Peurto Rican Statehood Favored by Rep. Dicks

I sent an email to the Hon. Norman Dicks (D), my elected representative in the US House. (I posted it to this blog.) His reply was thoughtful and factually correct but I still disagreed with his vote and position.


"Thank you for contacting me with regard to recent legislation that seeks to allow Puerto Ricans to have a clear voice on the political future of the island. I appreciate your comments regarding this important issue.

Congress in 1917 granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans, and in 1952, the islands became a U.S. commonwealth ?" a status that has raised legal questions about whether Puerto Ricans have full constitutional rights. Additionally, its residents do not vote for the U.S. president or pay federal income tax on income earned on the islands.

Over the past several years, plebiscites have been conducted to determine the political future of the island. The most recent, conducted in 1993 and 1998, resulted in confusion and frustration as voters were directed to decide between several poorly defined options on a single ballot, with a majority vote necessary to spur any action.

To address past problems with the earlier plebiscites, the elected leadership of Puerto Rico developed a plan that would allow for a possible two votes. First, Puerto Ricans would be asked to decide if they want to remain a commonwealth or to seek a new political designation. Should the first vote result in a decision to change, a second vote would be taken to determine what change Puerto Ricans would prefer - to become an independent nation, to become independent in association with the United States, which would establish legal, economic and defense ties between the two nations, or to petition the U.S. Congress for statehood. Puerto Rico's elected representative to Congress, Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, submitted this plan to Congress for its consideration.

In late April, with my support the House voted to approve the plan. The right of self-determination is a core principle of the United States, and I believe that the American citizens that live in Puerto Rico should be given the ability to make their voices heard by their fellow citizens and the Congress.

Some of my constituents have expressed concern that the plebiscites would bind Congress to specific action based on the outcome. Although the outcome of the plebiscites would certainly be an important factor in determining the future of Puerto Rico, it is advisory only. The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to make decisions regarding the disposition of U.S. territories, including the admission of new states.

This legislation is now under consideration by the Senate. Should it return to the House for any reason, please be assured I will recall your comments."


My response:

"It seems to me that the ballot options that you outline for the Puero Rican voters are confusing and limit their options. This is what you said was wrong with previous proposals. It seems to me that the voters in Puerto Rica should be given the option of petitioning for statehood or not so petitioning. If the vote is no, as it has been in the past, then a new vote could decide if a majority prefers some other option over the status quo. In this way the majority would prevail and any other option to be considered could have a fair hearing. The schema that you describe, which was my understanding as well, forces a decision among three options (if the second ballot is reached) with no option for returning to the status quo. Before abandoning the status quo, the consequences of the other options should be clearly explained. Would a majority vote be required for any option to prevail, and would the status quo be the default?

Except to deceive the people and confound their will, I see no reason for the proposed schema. Perhaps political interests had designed the previous plebiscites to be biased toward maintaining independence. The real problem with the past plebiscites was that the vote did not go the way certain US political interests desired. Now they have redesign one with the opposite bias. Such plebiscites are a corruption of the democratic process that are well known in the history of tyranny. Our own constitutional system is not immune and a free press along with eternal vigilance are our only defenses.

The schema proposed by the Puerto Rican leadership and the US Senate is reminiscent of the underhanded method used for Hawaiian statehood, in which the queen conspired with strong US interests to surrender sovereignty. This was not in keeping with the will of the Hawaiian people but statehood had US political and industrial backing. Therefore the plan was hatched and executed before there could be affective objection.

Thank you for your attention and for your response to my original message."

My message to the Representative did not address an important issue. This vote by the house was taken with nearly no public notice. There was no public debate in the press and in fact nearly no debate in the House. Ron Paul abstained because even he didn't know what it was about. He was angry when he was told that the Democrats, in collusion with Peurto Rican factions, were conspiring to sneak this through because they could be assured of buying the majority of P.R. votes with promised largess from public funds(such as they are).