Via my old stomping grounds I see that Puerto Rico statehood is once again on the congressional agenda. I oppose statehood for a simple reason: it's not popular enough with Puerto Ricans themselves. Let's review the evidence of half a century of referendums:
- 1967: Given a choice of statehood, independence, or remaining a commonwealth, only 39% chose statehood.
- 1993: Statehood received 47% of the vote.
- 1998: This one had a controversial set of options, but the statehood option was pretty clear and received only 47% of the vote.
- 2012: Statehood received 61% of the vote, but 500,000 ballots were left blank as a protest.
- 2017: Statehood received 97% of the vote, but only because the referendum was boycotted by every party that opposed statehood.
- 2020: Finally, a straight up or down vote produced 53% in favor of statehood.
Over the course of half a century, Puerto Ricans have voted six times on statehood. It has never received a clear majority until 2020, when it won in a bare squeaker.
Compare this to Hawaii and Alaska, the last two states to be admitted. Alaskans voted 85% in favor of statehood and Hawaiians voted 94% in favor.
I don't believe that statehood should be something that's only narrowly supported by the residents of a territory. Puerto Ricans have had a very long time to consider whether they want to become the 51st state and it's clear by now that it's the choice of only the barest majority—and maybe not even that. If it can't muster even a two-thirds majority—and it's never come close to that—it suggests that statehood has grudging support at best. That's a recipe for contention and potential disaster down the road.
But if not a state, then what? The most obvious option is for Puerto Rico to remain a territory, especially since independence has always fared poorly when offered up for a vote. But in the 21st century that strikes me as a poor option too. The colonial era is over and we should all say good riddance to it.
There's no great solution here. Personally, I think the best answer is independence, but with a special relationship with the US. However, the vast majority of Puerto Ricans disagree with me about this, which leaves us right where we started: Puerto Rico as a permanent territory because it's too scary to consider breaking the status quo.
What's wrong with it staying a terirority just because it's the 21st century? Are territories out of fashion this century?
And it is a territory, not a colony. (KD mentioned the colonial era.)
The problem is that Puerto Ricans have no say in their national government. Seems kind of obvious really.
But that's apparently what they prefer. So why would we care?
It isn't what they prefer according to these results.
No it's not.
Minor nit, but formally I believe it is a "commonwealth," which technically is different from a "territory" such as the USVI or the Northern Mariana Islands. What the practical differences are, I don't know, although I do know that PR is inside US Customs while the USVI is outside, and USVI residents pay their federal income tax to the local government.
Should we ask why Atticus is saying to overturn Puerto Rico's most recent vote?
Because that's what Kevin is also saying.
I wonder if the referenda would go any different if there were actual stakes to it. It's one thing to ask whether statehood is good, another if Congress has authorized that Puerto Rico will become a state if if votes a certain percentage for it (and you could set that high - make it 70% or something).
Personally, if they don't want statehood, I think we should do a Palau-style protectorate arrangement. They'd be an independent country, but the US would help them out with defense and some other things, etc. The real sticking point would probably be US citizenship.
50% is a fine enough threshold for Statehood. Alaska and Hawaii are special cases, but previous States have been admitted with only just over 50% support.
Lot of people seem to think that Puerto Rico would lean toward Democrats in federal elections and help to provide a Democratic Party lock on the electoral college. I'm skeptical.
Puerto Rico's political parties down align exactly with the national Democratic and Republican parties. Puerto Ricans have elected governors who have identified with the national GOP.
Also, after Hurricane Maria, many Puerto Ricans relocated to Florida and people thought that they would heavily favor Democratic Party candidates and that didn't happen. In particular, Rick Scott did quite well with recent arrivals from Puerto Rico in his 2018 Senate election. I don't have the numbers for 2020 but I suspect that Trump did pretty well with Florida's Puerto Rican community.
We need to drop the lazy assumptions about Latinos.
Personally I don't think which way they vote should have any bearing on this at all.
Agreed. A lot of them are devout Catholics.
Another lazy assumption.
"Among white Catholics, 57 percent backed Trump and 42 percent supported Biden, VoteCast found. "
"... Biden performed even better among Hispanic Catholics, with VoteCast finding that 67 percent backed the Democrat while 32 percent supported Trump."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/catholics-helped-elect-joe-biden-as-more-voters-shrugged-off-abortion-issues-hostile-clergy/ar-BB1aNp1n
Brexit passed with a smaller majority-what kind of democracy are you advocating? Maybe you support the filibuster after all. KD - here is the reality - 95% of PR support being Americans and the reality in the ground is that statehood will not change matters that much except politically- meaning congressional representation and presidential vote. The federal courts already have full jurisdiction (some would say more than a state)- the economy and culture are fully entangled including military service so statehood is really about empowerment- so not only does a majority want this, if you count the people who have left the Island it is clear that where the will is. And because of the modern media the days of 70% or 80% in support of anything remotely debatable are long gone. I think the real issue is the will of Americans like you- perhaps you would feel more comfortable if after PR became a state we can rename the country the Unites States of North America, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
Isn't it true that as a territory Puerto Rico can only trade with American flagged vessels? It seems like for an island state getting rid of this restriction would be a big deal.
The law could also be changed. Having reps in congress might help them control their destiny as well.
Puerto Rico is covered by the Jones Act, which requires that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be transported on ships built, owned and operated by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Not having to pay U.S. federal income taxes is probably a bigger deal to the average Peurto Rican.
As Florida is shortly to be underwater, wouldn't it be practical to move NASA to Puerto Rico?
That's a great idea.
They have some great scientific equipment that recently failed that needs replacement.
Alas, they have a rather different history with rockets than Florida.
Not really. PR is an island unlike FL, so the advantages of being further South are countered by it not having land and rail links.
Hmm, let's think this through a little more. Water shipping still seems to be on parity, especially with larger elements. And ESA seems to do well with their launch pad in French Guyana.
The more I think about it, the more I think Puerto Rico could benefit from more of a NASA presence despite being smack dab in the hurricane region more than Florida is.
Bring back SETI.
I wonder how many of the existing 50 states would vote to become a territory like Puerto Rico. Texas and California might, no?
Kevin, w/r/t your solution, since Puerto Ricans are citizens, I'd be interested in hearing what level of plebiscite you think would be needed to turn PR from a territory into some sort of independent nation and thereby strip citizenship from millions of Puerto Ricans.
Put another way, why exactly are you in favor of a minority of Puerto Rican voters being able to maintain the federal disenfranchisement of all Puerto Ricans?
These people are fellow-citizens. I don't care if a significant number of them do vote against statehood--if even *one* Puerto Rican wants to have representation in Congress, the rest of us should really be asking ourselves why we'd be ok with denying Puerto Rico that right on no greater basis than some other group of people prefers rights denial.
I would guess Puerto Rico is opposed to being a state simply because it preserves the possibility of some day being independent should they really want it, where as a state that would be virtually impossible.
I would say, in this circumstance, it starts to become a question for everyone else. Is Puerto Rico more of a burden in it's present arrangement or not a burden, or would it be obviously less a burden if it were a state?
If presented with the question of choose or lose, does that change their minds?
Hawaiian natives weren't given the vote, nor were they given bennies for being not-a-state. Same for Alaska. Natives weren't given votes are the same rate as whites.
But Puerto Rico did vote for statehood thrice, and most recently. Give them statehood. Same for DC.
Exactly this. Especially on the Hawaii and Alaska votes.
I'd like to pass a bill ending territory status in, say 24 months, offering a vote for statehood provided Puerto Ricans show they want statehood. Probably the bill should requires a supermajority result in the Puerto Rican plebiscite.
A vote with openly two choice, with the status quo ruled out as an option? I have no idea how that would go, but that is the vote that counts. The votes that have been taken don't mean too much. Simple majority votes when there are more than two popular options rarely yield more than a plurality and they invite strategic positioning.
I agree with Kevin's basic point, Puerto Rico should become a state only if it is truly preferred by the Puerto Ricans. I disagree that the various votes taken so far mean very much.
Agreed.
Besides, becoming a state is certainly a mutual decision between the existing states and PR, but if existing states want to cut our territories loose it isn't really the territories' choice.
So a supermajority required for statehood and only a minority for independence? Is that what you are proposing? I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. I agree that statehood is a bit of a commitment but PR has been part of the USA for over a hundred years. I think a majority can decide this issue as we use to decide pretty much all other major issues.
I don't buy this line of reasoning at all. Here's why.
Leaving ballots blank or boycotting the vote in protest means they forfeited their vote. They knew the potential consequences if it passed. They could've just as easily voted "no."
Meanwhile, the most recent results did support statehood! 53% (to 47%, presumably) is not really a "squeaker" - 6% is a pretty fair margin. If a presidential election went 53% to 47%, would you call it a squeaker?
Give 'em statehood and/or stop fucking them over as second class citizens. Statehood seems like the path of least resistance to that second part, so give Puerto Rico statehood.
While 53% may not be an overwhelming majority, the trend in the voting is also pretty clear - more Puerto Ricans support statehood in each successive election. Why make them continue to wait?
It's not like we're going to grant independence to Puerto Rico, that's just not our imperialist style.
Depends on the electoral college.
El Tio Demento won a 6 million vote squeaker.
For a "numbers" and "facts" leaning person this is some lazy reporting Kevin.
"2012: Statehood received 61% of the vote, but 500,000 ballots were left blank as a protest."
500,000 out of how many? Even if you assume all of those 500,000 who left it blank would have voted against statehood, how would the overall votes reflect on the overall population?
2017: Statehood received 97% of the vote, but only because the referendum was boycotted by every party that opposed statehood.
Similar to above, those who opposed it make up how many in PR relative to the rest?
2020: Finally, a straight up or down vote produced 53% in favor of statehood.
So since you only consider this last vote valid, how much was the turnout? In the US election turnout at best hover in the mid 60s percent, but are usually in the 50% - 60% range, so really all kinds of decisions are based on the preferred choice of anywhere from a quarter to a third of those eligible to vote.
So by your BS standard are we now to assume that no elections are valid because there is no overall consensus, because that is exactly what you are saying here for Puerto Rico.
The fact remains that at least since 2012, a clear majority of Puerto Ricans want the island to become a State even if you want to pretend that you need a higher standard.
I did the math on the 2016 one when Kevin posted about it a year or two ago.
If turnout had been roughly on trend, it would have passed by about the same margin as the 2020 one passed. So....
And that's assuming that they were all "no" votes, which they wouldn't have necessarily been.
Meanwhile, in 2012, it was a 2-part question. Part 1 asked if PR should continue with its current territorial status, and it was 54% No to 46% Yes, and Part 2 asked what they wanted instead. It was part 2 that opposition to statehood folks said to leave blank, and the results were then 61% for statehood and 33% for "free association" and 5% for independence. Out of roughly 1.8M votes. So all of those 500K would have needed to be not-statehood options for that to not be the preferred result.
I wonder if they fear their supply of paper towels will disappear of they become a real state?
No Trump to toss them a roll or two.
PR is a mess and they need help. Trump and the republicans do nothing but oppose this idea so it must be a good one.
Puerto Rican's are citizens and they serve in our armed forces let's give them a real nation to defend.
Ovewhelming local support for statehood, huh? Statehood for D.C. must be a slam dunk then.
DC statehood and PR statehood are completely different. Local support is necessary but not sufficient. DC shouldn't be a state because it was specifically carved out from another state to allow the federal government to have complete control of it. Also is smaller both geographically and in population than both of the Maryland counties that surround it. There is literally nowhere in the city that is more than a 2 hour walk to somewhere else and the surrounding MD counties have similar needs. Adequate representation could be achieved through shared representation in the senate with MD and the proper number of house representatives based upon population just like happened to Arlington county in VA. The only reason that has not happened is because the democratic party wants to tilt the Senate* and the people of DC want more power than any other state just as the founders feared. If it were really about representation then we'd just make the non-federal part Douglas County, MD and be done with it.
Puerto Rico on the other hand is in a very different situation. It will never have proper representation without being a state. The only reason the votes haven't been there in the past is because they were voting based upon desire for the status quo or because they wanted to be independent for idealistic reasons. But from a pure cost benefit analysis US statehood is so vastly superior as to make the other options appear laughable.
* FWIW I'd love a more liberal senate too I just don't want to cheat to get it.
Who decides which set of circumstances is the decisive one?
For it's entire existence Puerto Rico has not been independent but always an imperial province, it's their normative condition. The cultural memory of a pre-Columbian Puerto Rico seems entirely gone. They might happily vote for still less autonomy.
Similarly DC, for it's entire existence, has been a Federal enclave, and never just another part of Maryland, their distinction is highly established. Would you demand West Virginia should rejoin Virginia?
You mean like Republicans "cheated" (they didn't, really) by splitting the Dakotas into North/South, just to pack the Senate?
Regardless, DC is very distinct from the surrounding Maryland (and Virginia) areas. It should not be rolled into Maryland, but be made its own state, less Capitol Hill, the White House, and the National Mall.
As is often cited, it has more population than 1 or 2 states (WY, VT) and is comparable to at least 1 other (ND) if not more.
Take territory off the table. I agree, such a thing is ridiculous so it shouldn't be an option. Offer them the choice of statehood or independence, nothing else.
Puerto Rico is covered by the Jones Act, which requires that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be transported on ships built, owned and operated by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Not having to pay U.S. federal income taxes is probably a bigger deal to the average Puerto Rican.