Oops, he did it again. Tim Draper of the central San Francisco Bay area is, once more, campaigning for a popular vote on state partition. This year, his second attempt has managed to collect enough California voter signatures to warrant a spot on the next state election ballot. The proposition? Divide one big California into three little Californias.

But before starting any celebratory planning, Californians must “hoe a long row,” so to speak.

Here’s the backstory: Rich dude Draper is a Bay Area venture capitalist who failed to get his first proposed state statute on the 2014 ballot due to massive signature disqualifications (nearly half of the 807,615 valid signatures required). He spent $5.2 million on that escapade, which proposed to divide California into six new states.

This time, Draper advocates a 3-way split that would create what he’s referring to as Northern California, Southern California and California. The Cal3 initiative, as it is called, is stumping for “a more effective education system,” “more reliable infrastructure,” and “more sensible taxes.”

The triumphant Cal3 team “collected and delivered 600,000 signatures to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla’s Office, surpassing the 365,000 required by law to qualify for the ballot,” as revealed by San Jose’s ABC 7News.

A piece by the L.A. Times outlined the new states boundaries under Cal3:

“Northern California would consist of 40 counties stretching from Oregon south to Santa Cruz County, then east to Merced and Mariposa counties. Southern California would begin with Madera County in the Central Valley and then wind its way along the existing state’s eastern and southern spine, comprising 12 counties and ultimately curving up the Pacific coast to grab San Diego and Orange counties.”

Backers of Cal3 are encouraging their neighbors to challenge and change “the status quo of ineffective, inefficient, and insular state government is taking Californians in the wrong direction.”

The population breakdown for each of the three new states, from the Cal3 website is estimated as:

• NorCal – 13.3 million
• Cal – 12.3 million
• SoCal – 13.9 million

One key idea behind the success of California’s partition is that each new state will be able to establish their own regional economies. The breakdown looks like this:

• NorCal – Agriculture, High Tech Manufacturing, Trade & Tourism, Foresty
• Cal – High Tech Manufacturing, Motion Pictures, Tourism, Forestry
• SoCal – Agriculture, Varied Manufacturing, Trade & Wholesale, Financial Services

But remember that proverbial long row the Californians need to hoe, mentioned at the beginning of this article? Here are the steps required by the Law of the Land, Article 3, Section IV of the United States Constitution, for a state to split:

1. The initiative must get enough valid signatures for the state legislature for the State Legislature to approve it for inclusion on the next election cycle ballot to face voter approval.
2.  
3. The initiative must get voter approval.
4.  
5. The State Legislature must approve the state election decision.
6.  
7. Congress must approve the state election decision.
8.  
9. The president may elect to approve or veto the Congressional decision. In the event of a veto, “the measure may be approved over the President’s objections with a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Pop quiz! When was the last time a U.S. state succeeded in self-division – has it ever even happened? And the answer is: Yes, in 1863, Virginia split into Virginia and West Virginia.

• Not everyone is amused by Mr. Draper and his Cal3 venture. Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio joined the bipartisan opposition to the foiled 2014 attempt for state partition. In his blunt opinion published in the San Francisco Chronicle:

“This just goes to show that a billionaire with a wacky idea can get about anything on the ballot. This doesn’t solve a single problem in the state or add a single job.”

Maviglio also points out the price tag hanging from Cal3:

“This measure would cost taxpayers billions of dollars to pay for the massive transactional costs of breaking up the state, whether it be universities, parks or retirement systems. California government can do a better job addressing the real issues facing the state, but this measure is a massive distraction that will cause political chaos and greater inequality.”

But here’s the real reason why Cal3 hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in “the H-place” of hoeing the long row: the U.S. Senate is composed of two representatives per state. Simple math tells us that California, therefore, has two state senators in Washington, D.C. Creating two additional states (for a total of three Californias) would boost the national senatorial count to 104 and give the “new Californias” – which, after all, contain pretty much the same residents as the current state does – four more senatorial votes.

All the other 49 states know that increasing the number of senators dilutes their own voice, power, and influence. It could also create a formidable power block if the six California senators acted in concert on specific concerns.

For that reason alone, expect Congress to just say no to two new states.

But just in case Cal3 does manage to hoe-hoe-hoe and jump all the legal hurdles needed to transform one big state into three smaller states, let’s revisit the matter of what to call them. “Northern California,” “Southern California,” and “California” are not very imaginative names. We like Narnia, Oz, and La-La Land ourselves – perhaps a “Name Our New State” contest is in order?