Shasta County BOS Approve a Resolution in Support of State Split as Well as a Resolution to Place the Citizen-Led Petition for Local Transparency and Election Security Reform on the June 2026 Ballot
- Elisa Ballard
- Nov 7, 2025
- 8 min read
Shasta County Board of Supervisors Meeting November 6, 2025, Redding, California
Recap of Meeting
The Employee of the Month Award went to Lori Ann Rossi, Child Support Specialists II, with the Department of Child Support Services, who has dedicated 27 years of exemplary service to the County and has been praised as “a super-star” at the reception desk due to her ability to guide the public, be kind and caring, and save staff time by assisting the public with her vast knowledge of the services that are available. Congratulations Ms. Rossi!
The County CEO, David Rickert, as well as all of the Supervisors, Kevin Crye, Allen Long, Corkey Harmon, Matt Plummer, and Chris Kelstrom gave brief summaries of their activities since the last board meeting.
Supervisor Crye stated there have been numerous attempts to split the state and now is the time to discuss this. With the passage of Proposition 50, which is taking away our right to have proper representation due to extreme gerrymandering of the district boundaries, we have seen a steady erosion of our rights by the party in power in Sacramento. He asked State Assembly Member, James Gallagher (3rd Assembly District located in northern Sacramento Valley) to give a presentation on his thoughts on his resolution to split the state up into two states.
Assembly Joint Resolution 23 is co-authored by Gallagher, Assembly Member Heather Hadwick, Senator Megan Dahle, and others and requests the formation of a new state. To see the full text of the resolution, go to:
Gallagher stated that the people are supposed to have a representation in the halls of government in two ways:
1) Elected representatives through districts – districts are supposed to be drawn to ensure communities of similar interests are represented; and
2) Statehood – As with the colonies, before they became states, each had their own distinct cultures, industries, and communities, and their people would be represented by their state senators.
The path to splitting up a state is outlined in Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. First, the state legislature must approve of the state split, and then Congress must admit the new state. In the history of the U.S., one state split occurred in 1861-1863. West Virginia was created during the American Civil War as a direct result of Virginia's secession from the Union in April 1861 to join the Confederacy. Residents in the northwestern counties of Virginia, which were predominantly Unionist, anti-slavery, and economically tied to the North rather than the plantation-based South, rejected secession and organized a pro-Union government in Wheeling. This government, known as the Reorganized Government of Virginia, held conventions in 1861 and drafted a new state constitution. With approval from this government and subsequent consent from the U.S. Congress and President Abraham Lincoln, West Virginia was admitted to the Union as the 35th state on June 20, 1863, making it the only state formed by seceding from a Confederate state.
Why did Gallagher introduce the resolution? He stated many reasons for doing so, including the current state policies on water rights, wolves., trucks and electric trucks, electric school buses, sky-rocketing utility rates, high gas prices due to over taxation, lack of wildfire prevention projects, energy policies that make no sense, and gross mismanagement of our tax dollars.
The State is focused on wanting zero-emission-only energy sources and this is very costly. Unexplainably, the State doesn’t include hydroelectric power, hydrogen, or nuclear energy which are also zero-emission and they are not supporting biomass energy projects.
Gallagher explained that the inland counties bear the brunt of the high gas and utility prices, not the coastal areas, yet they get to make all of the decisions for us. The coast votes for their interests with complete disregard for the rest of the state. And now we have Proposition 50, ripping away our representation in Congress. A result of Proposition 50 passing will be that three people who live in the Bay Area will represent the people in the North State. That is why we need to have the conversation about splitting up the State. Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution lays out the process. You need the consent of the State legislature and then the consent of the U.S. Congress. Gallagher is not saying it can happen tomorrow, but believes it can happen if it comes from the ground up from the people through requesting, petitioning, demanding, that the legislature consents to the State split.
Several counties have expressed an interest in separating from the State including Siskiyou, Modoc, Tehama, Lassen and San Bernardino County.
The map will be defined by the coalition of the willing counties, a decision of the locals, but Gallagher believes it would have to be contiguous. He says he has traveled throughout the State where he finds that the Central Valley has had their water supply cut off by unelected bureaucrats; the Imperial Valley who have to travel far and pay high gas prices, and other areas where refineries are being shut down and he believes there is growing support for a new state.
Supervisor Kelstrom, who is knowledgeable about state split issues, having been involved with the State of Jefferson state split proposal, gave a quick history lesson on how we ended up without proper representation. There were two lawsuits that shaped the outcome of representation in the State –Baker vs. Carr, and Reynolds vs. Sims. Baker v. Carr (1962) established federal courts' authority to hear legislative apportionment cases under the Equal Protection Clause, while Reynolds v. Sims (1964) mandated "one person, one vote" by requiring both state legislative chambers to be apportioned by population. In California, these rulings invalidated the pre-1965 system where the State Senate was based on counties (one per county, regardless of population); the U.S. Supreme Court forced reapportionment in 1965, shifting control to urban areas and dramatically increasing representation for populous regions like Los Angeles. The number of California State Assembly members has remained fixed at 80 since the state's 1879 Constitution, which established that size and has not been amended to expand it despite California's explosive population growth from about 1.2 million in 1880 to over 39 million today. This constitutional entrenchment, coupled with the post-reapportionment mandates of Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) requiring districts to be drawn roughly equal in population (rather than geography), means the fixed 80 seats are now divided equally among the state's residents every decade based on the U.S. Census. As a result, each Assembly district represents an average of around 500,000 people—precisely 494,709 per the 2020 Census—yielding the highest population-to-lower-house-representative ratio of any U.S. state and diluting individual voter influence compared to states with more seats or slower growth.
Supervisor Plummer expressed worry that If we could get this state split passed, wouldn’t there be a ripple effect where thirty proposals for new states could open up?
Gallagher replied that any group would need to go to their own state legislature, but even if many did, would that be so bad for people to have their particular issues addressed, when the majority shuts out the minority every time?
Supervisor Plummer was also worried that splitting Shasta County away from the State would put it at a significant financial disadvantage as we receive more than the average share of tax dollars coming back to us. Would the new state generate enough revenue?
Gallagher stated that the lion's share of money goes to the coastal part of the state for infrastructure and housing, If this came together we would have the government that we want as opposed to the government that the coastal communities want. We would attract new businesses where housing is more affordable.
Supervisor Long commented that he is looking at this on a practical/pragmatic level, micro-level and macro-level. He worries that it would bring a period of tremendous chaos.
Gallagher stated that there would be committees set up to figure out the process of separating infrastructure. The reason we have high poverty here is because of state government. For example, the State PUC has approved six rate increases in one year for our utilities and they have imposed high gas prices which are impoverishing the people. We can have reasonable taxation and reasonable regulation. Agriculture has been hamstrung by policies as well as manufacturing. Many large corporations have left the State due to over-regulation. With common-sense policies, we can attract new business to the new state and generate the revenues we need.
Long stated that there have been over 200 attempts to break the State apart in our State’s 175-year history and none have been successful. He asked Nolda Short, Shasta County Controller, what her opinion was about how a state split would impact County finances; but she was not able to answer the question due to the hypothetical nature of it.
Gallagher stated that everything is hard and this isn’t the first time this has been done, but it only takes once to succeed. This type of effort is what founded our American Republic. Gallagher went on to say, “One-size-fits-all government doesn’t fit very well and that is why we have so many people who are very unhappy with our state government.”
Kelstrom asked for a word change in the resolution: “secession” should be “State Split” to avoid any confusion, since secession is normally associated with secession from the United States. He also stated that the County could take control of Cal Fire in our county. Any state items that are in the boundaries of the new state will belong to the new state per Court precedent in the West Virginia state split.
Harmon stated that the groundswell must happen – we need people to show up, more participation in elections, for example.
Crye stated he hadn’t been paying attention until five years ago, during COVID, when he woke up and realized we are losing everything and everyone is being complacent. Crye went on to say that "It takes one person to jump in and then everyone jumps in to help."
Crye opened up the public comment portion of the meeting and asked for people to be respectful and on good behavior. Eleven people spoke in opposition to the resolution and five spoke in favor.
The vote was taken, Harmon, Crye, and Kelstrom voted “yes”; Plummer and Long voted “no”; therefore, the resolution was passed 3-2.
The next item was R4 – Receive a Certificate of Sufficiency for the Local Transparency and Security Reform petition and, pursuant to Elections Code Section 1405(a), adopt a resolution ordering that this matter be placed on the ballot for the next established election date, June 2, 2026.
Many of the citizens who worked on gathering signatures for the petition expressed their desire for the Board to place the petition on the ballot since it was their ministerial duty to do so. Over 10,000 signatures were gathered during the heat of the summer and it was all done by citizen volunteers. Many people signing the petition expressed their desire to require voter ID (identification) in the elections. Twelve citizens spoke in favor of the petition and eight were against it. There were a few speeches by those against the petition who spewed their animosity against those who worked on the petition, or against Crye or the Supervisors in general and one speaker went so far as to accuse the Supervisors of committing felonies if they voted to place the petition on the ballot. The reason given by the speaker was that the petitioners were gathering signatures during a time when the County was not a charter county (due to an error that was made by County officials not filing the election certificate with the Secretary of State in a timely manner).
Supervisor Long questioned if the timing of the charter county would have any impact on the petition, and County Counsel Joseph Larmour responded it is a ministerial duty to put it on the ballot. Any questions about the validity of the petition would need to be discussed in closed session.
The Board voted to put it on the ballot for the June 2026 election unanimously.
