One state at the time of joining the United States had the right to divide itself into up to five separate states. The treaty of annexation by which the Republic of Texas joined the United States in 1845 included this provision; the state of Texas arguably retains that right by virtue of the treaty.

Although I'm neither a lawyer nor an expert on the subject, it seems unlikely to me that the state of Texas would indeed retain the right given to the Republic of Texas. I suppose the argument could be made, but I would doubt that it would be successful.

But assuming for the sake of argument that the supposition is true, that Texas has the right to divide itself up into 5 states, why wouldn't it do so? Because congressional representation is by population, the combined states would probably (depending on how they were divvied up) maintain, collectively, the same number of representatives in the House as the state of Texas currently has, although it could conceivably lose or gain a couple. But, definitely, it would gain 8 new Senatorial seats, and 8 votes in the Electoral College, a huge increase.

I guess there's some value in being one of the largest states in the union, but wouldn't that be outweighed by the additional clout in Washington that 8 more Senators would provide? Surely DeLay & Company can maintain the same iron fist of control over a mini-region of five states that they do now over one large one? Maybe the problem might be the avalanche of attempted secessions that could follow if Texas did split itself up, but that's hardly Texas' problem (and they rulers of Texas don't seem to have a great deal of concern for the welfare of the rest of the country lately).

When Norman Mailer ran for Mayor of New York in 1969 -- with Jimmy Breslin as his running mate, standing for City Council President -- I was in favor of their proposal that New York City secede from New York State and become the 51st state (keeping the name, of course, since it was our's first). Then, as now, upstate New York wields a disproportionate amount of power over the city, considering the relative size of the populations of the two areas, and the city is often hard-pressed to get back from the state's coffers services and programs equal to the amount of taxes sent to Albany from the city.

Not only that, but the situation is even worse when looking at New York City in relation to the United States as a whole:

What does New York City have more of than New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, South Dakota, Delaware, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming, all put together?

People.

What do New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, South Dakota, Delaware, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming have that New York City doesn't have?

Eighteen US Senators.

New York City has gets to share two senators with the residue of New York state, which is also larger than all these other states put together. In fact, there are 16 states with a combined population less than New York in its entirety.

Doesn't seem terribly fair, does it? The arguments for NYC as the 51st state are pretty strong, even though it will most probably never happen.

(FWIW, "The 51st State" was the name of a nightly local news and public affairs program on WNET, the PBS affiliate in New York, and I recall it as being pretty good.)

Other states might consider splitting up as well: California into North and South, for instance, or Florida into Panhandle and Florida. There's been some talk about making a new state -- variously called "Cascadia" or "Columbia" depending on which scheme is being discussed -- in the Pacific Northwest.

Breaking down large current states into smaller ones is arguably a move that increases democracy, as it helps to equalize the deliberate misbalance of representation created in the Constitution. The major drawback is that we'd have to figue out a new arrangement of stars for the flag, and we're out of practive, not having had to do that since 1959.