Puerto Rico votes for statehood

[triplemultiplex]

(link is 404, so here's an AP article:)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLsBqt8B2LWU_5fxdinssiagaZBg?docId=8ca22c65109b42bab34c1fc8e651519d

I'd welcome a 51st state.  The ambiguous status of some of America's territories strikes me as odd; American but not quite.  A place like Puerto Rico certainly has enough people to be worthy of statehood.  Might as well tack the US Virgin Islands on to PR, if that's cool, since they're in the vicinity.

I wonder how much of a fight Puerto Rican statehood would wind up being in Washington.  I don't know anything about the island's politics, but I can imagine that it would probably slightly benefit one party more than the other currently and that's a recipe for gridlock.  Democracy is better served when rights are extended to more people so I say go for it.  There's no knowing for sure what the political leanings will be 20, 50 or 100 years down the road.

If nothing else, it'll be a boon to flag manufacturers.

[Road-related content split to https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8034 -S.]

[J N Winkler]

I don't see PR statehood happening anytime soon--Congress has to pass enabling legislation and I don't see that getting past the House, which is in Republican hands, given that PR would get eight electoral votes which, in the short to medium term, can be expected to break entirely Democratic unless PR follows Nebraska's (isolated) example and splits its electoral votes.

[Brandon]

I don't see PR statehood happening anytime soon--Congress has to pass enabling legislation and I don't see that getting past the House, which is in Republican hands, given that PR would get eight electoral votes which, in the short to medium term, can be expected to break entirely Democratic unless PR follows Nebraska's (isolated) example and splits its electoral votes.

Puerto Rico statehood is on both parties' platforms.  Both Repubs and Dems have said that it is up to Puerto Rico to decide.  It looks like they have.

Here's the text from Wiki:

2012 Platforms
Democratic Party 2012 Platform

    We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling.[158]

Republican Party 2012 Platform

    We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.[159][160]

I'd say the enabling legislation will occur finally.

[agentsteel53]

I'd better get my ass down there, so I can say I clinched all 51 states when there were still only 50.   

[cpzilliacus]

(link is 404, so here's an AP article:)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLsBqt8B2LWU_5fxdinssiagaZBg?docId=8ca22c65109b42bab34c1fc8e651519d

I'd welcome a 51st state.  The ambiguous status of some of America's territories strikes me as odd; American but not quite.  A place like Puerto Rico certainly has enough people to be worthy of statehood.  Might as well tack the US Virgin Islands on to PR, if that's cool, since they're in the vicinity.

I don't know how different the "culture" is in the USVI as compared to Puerto Rico.  Including, but not limited to, language.

I wonder how much of a fight Puerto Rican statehood would wind up being in Washington.  I don't know anything about the island's politics, but I can imagine that it would probably slightly benefit one party more than the other currently and that's a recipe for gridlock.  Democracy is better served when rights are extended to more people so I say go for it.  There's no knowing for sure what the political leanings will be 20, 50 or 100 years down the road.

If nothing else, it'll be a boon to flag manufacturers.

As was suggested above, both parties seem to be in favor of it (though I suppose they can change their minds about it).  I certainly think it's a good idea, as long as it does not lead to statehood for the District of Columbia, which I oppose because the land on which D.C. sits was ceded to the federal government by my state of Maryland to create a seat of national government, not a new (and very tiny) state.

[sorry for the digression]

At the same time, I find the never-ending Congressional meddling in D.C. municipal affairs to be offensive and un-American, but the way to solve D.C.'s colonial status is to follow precedent from 1845, when the part of D.C. that was ceded to the federal government by Virginia (all of present-day Arlington County and most of the City of Alexandria) was retroceded back to Virginia by Congress after agreement between the two.  Congress and Maryland could easily agree to retrocede nearly all of present-day D.C. (with possible exceptions for the U.S. Capitol complex, the White House, U.S. Supreme Court and the National Mall) back to Maryland, which would put a permanent end to Congressional involvement in most D.C. local affairs (with exceptions for things like diplomatic missions and federal buildings and installations that would be located in the "Maryland" part of D.C.).

[NE2]

I'd better get my ass down there, so I can say I clinched all 51 states when there were still only 50.   

Then get your ass to Mars before it becomes the 52nd.

[oscar]

I'd better get my ass down there, so I can say I clinched all 51 states when there were still only 50.   

And of course Puerto Rico's eighty or so municipios would offer fertile new territory for county-counters, if it became a state.  I've been to over half of the municipios, but since Puerto Rico isn't one of my favorite tropical destinations, I'm not anxious to go back and snag the rest. 

In any case, I'm skeptical about Puerto Rico attaining statehood anytime soon.  There is no local consensus in favor of a permanent association with the United States, and a not-insignificant minority favoring independence (or at least the right to later leave the U.S., which would no longer be an option if Puerto Rico became a state).  On the U.S. side, there has to be a lot of reluctance to acquire not only an independence movement, but also a predominantly Spanish-speaking population, particularly among the "English-only" crowd on the fringes of the GOP.

[mgk920]

I doubt that DC statehood would be considered, as that would require a Constitution amendment.

As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.

As for the USVI, I'm of the mind that their culture is significantly different from PR, in addition to their curious custom of driving on the wrong side of the road.

With the party balances in Congress the way they are now, I doubt that PR's seats would affect politics and policy all that much.  Also, keep in mind that when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, AK was expected to be a Democrat bastion while HI was looked at as a Republican bedrock.

Mike

[Scott5114]

With the party balances in Congress the way they are now, I doubt that PR's seats would affect politics and policy all that much.  Also, keep in mind that when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, AK was expected to be a Democrat bastion while HI was looked at as a Republican bedrock.

They still have those characteristics... it is the parties that switches places (due to the civil rights debates in the 60s and Nixon's Southern Strategy). At the same time, Oklahoma was considered a Democratic state.

I have heard conflicting things about Puerto Rico's predominant political alignment, to the point that I sort of suspect that were it admitted it might become one of the swing states. I have heard the outgoing governor, narrowly defeated, would have been considered a Tea Party member on the mainland, for instance.

[1995hoo]

....

As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.

....

It would be a reapportionment because there's a federal statute that caps the House at 435 members. The Electoral College would grow to 540 votes to reflect the two new senators, meaning you would now need 271 electoral votes (instead of 270) to be elected president due to the requirement that you have a majority. (The current total of 538 electoral votes reflects 435 House members, 100 senators, and 3 electoral votes for DC pursuant to the Twenty-Third Amendment.)

On further research it appears that TEMPORARILY there would be 437 members of the House based on the precedent from when Alaska and Hawaii became states. They each got a congressman without reducing the number of congressmen representing the already-existing states. After the 2020 Census the number would be adjusted back to 435.

[mgk920]

....

As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.

....

It would be a reapportionment because there's a federal statute that caps the House at 435 members. The Electoral College would grow to 540 votes to reflect the two new senators, meaning you would now need 271 electoral votes (instead of 270) to be elected president due to the requirement that you have a majority. (The current total of 538 electoral votes reflects 435 House members, 100 senators, and 3 electoral votes for DC pursuant to the Twenty-Third Amendment.)

On further research it appears that TEMPORARILY there would be 437 members of the House based on the precedent from when Alaska and Hawaii became states. They each got a congressman without reducing the number of congressmen representing the already-existing states. After the 2020 Census the number would be adjusted back to 435.

If 435 seats is simply statutory limit (and it is, there is no limit in the Constitution), it can certainly be changed as part of the legislation that grants the statehood.  But yes, PR would have six seats.

Mike

[1995hoo]

....

As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.

....

It would be a reapportionment because there's a federal statute that caps the House at 435 members. The Electoral College would grow to 540 votes to reflect the two new senators, meaning you would now need 271 electoral votes (instead of 270) to be elected president due to the requirement that you have a majority. (The current total of 538 electoral votes reflects 435 House members, 100 senators, and 3 electoral votes for DC pursuant to the Twenty-Third Amendment.)

On further research it appears that TEMPORARILY there would be 437 members of the House based on the precedent from when Alaska and Hawaii became states. They each got a congressman without reducing the number of congressmen representing the already-existing states. After the 2020 Census the number would be adjusted back to 435.

If 435 seats is simply statutory limit (and it is, there is no limit in the Constitution), it can certainly be changed as part of the legislation that grants the statehood.  But yes, PR would have six seats.

Mike

Agreed, that statute could be amended. It was passed in 1929. It caps the House at 435 members but allows for a temporary increase upon admission of a new state until the next census, at which time the number is adjusted back to 435. That's what happened when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.

I do think it's probably important to recognize that the situation with Alaska and Hawaii, which were admitted so soon before a census and which were also states with small populations, might not be considered fair if Puerto Rico were admitted, given that territory's population. In other words, suppose, for hypothetical purposes, Puerto Rico became a state in 2015. There would be two presidential elections, and three and a half Congresses, prior to the next apportionment of representatives (since apportionments take effect with the federal elections held in years ending in "2," e.g., 2002, 2012, 2022, etc.). I could certainly see how there would be major objections to the fairness of sticking a state that "should" have six congressmen, and eight electoral votes, with only one congressman and three electoral votes for almost seven years.

[cpzilliacus]

....

As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.

....

It would be a reapportionment because there's a federal statute that caps the House at 435 members. The Electoral College would grow to 540 votes to reflect the two new senators, meaning you would now need 271 electoral votes (instead of 270) to be elected president due to the requirement that you have a majority. (The current total of 538 electoral votes reflects 435 House members, 100 senators, and 3 electoral votes for DC pursuant to the Twenty-Third Amendment.)

On further research it appears that TEMPORARILY there would be 437 members of the House based on the precedent from when Alaska and Hawaii became states. They each got a congressman without reducing the number of congressmen representing the already-existing states. After the 2020 Census the number would be adjusted back to 435.

The 435 cap is not found in the U.S. Constitution, and in my opinion it was an arbitrary limit imposed in the early part of the 20th Century, and should be removed.  Congressional districts have become much too large (in terms of population) and they should be substantially reduced with more seats in the House.

[1995hoo]

....

As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.

....

It would be a reapportionment because there's a federal statute that caps the House at 435 members. The Electoral College would grow to 540 votes to reflect the two new senators, meaning you would now need 271 electoral votes (instead of 270) to be elected president due to the requirement that you have a majority. (The current total of 538 electoral votes reflects 435 House members, 100 senators, and 3 electoral votes for DC pursuant to the Twenty-Third Amendment.)

On further research it appears that TEMPORARILY there would be 437 members of the House based on the precedent from when Alaska and Hawaii became states. They each got a congressman without reducing the number of congressmen representing the already-existing states. After the 2020 Census the number would be adjusted back to 435.

The 435 cap is not found in the U.S. Constitution, and in my opinion it was an arbitrary limit imposed in the early part of the 20th Century, and should be removed.  Congressional districts have become much too large (in terms of population) and they should be substantially reduced with more seats in the House.

True, but the cap is also not prohibited by the Constitution, which merely states that the number of representatives shall not exceed one per every thirty thousand people except that each state shall have at least one representative.

[vdeane]

Plus the reason for the cap was because having a large congress is not good for business.  It would be even harder to get anything done were there no cap.

PR statehood might cause the language issue to flare up again, though we'd finally have language arguments that aren't fueled by viewpoints on immigration.  I don't see a language law of any kind passing at the federal level though; it's too controversial.

Why would PR get just one congressman until the 2020 census?  I don't know of any provision in the 1929 law that limits new states to just one congressman until congress is re-apportioned.  Alaska and Hawaii really are that small, and to this day Alaska still has only one congressman!  Hawaii just has two, and that could easily have been the result of a population change in the 1960 census as well.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2a

[triplemultiplex]

Rather than get rid of the cap on Representatives, we could just raise it a couple dozen or so.  There's 100 million more people in the USA now compared to the 20's.  Pick a nice round number like 500.  (We like our base 10 numerical system.)

As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland.  There's no good reason not to.  It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature.  But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.

[1995hoo]

....

Why would PR get just one congressman until the 2020 census?  I don't know of any provision in the 1929 law that limits new states to just one congressman until congress is re-apportioned.  Alaska and Hawaii really are that small, and to this day Alaska still has only one congressman!  Hawaii just has two, and that could easily have been the result of a population change in the 1960 census as well.

....

Yeah, they COULD do it via another method. When Hawaii was admitted, for example, Section 8 of the Hawaii Statehood Admission Act (Pub. L. 86-3, 73 Stat. 4), provided as follows:

The State of Hawaii upon its admission into the Union shall be entitled to one Representative until the taking effect of the next reapportionment, and such Representative shall be in addition to the membership of the House of Representatives as now prescribed by law: Provided, That such temporary increase in the membership shall not operate to either increase or decrease the permanent membership of the House of Representatives as prescribed in the Act of August 8, 1911 (37 Stat. 13), nor shall such temporary increase affect the basis of apportionment established by the Act of November 15, 1941 (55 Stat. 761; 2 U.S.C., §2a), for the Eighty-third Congress and each Congress thereafter.

I assume the method of giving them representation would probably be the same, but perhaps a larger number of congressmen might be allowed.

In the 1960 presidential election, BTW, there were 537 electoral votes to reflect the single congressman and two senators (three electoral votes) each for Alaska and Hawaii; in 1964 the number was 538 because the two extra congressmen were deleted and the House was reapportioned to 435, but in the meantime DC was given three electoral votes. Presumably it would work that way in Puerto Rico's case as well regardless of the number of congressmen (so, in other words, if they got six congressmen, the Electoral College would go to 546 votes to account for six congressmen and two senators, such that you'd need 274 to win, and then in 2022 it would adjust back to 538 votes).

[agentsteel53]

The State of Hawaii upon its admission into the Union shall be entitled to one Representative until the taking effect of the next reapportionment, and such Representative shall be in addition to the membership of the House of Representatives as now prescribed by law

that is some awful wording.  why not say "one additional representative"; the way it is worded right now does have the ambiguity of "one representative" resolved in the second clause, but why leave it hanging like that?  the average reader looks at that and says "so do they get one or two?"

(so, in other words, if they got six congressmen, the Electoral College would go to 546 votes to account for six congressmen and two senators, such that you'd need 274 to win, and then in 2022 it would adjust back to 538 votes).

it would adjust to 540, if I am reading it correctly.  435 representatives, 102 senators, 3 for DC.

[1995hoo]

The State of Hawaii upon its admission into the Union shall be entitled to one Representative until the taking effect of the next reapportionment, and such Representative shall be in addition to the membership of the House of Representatives as now prescribed by law

that is some awful wording.  why not say "one additional representative"; the way it is worded right now does have the ambiguity of "one representative" resolved in the second clause, but why leave it hanging like that?  the average reader looks at that and says "so do they get one or two?"

(so, in other words, if they got six congressmen, the Electoral College would go to 546 votes to account for six congressmen and two senators, such that you'd need 274 to win, and then in 2022 it would adjust back to 538 votes).

it would adjust to 540, if I am reading it correctly.  435 representatives, 102 senators, 3 for DC.

Yeah, you're right. I overlooked the two new senators when I wrote that sentence. Good catch. So you would still need 271 electoral votes.

[Duke87]

Another reason for a cap on representative count could be the physical size of the chamber. You can only fit so many people in there. As it is, they've already once had to put additions onto the Capitol for the current chambers (which are considerably larger than the original chambers).

[NE2]

And if Chris Christie becomes a rep they'll have to [insert fat joke].

[Revive 755]

Another reason for a cap on representative count could be the physical size of the chamber. You can only fit so many people in there. As it is, they've already once had to put additions onto the Capitol for the current chambers (which are considerably larger than the original chambers).

[semi sarcastic] Or they could build a  fancy modern capital building with bigger chambers to allow for Puerto Rico and any other new additions caused by states breaking up.  The old one can be left as a tourist attraction[/semi sarcastic]

[sarcasm] Or how about moving the capital altogether to a place not vulnerable to hurricanes?  Have various cities bid on becoming the new capital like they do with sports teams, as well as pay for any new buildings.[/sarcasm]

[SP Cook]

Economics:

No matter what measure you use, PR is about 60% as wealthy as the poorest state, Mississippi.  PR's economy is based on a "cafeteria" relationship (pick and choose) with the USA.  With laws that help PR applying laws that help it (duty free imports and exports, passport free travel, etc) , not applying those that do not (safety, EPA, labor laws, Jones Act, etc) and getting special based on the relative level of income modifications to others (Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, banking, etc). 

Certain manufacturers love this, including seafood processing, pharmacutical makers, and alcohol distileries, love this, able to make things at a lower cost than on the mainland, but not pay import duty.

The Constitution says that new states will be admitted on "an equal basis with the original States".  Most scholars think that this means that every federal law would have to apply to PR, which would devistate the economy.

Further, PR is considered a seperate "country" for things like copyrights, trademarks, rights to TV shows and sports, etc.  This would have to be normalized.

Politics:

PR would get 5 congressmen, and thus 7 electorial votes, probably down to 4 after the next census (PR has been bleeding population for a very long time).   This would have changed the ballance of congress, assuming all democrats, in many past historical periods, and on can assume this would happen again. 

PR statehood would also bring up the "national language" debate. 

Also one would assume that there would be presure to "resolve" the rest of the US territories status as well.   The rest are far smaller than the smallest state, and undeserving of two senators each.  One could simply make a "Greater Hawaii" (although the same "cafeteria" economic relationships applies to their Pacific possessions as well) but the USVI is very problematical.

[Alps]

Economics:

No matter what measure you use, PR is about 60% as wealthy as the poorest state, Mississippi.  PR's economy is based on a "cafeteria" relationship (pick and choose) with the USA.  With laws that help PR applying laws that help it (duty free imports and exports, passport free travel, etc) , not applying those that do not (safety, EPA, labor laws, Jones Act, etc) and getting special based on the relative level of income modifications to others (Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, banking, etc). 

Certain manufacturers love this, including seafood processing, pharmacutical makers, and alcohol distileries, love this, able to make things at a lower cost than on the mainland, but not pay import duty.

The Constitution says that new states will be admitted on "an equal basis with the original States".  Most scholars think that this means that every federal law would have to apply to PR, which would devistate the economy.

Forget "most scholars." Once it's a state, PR will be the same as everywhere else. I presume it would resolve to a similar status as Hawai`i - tourism is its main draw, plus a variety of tropical crops, but most people live in the shadows of poverty while the money flows into the tourist areas and the wealthy entrepreneurs there. I don't see the economy being devastated, but it will shift toward industries most suited to the island climate/location rather than the cheapness of being there.

Further, PR is considered a seperate "country" for things like copyrights, trademarks, rights to TV shows and sports, etc.  This would have to be normalized.

Small potatoes. Transfer rights where they don't conflict, have a grace period for arbitration on the others. That's not something to wring hands over.

Politics:

PR would get 5 congressmen, and thus 7 electorial votes, probably down to 4 after the next census (PR has been bleeding population for a very long time).   This would have changed the ballance of congress, assuming all democrats, in many past historical periods, and on can assume this would happen again.

I saw "6 congressmen" below. So let's say it's down to 5 after the next census. Besides the fact that five states will end up minus one representative they'd otherwise have had, there's no significant shift in the balance of power. Right now, there are a lot more than 6 votes separating Democrats and Republicans. I'll also throw out there that the two parties have a way of shifting over time to both be close to, but about equally far from, the exact political center of the nation. Otherwise, whoever's closer would win far too often.

PR statehood would also bring up the "national language" debate.

No, if anything, quite the opposite. The only reason that's a debate right now is that except for Hawai`i, all of the states were established by English speakers. (Never mind who lived there first.) Adding another non-English state means that we have that much less footing to argue that there should be a national language. (OT: I actually support a national language.)

Also one would assume that there would be presure to "resolve" the rest of the US territories status as well.   The rest are far smaller than the smallest state, and undeserving of two senators each.  One could simply make a "Greater Hawaii" (although the same "cafeteria" economic relationships applies to their Pacific possessions as well) but the USVI is very problematical.

I wouldn't assume that. They haven't been putting out any pressure so far. Not everyone HAS to be a state just because one territory wants to be.

[Brandon]

PR statehood would also bring up the "national language" debate.

No, if anything, quite the opposite. The only reason that's a debate right now is that except for Hawai`i, all of the states were established by English speakers. (Never mind who lived there first.) Adding another non-English state means that we have that much less footing to argue that there should be a national language. (OT: I actually support a national language.)

All of the states?  Louisiana was originally settled by French speakers, and was mainly French until after statehood.  Then you have New Mexico which was originally settled by Spanish speakers and continues to have both English and Spanish as official state languages.  (OT: I don't support a national language - we have quite a few within our boundaries, English, French, Spanish, Navajo, etc.)