how radical change might play out in the "50 states": dividing or merging states

An interesting article on the history of secession from Michael Trinklein in the WSJ...

Long Island's latest quest to split from New York and become its own state had a promising start last year. Legislators in Suffolk county, upset over a new payroll tax to fund New York City's subways, voted 12-6 in favor of a secession plan. It seemed viable: In terms of square miles, Long Island is bigger than Rhode Island; its gross state product would be larger than that of 20 states. Some optimists even proposed a state bird: the duck.

Objections from the rest of New York effectively killed the idea, but attempts to make Long Island a state will almost certainly return. The proposal was just the most recent in a series of statehood crusades, usually arising from complaints of unfair taxation....

Across the country, there have been a persistent and surprising number of attempts to redraw borders and create new states....

Modern quests for statehood may seem like nothing more than odd footnotes, because Americans have largely forgotten that adding and dividing states is one of the primary mechanisms used throughout U.S. history to solve problems and redress grievances....

This sort of idealistic optimism—at the core of the American psyche—is amplified in secessionist movements. We're a can-do people, and if we don't like our state government, we are quite prepared to make a new one. Sometimes the fervor pushes secessionists to the next level, and they attempt to leave the union altogether. The outcome of the Civil War is no deterrent to the outraged....

Seceding from the nation is illegal and, practically speaking, impossible. But seceding from a state to form a new state is allowed by the U.S. Constitution—and the specifications are straightforward. Article IV Section 3 says a proposal first needs to get the approval of the existing state legislature....the next hurdle in the process: sign-off from the U.S. Congress....

Congressional decisions on the admission of new states have often split along party lines. That's why any new state that's serious about joining the Union needs a dancing partner. Neither Alaska nor Hawaii would be on the flag without the other. Back in 1959, Alaska had the conservatives' vote, Hawaii the liberals'....

It's stunning that modern statehood advocates in Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia don't seem to understand this reality. Both oft-proposed states would likely elect two Democratic senators, an obvious deal killer among Republicans in Congress. What these proto-states need is an arranged marriage of sorts with a conservative accomplice.

Such partners do exist. For example, the state of Lincoln, which would meld eastern Washington and northern Idaho, is culturally and geographically defensible; and it's heavily Republican...The Republican elephant in the room in any new-state discussion is Texas. To cajole the independent nation of Texas into joining the Union in 1845, Congress offered a unique perk: Texas can slice itself up into two, three, four or even five distinct states....

It's worth noting that difficult economic times could lead to a very different type of statehood proposal: a merger. Strong corporations sometimes absorb weak ones; perhaps the same formula could work for states in bankruptcy. The constitution actually anticipates mergers, outlining a roadmap to statehood for new states "formed by the Junction of two or more States." Of course, merging states means some politicians would be giving up power, a scenario that's hard to imagine....