Shasta supervisors back amended resolution opening local discussion of a ‘state split’ after Gallagher presentation

Assemblymember James Gallagher urged the Shasta County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 6 to consider AJR 23, a legislative resolution that would begin a county-led conversation about forming a new state from inland California counties. Gallagher framed the proposal as a response to what he described as an erosion of local representation and long-term policy choices out of Sacramento. "I have introduced AJR 23, which expresses the formal consent to form a new state within the confines of the state of California," Gallagher said, outlining constitutional steps that require the consent of the state legislature and the U.S. Congress.

Supervisors pressed Gallagher on feasibility, fiscal impact and the practical implications of separating state functions such as Cal Fire, CHP, and infrastructure programs. Supervisor Plummer highlighted concerns about the principle of the move and the large administrative and financial burdens that would follow, asking for more detailed revenue and cost projections. Gallagher acknowledged the effort would be a “heavy lift” but said it must begin at the local level with counties and jurisdictions building a coalition.

The board debated the draft resolution’s wording after Supervisor Kaelstrom noted that the packet used the term "secession," which could be misleading. The motion before the board was amended to replace "secession" with "state split"; counsel confirmed the change was acceptable. The amended resolution then proceeded to public comment, where more than a dozen residents addressed the board with sharply divided views: some called the measure a symbolic distraction that would risk state funding for local services, while others urged action to restore regional voice and control.

In a roll-call vote following the public comment period, Supervisors Harmon, Scribe (Chair), and Kaelstrom voted yes; Supervisors Plummer and Long voted no. The amended resolution passed 3-2. The board’s action expresses local support to continue conversations and share a formal letter supporting the concept; it does not enact structural changes or instruct staff to pursue specific statutory steps toward statehood.

What’s next: the resolution asks local jurisdictions and interested counties to continue discussion and to consider further study of legal, fiscal and operational impacts. Any formal petition to the state or legislative action would require separate, explicit steps including review, formal petitions and potential future votes by county bodies and the state legislature.