voters, which Smith supported.
Later, however, Steele withdrew his proposal and said he planned to vote against the Jefferson proposal because he felt it was a stronger position.
Steele said the California government should be formed like the US government. “I don't believe this is the way to get there.”
Brown offered Grant's option – with a minor amendment by grant to the opening line – with Comstock seconding. It failed 2-3, with Farrington, Smith and Steele voting no.
Smith then moved the amendment to Grant's proposal that Steele previously had offered and withdrew, which the board accepted 3-2. Farrington and Steele voted no.
The finalized and signed resolution is shown below.
Later on Tuesday, Fridley told Lake County News that it's too early to estimate what the cost of placing the measure on the ballot will be, as it depends on whether arguments for and against it are allowed, which affects overall printing costs.
There also are likely to be numerous state measures on the ballot at that time, she said. “We have no idea at this point what’s going to be on the ballot.”
She said it's been many years since there has been a countywide advisory measure. Fridley believes the last one related to having a prison located in the county.
One of the main requirements for such measures, she said, is that they must be consolidated with a regular election; a special election can't be called for the purpose of placing such an advisory measure before voters.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
030315 Lake County Board of Supervisors Resolution 2015-22 by LakeCoNews