The nutty notion that chopping up California would make life better is off the ballot, at least for now. The idea of three states instead of one needs more legal prep work, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously.

That’s putting it mildly, judges. The loony idea was floated by tech billionaire Tim Draper, most kindly described as eccentric. He poured money into signature-gathering that steered the three-not-one partition toward the November ballot. Alas, no more.

The next steps aren’t clear. Four years ago, Draper failed to gather enough signatures for a six-state carve-up. After the high court setback on his trifecta idea, he might rethink his approach. How about one state?

His three-part suggestion was always hard to fathom, regardless of the dry arguments before the court. Dismembering California wouldn’t solve its problems or enhance its glories. A severed Northern California, a sliced-away Central Valley joined with Southern California, and a contrived coastal segment: None of it makes sense. Public services, taxes and schools are on Draper’s complaint list, but finding answers or commonality would be even harder with his chop job.

It gets worse. Congress would need to embrace the new states. That’s not going to happen with a Republican-controlled House and Senate. Instead of two senators, there would be six in the three states where Democrats would have varying degrees of dominance.

Maybe flag makers would like his plan.

The court ruling doesn’t kill the proposal. The initiative is now on ice pending more arguments on conflicts with the state Constitution and whether such a major change needs two-thirds approval of the Legislature.

Draper should take the hint and just fade away with his dreamy notions of dividing the state.

This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.