For many, it’s hard to imagine a world in which America contains any less than fifty states. For others, that is a world they want to come to fruition. Calls for the state of Texas to secede from the United States and create its own sovereign nation have re-emerged in recent years given increasing dissatisfaction with the federal government. While the U.S. likely won’t have to worry about Texas seceding anytime soon, the Texas secession movement is an indication of a broader trend of division within American democracy that is worth attention.

Since 2005, the Texas Nationalist Movement has been the preeminent organization in pursuit of “Texit,” the campaign that culminates in Texas independence [1]. Currently boasting membership of over 425,00 Texans, the movement has also attracted the support of more than one hundred candidates for government office in 2022 [2]. This momentum has spilled into the state legislature. Members of the Texas House of Representatives filed the Texas Independence Referendum Act in both 2021 and 2023 [3]. If passed, the bill would add a measure to the next general election ballot asking Texans whether or not they’d like to see the state reclaim its status as an independent country. While neither version of the bill received a vote, this won’t be the last time the world hears of Texit. After all, as of 2022, the Republican Party of Texas’ platform includes a provision that establishes the need for this referendum [4]. Party platforms generally inform the public of a political group’s stance on a host of relevant issues and serve as a blueprint for the direction of public policy. Until the Texas GOP revises its platform at its next State Convention in May 2024, Texan independence will remain a legislative priority for the party. 

To an extent, it seems fair to say that Texan voters should be given a chance to voice their support for (or opposition to) secession electorally. The state’s constitution emphasizes the idea that it is the people who hold political power, giving legislators sufficient justification to, at the very least, call for a referendum [5]. Whether secession itself is justified is a separate issue entirely. In general, most of the political will for Texit stems from Texans’ discontent with the federal government. Daniel Miller,  head of the Texas Nationalist Movement, is primarily concerned with the country lying in the hands of millions of unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. There are partisan undertones to the issue, as suggested by the tendency for the movement to gain momentum under any Democratic president. Ted Cruz, for one, says he is holding out on secession until America becomes ‘hopeless’—that is, once Democrats have overwhelming control over the government or pass too many liberal policies.

Despite some degree of controversy on the issue, secession is unconstitutional. While nothing in the US or Texas Constitution would guarantee a right to secede, the post-Civil War decision against unilateral state secession in Texas v. White creates the most plausible case against the legality of Texit. Yet, proponents of secession would argue that the Declaration of Independence warrants abandoning the government in the case that it acts unjustly or does not satisfy the needs of the people [6]. It is unclear, however, as to what penalties the Supreme Court or Congress could inflict on a state that declares it is no longer under their jurisdiction.

Texit is not the only instance of a secessionist movement in the US. On the opposite end of the political spectrum, Calexit (California’s secession movement) unsurprisingly gained popularity during the Trump presidency. While California may be better suited financially to become an independent nation than Texas given the size of its economy, polls following the 2016 election show strongly conflicting results about whether Californians would actually be in favor of such a move [7]. 

Nationwide data also shows that people support various versions of an American partition. A UVA Center for Politics poll found that about 40% of Biden supporters and 50% of Trump supporters somewhat agree there is a need for separating blue and red states into two countries [8]. Similarly, a 2021 survey from Bright Line Watch found that 37% of participants initially responded favorably to the idea of their region of the United States (Pacific, Mountain, South, Heartland, or Northeast) seceding [9]. Republicans in the South showed the strongest support with 66% in favor of secession, an increase of 16% from the same survey taken six months earlier. Democrat voters were the most likely to favor secession in the Pacific and Northeast regions, at 47% and 39% in support, respectively. 

With these other instances in mind, a trend begins to emerge: secessionist movements are the culmination of partisan groups wanting to dissociate themselves from members of the other party. Under the US’s current federal system, states act as “laboratories of democracy,” allowing them to craft policies fit for their constituency. In practice, this results in wildly different policies between states on prominent issues (abortion, gun control, pandemic management, and drug decriminalization, to name a few).  Beyond opposing policy approaches, polarization has bred deep distrust between members of opposite parties, so much so that many entertain the idea of secession. 

Because people with similar political views are already neatly grouped into fifty states with their own political authority, favorable conditions for secession are created [10]. However, division across state lines is not as black and white (or red and blue) as it seems. During the 2020 election, 44% of President Biden’s votes in the 2020 election came from states won by Trump (and 42% of former President Trump’s votes came from states won by Biden) [11]. Regardless, secessionists see the differences between states as irreconcilable. Thus, exiting the union is seen as a viable way to address concerns about their political opponents controlling Washington, D.C. 

The preceding discussion naturally begs the question of how concerned we should be about secession movements. Sure, it’s easy to see secessionists as simply a vocal minority, unlikely to mobilize the support needed to see their radical ideas come to fruition. At the same time, their rowdy hand-waving and posturing is a sign to proceed with a healthy degree of caution, knowing that many brushed the issue off when the Confederacy was proposed in 1861 [12]. For those that choose to dismiss secessionists, it would be unwise to also overlook the factors that have brought these movements into the mainstream. 

As much as federalism is the problem, though, it is also the solution. When managed effectively, our federal system can mediate states’ desires for both autonomy and interdependence [13]. The federal government and state governments are perpetually locked in a game of tug of war, with the current age being a period of time where favor has swung to the side of the federal government. In the case that secessionists do not desire complete self-determination, enhancing states rights should be able to quell concerns about federal overstretch. It remains important that states are still able to participate in federal initiatives that tackle problems facing the whole nation while retaining a degree of sovereignty. Alternatively, grievances with the federal government should be a sign for citizens to increase their political engagement, not to threaten withdrawal. As the 2024 election nears, voters can start to think about how they will shape the government—both state and federal—into what they want to see.