While driving around the more remote parts of Northern California, one may occasionally see a sign or flag consisting of a gold pan containing two X-marks on a green backdrop. Frequently these signs have some slogan about freedom or representation, and though the specifics may vary, they all advocate for the same idea - a new state. The idea and motives behind “Jefferson”, however, are hardly new – in fact, we must journey back a lifetime to find their origins.

The creation of a new state from California’s current territory began in October 1941, when Gilbert Gable, Mayor of Port Orford, proposed that Southern Oregon and Northern California had been “double-crossed” by state governments in Salem and Sacramento (the origin of the two X-marks on the flag) and should form their own state. Siskiyou County’s State Senator and some local citizens joined him in lobbying for this. However, the idea died shortly after Gable’s own passing in December 1941, when Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and America leapt headlong into World War II.

Yet recently the idea has experienced a resurgence in California, with more of a partisan bent than simple animosity towards tourists and busybodies from San Francisco. In recent statewide elections, there has been a stark contrast between the proposed territory of Jefferson (all counties north of the 39th parallel) and the rest of California – of the 20 counties in this region, only five overall voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Many advocates of the idea believe it will grant conservatism more representation than in California, and that the new state would be able to revive Northern California’s heyday economy – but is this really true?

Let’s look at the numbers. First, base statistics – this state would contain 20 counties, varying from Sierra’s 3,236 people to Placer’s 404,739 citizens, and would be home to 1.83 million people – slightly fewer than Idaho. What it lacks in people would be made up in area, at 49,025 square miles – bigger than Louisiana in acreage. Looking at the agricultural might of the Sacramento Valley, the forests of the Sierra Nevada and Coast Range, and the picturesque views at Mount Shasta and Lake Tahoe, one could think a state like that would be poised for success.

However, things get dicey when you look at the economy. Jefferson’s 2020 GDP would be $73.6 billion – just above Maine's – and would have a GDP per capita of $40,167.46, making it the second-poorest state behind Mississippi. Proponents argue this could be solved by deregulating logging on public land – which would quickly rebuild Northern California’s economy in reality – but this couldn’t happen at the state level, since those lands are in federal hands and would require Congress to make it happen. Jefferson’s government would succeed in other ways – for instance, changing regulations on dredging in non-protected rivers - but that wouldn’t create the kind of economy its proponents visualize, and much of the state’s wealth would be concentrated in the suburban populations near Sacramento – not notably changing the balance of power from how it is now.

Infrastructure is another point against this idea. Jefferson would have minimal railway presence, containing a portion of the Transcontinental Railroad and a few side routes heading north or west but not reaching the coast. Speaking of the coast, Jefferson would be the only Pacific state without a commercial deepwater harbor, leaving it at a severe disadvantage against its neighbors – and the only suitable candidate, Humboldt Bay, is federally protected as a National Wildlife Refuge. Roadways would have an insufficient tax base for their upkeep and would push the state to be a major recipient of federal funding to make up the gap.

Education in the state’s proposed territory is currently served by nine colleges and two state universities – Chico State and Cal Poly Humboldt. These two schools have a combined budget of over 500 million dollars, and California may likely require a purchase agreement of a similar amount from Jefferson – not a cheap investment. Thus, the state would be born in debt to its progenitor and years away from having a university system of its own to create a competitive workforce in the national market, inhibiting the state economy.

From a political standpoint, this idea’s proponents may be surprised by this state’s political landscape. Favoring Republicans by nine points, Jefferson’s partisanship would be similar to Ohio’s; yet unlike Ohio, this state is trending leftward as suburban counties grow. With a favorable political climate, the Jefferson Democrats could pick up two out of three U.S. House seats, block Republican supermajorities in the state legislature, and win one or several statewide races – hardly a safe red state.

So, who would benefit? Perhaps the rest of California more than Jefferson. California’s legislature of 40 Senators and 80 Assemblymembers has made truly proportional representation slip further from reach, so nearly two million people leaving would make it easier for Californians to make their voices heard. Additionally, redistribution of taxes from cities to rural areas would be less significant, lowering the tax burdens California’s urbanites currently face.

Where does the author stand on this issue? I certainly see some potential benefits that could arise, including relaxed homebuilding, forestry and mining standards, and the more close-knit representation Jefferson would enjoy relative to the status quo. But I also see the risk behind a state starting life in debt, have to build an economy on unstable industries like tourism, and rapidly be at risk of bankruptcy. Therefore, if it was up to a referendum, I could not endorse the creation of this state as currently proposed.

Instead, perhaps there are other ways to improve representation of these areas and quell the dissatisfaction many people feel with Sacramento bureaucrats of all stripes. A ballot referendum increasing the size of the legislature may be a realistic and feasible solution. But, another proposal made this august journal's editor for using watershed boundaries, instead of the unnatural and arbitrary straight lines used by lazy 19th century politicians to define counties, deserves consideration. The future is wide open if we so choose to see it as such.