Washington is also in the 9th circuit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals...

A ruling on Cali's law in the 9th would impact WA as well.

California has been especially committed to challenging some of the administration's various injustices. Trump has made California one of his symbolic, non-white boogeymen in order to manipulate his "base."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/us/politics/trump-califor...

Republicans have been trashing California since the Vietnam war.

Republicans dominated California in federal elections for most of its history until 1992; it was one of the most solid of Republican strongholds.

Republicans have been trashing Hollywood and San Francisco/Berkeley for a long time, though.

Interestingly, a lot of states are like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

That branch of the Republican party is extinct though.

Immigration changed California to solidly blue more than anything else.

You could also argue that it was Republican's refusal to address the needs of immigrants that lost them California.

But only American citizens can vote. And I can't seem to find any data on the increase of the California population from naturalized citizens.

Not sure what you're confused about, and OP was talking about legal immigration.

Prior to 65 immigration act, California was over 90% white.

By 2010, non-hispanic white was down to %40, hispanic ~%37%.

That is a huge demographic change. Hispanics nationally vote for Democratic/liberal politicians on avg. 70%.

So.. ergo, the dramatic blue turn California has taken politically can be accounted for by drastic change in demographics.

Your first statement is just restating the same premise: a dramatic change of the makeup of the electorate (whatever their "needs" or preferred political policies) changed the outcome of elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California

section: "Population of California according to racial/ethnic group 1960–2010"

After Prop 187 about a million Mexican resident aliens got their citizenship. That also coincided with a hard turn towards fascism by the Republican party under Gingrich.

Immigration is part if it, and the other part is the Republican party's policies got too extreme for a lot of Californians. California Republicans were more like Schwarzenegger, who later in his term simply abandoned the Republican party. (I think he called Republican operators, crazy and unable to get anything done)

It's amazing how many "conservatives" I've run into who've never been to San Francisco, but somehow "know" that it's a liberal hellhole that everyone hates.

Stories about NIMBYism on HN don't help.

Isn't NIMBYis a very conservative-ish thing? (Though I think this just shows the failure of this mindless political labeling.)

It places the individual's need, which are only incidental due to their current residence above the community's need. Whereas liberal-ish things tend to require something from every member of the community. (Less gun right, mandatory health insurance, more spending on refugees and unlucky folks, etc.)

I live there now, can confirm.

I think Republicans hate all blue States. Due to America's peculiar Electoral College system one man is not one vote. This keeps California severely disenfranchised in American politics.

Californians are second class citizens. And when they try to exercise their state rights the Republicans are quick to stop them.

California should secede. It has enough people to form its own government representative of the population.

That's pretty much the nuclear option. Everyone, both the rest of the Union and the State of California, would all suffer if they did that.

Not unique to Trump. California has been the boogeyman of the right for quite a while now.

But if a liberal makes a joke abut southern rednecks than they get all indignant about how elitist and offensive they are. So tiresome.

Bigotry is wrong on both sides. Seems odd to make it partisan when 'both' sides are spewing hate. Most of us just wish either extreme would pack it in.

I believe that pointing to a location and saying “look at what policies X and Y have done, let us adjust our messaging and policies in accordance with this new information” is perfectly fair. Characterizing the locals in those environs as inferior or fundamentally incorrect is morally wrong.

So in this regard, desparaging california’s policies is completely fair. So would bashing on say, Kansas. But calling California the home of “libtards” or calling Kansas full of rednecks would not be fair.