Texas and the Balance of Power

[danoday]

(This is an extension of the California seceding from the United States topic)

The state of Texas was officially admitted to the union in 1845, at a time when the balance of power between slave states and free states was an issue. As part of the annexation agreement, Texas is allowed to split itself into up to five separate states, each with appropriate representation. The idea was to allow Texas to split and add a new state whenever a new 'free' state was added to the north, keeping the power balanced between free and slave states. New states would have proportional congressional representation, and the senate would expand it's numbers by two senators for each new division. The text of provision is as follows:

<blockquote>New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

</blockquote>Why is this important? At any time, without congressional or presidential approval, Texas can split into five separate states. This means that the senate would increase from 100 to 108 members. Assuming that the Texas legislature and Texas governor are Republican controlled, and have a hand in naming the initial governor of each new state, one can assume that we'd wind up with four new Republican governors, and eight newly appointed Republican senators. The house would probably not be severely affected, as the house members would likely just roll over to the new districts in each of their respective states. Since the house representation is primarily based on population, the members would simply be reallocated accordingly. As well, electoral votes are allocated to the states based on congressional representation (although the new states could immediately gerrymander congressional districts). Each state gets a number of electoral votes based on the number of house representatives plus the number of senatorial representatives. Texas has 34 electoral votes. The five combined Texan states would have eight additional electoral votes.

This has been threatened in the past, as reported by this Time magazine article in the 1930's (when the advantage would have gone to the Democrats): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...39302-1,00.html , and in the 1850's, when Texas threatened to split to counter the admission of free-state California to the union.

So, should the Republicans push to split Texas and gain back power in the Senate, permanently changing the maps/flag and affecting the electoral college in the process?

Thoughts?

Dan

[huskers]

Texas has an ego so big that it would not allow itself to be divided up into other states.

[burritos]

Wasn't there a nuclear exception clause to split rhode island into 10 states if that happened?

[danoday]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 15 2007, 09:14 AM) [snapback]375869[/snapback]</div>

Wasn't there a nuclear exception clause to split rhode island into 10 states if that happened? [/b]

You can't split Rhode Island into ten states without cutting through at least three houses. Besides, "Family Guy" would have to change all their jokes.

In all seriousness, a state can't divide into multiple states without the permission of the state legislature and the federal government. If Rhode Island wanted to split, they would have to get permission from Congress first. The difference with Texas is that as part of their charter, they've already been given permission, so the state can split into five parts without the permission of the current congress.

[Delta Flyer]

Abouit ever ten years, someone in Texas actually suggests doing this. In a five-state split, it's likely the Democrats would control one, with an outside possibility of two of the new states.

[qbee42]

I say Texas should split into four more states, then we give them all back to Mexico. :P

Sorry, but I just love baiting Texans because they respond so well. But while we are at it, I want to give Detroit to Canada too.

Tom