Counting Jefferson supporters in DN
Last night a woman made the comment at the town hall that the signatures obtained in favor of the Declaration for the State of Jefferson represent only 3 percent of the county’s population.
According to the U.S. Census for the year 2012 a total 28,290 individuals resided in Del Norte County (www.quickfacts.census.gov).
Of this total, in excess of 3,000 people are incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison and do not vote. That reduces the total to 25,290 people.
What is important is the number of registered voters in the county — that is approximately 10,000, so that 1,000 signatures represent 10 percent of the voting population. Additional signatures are being obtained at this time.
Finally, any poll sampling that you will see by Rasmussen, Gallup, Quinnipiac, Pew, etc. typically has at least 1,000 responses.
In a recent Del Norte Triplicate website poll, more than 80 percent of respondents were in favor of the State of Jefferson and over 1,000 individuals participated in the poll.
Joseph A. Lavender, Crescent City
Editor’s note: The Triplicate website polls do not represent a scientific sampling, and there is no way to determine if respondents are Del Norte voters. However, safeguards do prevent people from “voting” more than once in the poll from the same computer.
Act first, think later nature of movement
I was pleased to see the Jefferson State movement hold a “town hall” meeting on Tuesday night, and to see many of our city and county elected officials present.
The enthusiasm for rejecting California laws, taxes, debt and regulation was high among the admittedly select members of the public attending. Indeed, the passionate support for Jefferson state is based almost entirely on rebelling against something wrong with California and lack of representation of us northern rural counties, rather than what our new state would mean to the residents here.
Of particular concern to myself, and by many of the questions posed to the officiants of the meeting, was how the new state would handle taxation, and how California state services, such as road maintenance, school funding, fire, law enforcement, forestry, state park management, welfare, Rural Human Services, etc. (but don’t even ask about natural resource protection) would be handled.
Specifically, several questions asked for a fiscal analysis of how Jefferson state would run. We were answered with the generalities that state taxes would be levied at a similar rate, counties would have much more control, federal money would cover a lot, and all the details would be hammered out at a constitutional convention after the state was formed.
Somehow the idea of creating a state first and deciding what it represents afterward seems backwards to me. Such is the nature of the movement.
Craig S. Strong, Crescent City