Doug LaMalfa & The State of Jefferson

Doug LaMalfa likes to pose as the plain-spoken champion of Northern California’s forgotten farmers. But when a sitting member of Congress echoes the same grievances that fuel the State of Jefferson secessionist fantasy, it’s no longer folksy rhetoric—it’s a flirtation with constitutional crisis. The Jefferson project isn’t a “rural-rights” movement; it’s a political mirage that resurfaces whenever extremists would rather wave a flag than govern (Branson-Potts, 2018; Heppler, 2022).

The “State of Jefferson”: A Perennial Secession Scheme

The State of Jefferson has haunted Northern California politics since 1941, when a cluster of rural counties staged a symbolic revolt against Sacramento (Branson-Potts, 2018). Modern revivals in Siskiyou, Tehama, Glenn, and Modoc Counties have produced non-binding “declaration” resolutions that carry no legal force (California State Library, n.d.). Under Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, any new state requires consent from both the state legislature and Congress—a hurdle Jefferson’s boosters have never cleared (Koseff, 2024). Translation: this is not revolution; it’s performance art dressed up as governance.

LaMalfa’s Echoes of Jefferson

LaMalfa has repeatedly echoed the Jefferson movement’s core grievance—that rural residents are politically “drowned out” by urban California (Kallepalli, 2025; Miller, 2025). At recent town halls, he railed against redistricting and “coastal elites,” striking the same populist chords that Jefferson activists have long used to justify secession (Kallepalli, 2025). No credible outlet records LaMalfa explicitly calling for a new state, but the overlap between his rhetoric and the movement’s talking points is undeniable. When a sitting congressman amplifies the narrative that California is irredeemably broken, he gives oxygen to a cause whose endgame is disunion.

Why It’s an Ethical and Constitutional Conflict:

1. The Oath vs. the Exit Plan

Every member of Congress swears to “support and defend the Constitution.” That same Constitution defines the process for admitting new states—a process Jefferson’s architects cannot legally satisfy (Koseff, 2024). Flirting with secessionist sentiment while drawing a federal salary is like the postmaster joining a club devoted to burning down the post office. It’s not populism; it’s betrayal.

2. Normalization of Anti-Democratic Thinking

Political scientists warn that legitimizing secession talk corrodes democratic norms by making “exit” seem preferable to compromise (Heppler, 2022). When the messenger is a congressman, the damage multiplies. LaMalfa’s words signal to alienated voters that breaking the system is a viable form of protest. That’s not leadership—it’s nihilism.

3. Material Risk to Constituents

Northern California depends heavily on federal wildfire recovery funds, agricultural subsidies, and infrastructure aid. If local officials push secession rhetoric, they risk federal skepticism toward those allocations. Scholars note that symbolic rebellion rarely delivers services; it only isolates regions already struggling with poverty and under-investment (Heppler, 2022).

4. A History of Futility

California has seen more than 220 failed partition attempts since 1850 (California State Library, n.d.). Each one drained political capital and left rural voters disillusioned. Reviving it today isn’t visionary; it’s cynical. LaMalfa’s job is to make Sacramento listen—not to hand voters a fantasy map and call it freedom.

The Bottom Line

If Doug LaMalfa truly believes Northern Californians deserve better representation, he should fix governance—not fantasize about escaping it. By echoing Jefferson-style grievances while seated in Congress, he validates the very anti-institutional impulse that undermines democracy itself. That’s not “standing up for the little guy.” It’s standing on the Constitution with muddy boots.