At a time when Texas is already recognized as playing a central role in the outcome of the next Presidential elections, it is timely to reflect on a little known element included in the state's organic document approved by the US Congress, admitting it to the Union, which could make Texas all but determinative in Presidential politics during the coming campaign and probably the next century.1
A QUICK REVIEW OF A LITTLE KNOWN ASPECT OF US/TEXAS HISTORY
Six states, or one eighth of the American Union already share names: North and South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, North and South Dakota. So it is breaking no new ground name-wise to think or talk of East and West Texas -- or even East, West, North and South Texas.
Texas, alone, among states admitted to the Union, has included in its Organic Act as approved by the US Congress at the time of admission to the Union, authority to divide itself into as many as five separate states at its own discretion and without further action by the Federal Congress. Until the admission of Alaska in 1959, Texas was the largest state in the Union -- and proud of it. Only California (and the proto-Mormon state of Deseret which originally included all of Nevada, half of Colorado, northern Arizona, and almost half of Idaho) were even in close competition in terms of size. So it is no wonder that until now Texas has never availed itself of the opportunity (if, indeed, it ever viewed this provision as an opportunity) to divide itself. On the other hand, Brigham Young's successors as Governor probably count themselves fortunate that Utah (Deseret) was kept out of the Union for almost fifty years (until polygamy was abandoned), because the four surrounding states in part created from pieces chipped off from the old Territory, together with remaindered Utah, now send ten senators to Washington, all with essentially the same constituent interests, instead of the mere two who would have represented Deseret and whose views would consequently have been swamped by Eastern, Southern, West Coast, and Central States interests.
Which example of undesired, but serendipitously providential territorial division, brings us back to Texas and its little-remembered unique opportunity for voluntary fission.
1. Submitted to Texas Magazine , which wrote back including a reprint of a previous article on the subject and assuring me that while the topic is one of recurring interest in Texas, there has never been sufficient support to implement the idea. The present author notes however that apparently none of the previous proposals included the notion of a super-state to retain authority over regional issues, or the notion of retaining Austin as capitol of Greater Texas to preserve the feeling of still being a citizen of historic Texas -- nor, for that matter, of the new state constitutions creating a Washington caucus of all Senators and Representatives from the five Texases.
No longer the largest state among the Fifty, not even Texas-sized pride should today inhibit the state from taking advantage of its unparalleled privilege of subdividing itself in order to multiply its influence in the national legislature. So divided, Texans would represent fully a tenth of the entire US Senate, probably now otherwise fixed permanently in size by history. Simultaneously this would increase the number of Texans voting in the Electoral College by eight votes, i.e. from 32 to 40 votes -- and increase of fully 25 per cent in Presidential elections -- making Texas, after California, the second most influential states in Presidential elections.
Nor need Texas, because of the special privilege of auto-division included in its organic act at the time of admission, necessarily follow the traditional route of other states upon admission, or even by West Virginia, the only example of an existing state being divided when the western counties of the Old Dominion unilaterally seceded from the mother state during the Civil War, becoming just another among the stars in the union field of the national flag.
TIME FOR A NEW EXPERIMENT IN FEDERALISM?
As demonstrated by the wide public support for the abortive Perot candidacy, the time has come for a new experiment in American state government. A number of interstate compacts have already taken form over the years. Some years ago the Colorado River watershed states entered into an interstate compact to divide and share the waters of the most important river in the American Southwest. A similar compact on higher education exists among a number of Western States for the purpose of economizing with regard to schools of engineering, mining, law, and medicine.
Normally, such compacts must be approved by the national Congress. But, by reason of the special provisions contained in its Act of Admission, no such requirement or constitutional barrier would appear to exist preventing Texas, as part of its devolution, from unilaterally establishing an interstate compact among its several parts setting up a regional "super legislature" tailored to its own desires and not subject to prior Federal approval.
This Super-State, or regional government, could be empowered to exercise only specific delegated powers to legislate on any or all matters considered of regional importance, e.g. energy, education, water policy, taxation, environmental standards, etc., etc.
A regular schedule of interstate conferences, akin to the annual meetings between NATO Chiefs of State, and Foreign and Defense Ministers, could be built into the constitutions of the several states, providing for regular meetings of the five governors, attorneys general, and other senior state officials to maintain coordinated positions. Similarly, there would appear to be no Federal constitutional reason to prohibit inclusion in the several state charters of a requirement for regular coordination meetings of the Senators and Representatives of the five Texas states.
Informal regional, racial, and Party caucuses already take place in the Federal Congress. Such a "Texas caucus" could of course not compel any participating Senator or Representative to vote against his own inclination or conscience. But that is already the situation. The purpose of a caucus is, after all, nothing more than to make sure all points of view are thoroughly aired among those of generally consensual interests before a final vote is taken. And this would continue to be so in the constitutionally imposed "Texas Caucus" -- one could expect no more among the ten Texas Senators and twenty-six Representatives (though with minimum representation requirements, division of the state might well result in one or another Texas state picking up another Representative or two).
POSSIBLE NEW STATE BOUNDARIES
Looking at possible division lines, Texas falls quite naturally into five reasonable territorial units: The Panhandle and North -- with Amarillo (or perhaps Lubbock) as state capital; West Texas, perhaps bordered by the Colorado and South Concho river, with El Paso (or Pecos ?) as capital; South Texas, bordered by the South Llano and Colorado Rivers, with San Antonio as capital; East Texas with Houston as capital, bordered to the north by the 31st parallel of longitude and to the west by the Colorado; and, for want of a better name, Texas Simple, running from the 31 parallel north to the Oklahoma border, west to Abilene and down the Pecan Bayou, with either Dallas or Fort Worth as capital. Austin is well located to remain headquarters for the Super-State machinery of government, ensuring a link with history and tradition.
ENHANCED IMPORTANCE OF TEXAS IN NATIONAL AND PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Such an initiative on the part of Texas could importantly enhance the influence of the Southwest in national politics; would be a shot in the arm to the economy of the region at a time of great need; would provide a new lesson in democracy for the rest of the States and the world; would multiply the number of state and local government workshops at a time of heightened interest in federalist solutions to many of the problems plaguing the nation.
And, were the new approach to a constitutionally based, permanent interstate/regional form of "supergovernment" adopted, this new initiative would be a significant step forward in the evolution of American constitutional doctrine and practice. Not least of the advantages for Texas would be increasing its influence in the choice of Presidents of the United States since it would automatically pick up eight extra votes in the electoral college, increasing the total by twenty-five per cent, i.e. from 32 to 40 votes, almost assuring that Texas would become the "Mother of Presidents" of the Twenty-first Century.
POSSIBLE EXAMPLE TO OTHER STATES FOR REGIONAL RATIONALIZATION
In time, this might even lead to regional confederations in New England, the Mid- and South-Atlantic regions, The Great Lakes and Central States, and the Rocky Mountain and Pacific States, under which the regions would be able to assume a far greater level of responsibility for their own economic and social affairs, allowing Washington to divest itself of much responsibility for internal affairs, confirming the New Feder- alism, and enabling the National Government to concentrate on what only it can do (and which it has not been doing well enough in recent years) -- regulate international trade, maintain our defense capability, and attend to the nation's diplomatic needs.
Political scientists have for years been suggesting a re-ordering of state borders to better respond to regional needs, rectify the errors of history, and take into account the more rapid travel possibilities of the modern age. Perhaps the Texas example, if extended to interstate compacts providing for regional super-state governments, might provide a realistic solution to this rationalist dream. Certainly there'll otherwise be no redrawing of state borders in the United States short of a major political revolution in Western Hemisphere affairs. While, unlike Texas, such interstate compacts would require approval by the US Congress, this might prove the acceptable formula for dividing California into the two or three states which logic (and contemporary public opinion) seems to require.
Were Texas to lead the way, it would be difficult for Congress to put stumbling blocks in the way of the three California's also opting for a super-state legislature and super-state governor to coordinate regional policies, while gaining the advantages of smaller governments closer to the people, at regional level, while multiplying its influence in the US Senate through picking up another four senators for the two new sub-divided states. There appear no other reasonable candidates for subdivision into additional states (thus multiplying votes in the Senate and influence in the Electoral College), but, as already noted, any number of overly small states might form interstate compact-based super legislatures to maximize coordination on issues of regional importance, thus rationalizing state borders, most of which were imposed by historical chance rather than social or geographical logic.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |