On November 6, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors agreed in a 3-2 vote to support Assembly Joint Resolution 23 for the formation of a new state.
Assemblyman James Gallagher presented (see video) Assembly Joint Resolution 23 at the Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting – expresses formal consent to form a new state within the State of California.
This comes after Proposition 50, which will allow for Democrats to pick up five additional congressional seats in next years midterms, approved by voters by 64.6% in favor.
“It is co-authored by several assemblymembers from the inland parts of California,” said Gallagher. “I brought this forward because representation is a fundamental part of our American system of Government. I would say representation is the heart of the compact, the constitutional compact that we have that achieves the consent of the government. That the people have to be represented at the halls that govern, and the people have to have a seat at the table in order to have ordered liberty and essential government.”
He continued.
“Why have I done this, I would say Prop 50 was a very primary catalyst for it,” said Gallagher. “I probably don’t need to spend a lot of time in this room on the why. Water, wolves, trucks, electric trucks, electric school buses, skyrocketing utility and gas bills, crime enablement policies, homeless enablement policies, reckless spending, tax dollars that don’t stay local, since 2011, 789 companies have left California and tens of thousands of jobs have left with them.”
He continued citing wildfires how many have fought hard to work to prevent wildfires with some victories, but only after devastating fires – in 2021, a billion was secured for wildfire prevention projects but had to shame the government to do so noting the Governor nearly cut the budget in half before being restored. He shared since 2021, after it was secured, every year it has decreased and depleted.
“Once again, a very common-sense bill, a CEQA exemption for fuel reduction projects to protect our vulnerable communities in the state was killed in committee in the state legislator,” said Gallegher. “They didn’t think that was an important measure.”
He continued talking about energy policies and zero emissions noting it was a “selected zero emissions energy policy” because it doesn’t include things like hydro, nuclear, hydrogen while biomass is decreasing which all crushes inland parts of the state.
“We bare the brunt of these high costs, we need AC in the summer, we drive trucks and cars and have to commute to our jobs, so we bare the brunt of those high gas prices, not the coastal areas. Yet, they get to make all the decisions,” stated Gallagher. “That is the reality under the current California structure. The coastal parts have all the population, the super majority of the representatives and when they vote, they vote for their interest with complete disregard for inland California. That is just the facts. They don’t really care about us because they don’t have to. At the end of the day, they can pass whatever policy they want to over our objectives.”
He then brought up Proposition 50.
“It should be pretty clear to everyone that Prop 50 has ripped away our representation in Congress. Very likely after this next election that three Bay Area people, who live in the Bay Area will represent the entire north state. That is unacceptable to me,” said Gallegher who added it takes away their representation and they will not have anyone living in the area representing them or communities of interest.
He said it was time to have conversation of statehood which is another form of representation and is allowed under the constitution—which lays out the process.
He shared he did not think AJR 23 would go anywhere in the state legislator unless there was a ground up movement – counties, local jurisdictions coming together and requesting, petitioning, demanding the consent for statehood.
He added in the recent past, several counties have expressed a desire for statehood which include
- Lassen
- Modoc
- San Bernardino
- Siskiyou
- Tehama
Gallagher again reiterated the need to have the conversation and could happen only if local counties and jurisdictions want to be part of this to petition to state government. He added if it ever was approved by the state, it would move onto step two, which would be Congressional approval.
Finally, he commented on the map which he said ultimately it would be created based on the “coalition of the willing” and the door was open for local communities to have the conversation, but it’s the decision of the locals to make the decision.
“Its not just the north part of the state overlooked, it’s the central valley where there water has been cut off by bureaucrats, not elected officials, by unelected people. Its in the Inland Empire where people have long distances to work and we have high gas prices, refineries are being shut down, jobs and trucking are getting shut down, manufacturing, it is many places in the state, but mainly the inland parts of the state who do not have a voice in state government,” said Gallagher. “So statehood is one of those opportunities to achieve that self determination that is a very key and fundamental American value.”
Supervisor Chris Kelstrom announced he was in full support having worked on the State of Jefferson proposal. He added he was familiar with the Greater Idaho Movement, the four-state split, the three-state split, the New California movement.
“There is lots of movements out there, but I am fully in support of this,” said Kelstrom.
Meanwhile, Corkey Harmon also said he was in support but had concerns of how to get passed the state before it gets to Congress. Gallagher admitted he didn’t know how to get around the state which is why he proposed AJR because it was the first step—he said it would take a groundswell of support.
Supervisor Matt Plummer admitted he struggled with this plan, even though he was against Prop 50 noting it felt like they were doing the same thing here by redrawing maps to get desired representation that they want versus convincing people of what we believe.
Gallagher saw it as two separate, but related things as one was congressional and one was state and called for independent lines be created to allow for representation, not gerrymandering and partisan motives.
Plummer worried this could set off a ripple effect where perhaps New York says they are tired of New York City having all the representation and other parts of the state create their own new state and it happens across the county and there becomes proposals for 30 new states due to rural areas wanting to break away from larger cities.
Gallagher called it “perceivable but unlikely” as any group or jurisdiction would have to go through the same process—noting New York has split in the past. He questioned even if they saw 30, would it be so bad as each of those jurisdictions would have their own representation.
Supervisor Allen Long questioned if they figured out what the model would look like in terms of revenue and infrastructure (CHP, CALFIRE, Hospital, Schools) would look like on a micro and macro level. He questioned what it would look like if they have to re-create everything.
Gallagher called them all part of the conversation as part of the overall process.
Long also stated there have been over 200 attempts to break the state apart and what would make this one successful given the hurdles. He wanted to know if Gallagher saw it as even viable.
Gallagher called it “hard” and this was not the first time its been done but the number of attempts show what California is doing is not working.
“It only takes once to make it succeed,” said Gallagher. “I know it’s a heavy lift and I am not telling you it can easily pass the legislator but what I am telling you is if enough people come together to achieved self-determination, history has shown it can happen. It’s what founded our American Republic. It was a bunch of people saying you know what, this doesn’t work for us and we need to have the ability to have our own representation. Our own self-determination, not be government by remote places.”
Gallagher said one size government doesn’t work very well while saying he believed California was already 2 or 3 states. He said he couldn’t say if this attempt would be successful but its worth the conversation to find a better way.
Kelstrom addressed concerns by Long noting the idea with The State of Jefferson was to put the infrastructure with the county services – CHP, Calfire would be ran locally. He was quick to point out this was a state split and items would become property of new state.
After public comments, the Resolution to support AJA 23 passed in 3-2 vote with Supervisors Long and Plummer dissenting.
Previous
- Aug 2025 – GOP Leader Gallagher Demands New State for Inland California:AJR 23 proposes to form a new state made up of 35 inland California counties to finally give these areas a voice.“California is run by politicians who don’t care because they don’t have to,” said Gallagher. “They exploit our water, suppress our energy, skyrocket our costs, and kill our jobs.”
“Whether you are from the North State, Central Valley, or the Inland Empire, life has become harder and completely unaffordable. We have been overlooked for far too long, and now they are trying to rip away what little representation we have left.”
The proposed new state would include more than 10 million people, putting it among the top ten most populous states in the nation. It would cover most of Northern California, the Sierra Nevada, the Central Valley, and the Inland Empire.
“I have come to see that the only way we can obtain proper attention is by pursuing our own statehood. With this measure, we will begin the first step of that process.”
“We will not be subject to a state that deprives us of a fair voice,” Gallagher said. “Gavin, let my people go.”
