It is just a hobby

[Scooter]

As you say, it is difficult to know exactly what Puerto Ricans want when the options presented are so garbled. However, only five years earlier, a referendum offering a choice between commonwealth, statehood and independence resulted in commonwealth status achieving a narrow plurality of 48.6%. It seems unlikely that something so dramatic could have happened in the intervening five years to have caused such a precipitous drop in support for commonwealth status. It would be interesting to know the precise wording of the options presented in both referenda to determine why there appear to be such disparate results.

ETA - It is also of note that it was the pro-Commonwealth Partido Popular Democrático that advocated voters choose "none of the above" in the 1998 referendum, as a protest of the wording proposed by the ruling pro-statehood Partido Nuevo Progresista. Given this, it appears clear that support for commonwealth status in the 1998 referendum would have otherwise been substantially higher.

[Scooter]

It would seem that there is a more pressing territorial issue to decide right in the heart of the continental United States, that of the District of Columbia. Residents of DC have, since the foundation of the Republic, endured infringements on their right of citizenship similar to those of residents of Puerto Rico, with the fairly recent exception of the ability to vote for presidential electors. I am not sure whether it would be possible to make all or part of DC a state without resorting to a constitutional amendment (which would be a virtual impossibility from a practical standpoint), but there would be nothing stopping Congress from enacting a reversion of a large part of the District to the state of Maryland, much like what was done to the part of the original District which had been ceded by and was reverted to Virginia. Congress could maintain control of a fairly contiguous area comprising the main government buildings of DC (with whatever "islands" are necessary to accommodate foreign embassies, etc. that would want to remain within the jurisdiction of the new federal capital district), while the residential and commercial areas of DC could become part of Maryland and thus gain representation in Congress wihout the spectre of additional Senate seats that would likely be perpetually Democratic (although it likely would solidify the Democratic character of Maryland in federal elections).

[Lord Jim]

it is difficult to know exactly what Puerto Ricans want when the options presented are so garbled.

Yes, I thought that was a poorly structured referendum, but even so the support for independence was still in line with the referendum from just three years earlier....

If one looks at more recent polling data ion the issue it becomes even more clear that support among Puerto Ricans for independence remains what it has been since at least 1967; the view of a tiny minority fringe, and if anything, the consensus is headed in the opposite direction, with increasingly large percentages supporting statehood:

Statehood Support at 57 percent while Status quo garners 34 percent
(July 14, 2008)

A recent poll shows that now more than ever, a large island majority wants Statehood
for Puerto Rico. The poll, conducted in late May by Kaagan Research Associates of
New York and later published in El Nuevo Día, Puerto Rico’s largest daily newspaper
shows 57% of Puerto Ricans want Statehood as the island’s permanent political status,
dismissing the current unrepresentative commonwealth status outright by an
overwhelming 23 percentage points. This 23-point spread is the largest recorded in any
political status poll in Puerto Rico’s history.

The poll results show that only 34% of Puerto Ricans prefer the status quo, while 57%
want Statehood for the island. Only 5% of Puerto Ricans support independence
according to the poll. When asked to choose between fully representative sovereignty
as a State of the union or a fully independent country, 77% favored Statehood for
Puerto Rico with 12 percent in favor of independence.

http://www.prstatehood.com/news/poll_071408.pdf

So, when the Commonwealth option is removed, statehood is favored by an overwhelming majority over independence.

Puerto Rico Poll: Statehood gains ground as status preference
Backing for 51st state edges ahead with 51%; Commonwealth support falls below 40%; 94% of Puerto Ricans have a specific status favorite
By FRANCES RYAN
Caribbean Business | Volume: 37 | No: 27
July 2009

Statehood has gained ground to become the preferred solution to Puerto Rico's status issue by a slight majority, according to this week's CARIBBEAN BUSINESS / WOSO Radio / Gaither International InstaPoll, which consisted of 601 face-to-face interviews in June. The sample, smaller than the weekly Gaither poll of 1,000 face-to-face interviews, has a statistical margin of error of ±4%.


Puerto Rico Status Poll 7-9-09

When asked specifically about status preference, 51% of respondents cited statehood as their preferred option, an increase when compared with the results of a similar survey conducted in 2007.

On the other hand, 39% of respondents said they favor the current Commonwealth or Associated Free State of Puerto Rico status (Estado Libre Asociado or ELA by its Spanish acronym), a lower percentage than noted in the previous poll.

Gaither's December 2007 Political Insight Study had revealed Puerto Rico residents were pretty evenly split between statehood (47%) and Commonwealth (46%). The June 2009 numbers clearly show a modest gain in statehood support and a sharper decline among respondents favoring Commonwealth.

This summer's InstaPoll found independence was cited by only 4% of respondents as their status preference. This percentage has been somewhat constant in the past few years.

The statehood-supporting New Progressive Party (NPP) won the governorship by a landslide and tightened its control of the Legislature in the November vote. The Commonwealth-supporting Popular Democratic Party (PDP) was hobbled by the federal indictment of its gubernatorial candidate, then-Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, internal rifts over the future of commonwealth and the local economy.

The Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP) temporarily lost its State Elections Commission (CEE by its Spanish abbreviation) certification as an official party after its dismal showing in the 2008 elections. Under the island's electoral law, political parties must get 3% of the straight votes under the insignia, or 5% of the gubernatorial vote, to retain official standing with the CEE.

In both cases, after the November elections, the PIP was able to collect and submit to the CEE the nearly 100,000 signatures required for recertification. It rejoined the NPP and PDP on the CEE roster.

http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinio ... _looms.htm

So when we take the referendums and the available poling data all into account, while the preference between statehood and commonwealth status may change, one thing remains a constant; it is crystal clear that only a small minority favors, and has ever favored, independence. This is completely beyond dispute.

Of course I suppose if one were imaginative enough, and really determined to rig up a choice for the Puerto Ricans that would get a majority of them to vote for independence even though it's clear to any rational fair minded person that they overwhelmingly oppose it, you could do it....

I imagine that if you gave them a referendum choice between independence and being shot in the head for example, you could probably get a majority for independence....

[Guinevere]

Scooter, great point. What we've done to the citizens of DC is unconscionable. But they should be their own entity, neither of the surrounding states want them. Isn't Canberra a federal territory within OZ? Do those residents have the same voting rights as the rest of the nation? If they can do it, why can't we??

[Scooter]

I think precisely what prohibits creating something analogous to the ACT is the fact that the U.S. Constitution as currently written requires an area to be either a territory or a state and not some fusion of the two. I am not sure if Article IV, Section 3 would permit Congress to make a state out of DC or a portion thereof; if it does, I do not know why it has not happened already. I can see why it would not have happened under a Republican Congress and/or Presidency, but not why it wouldn't have happened when both branches were controlled by the Democrats if it could be done.

[Lord Jim]

I'm sure there are many Liberal Democrats who would just love to see two automatic Liberal Democratic seats added to the US Senate, but it ain't never gonna happen, with so I would suggest dropping that pie dream....

Personally, I don't see the big deal here; no one is forced to live in the District of Columbia (though given the heavy federal subsidizes, there are definite advantages) so if it bugs you so much that you don't have voting representation in Congress, move to Virgina or Maryland.

However, those who are genuinely concerned about it ought to be pursuing a course of chance that has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, rather than the "DC Statehood" fantasy.

I've heard a proposal similar to the one Scooter mentions, but that would not involve any changes in the Federal District per se. Simply declare the residents of DC residents of the state of Maryland for the sole purpose of voting for the Senate . The non-voting DC rep would become a voting member, and DC residents would vote in the Maryland election for US Senate, and be represented that way.

This is a proposal that might actually have a chance of succeeding.

[Guinevere]

Its rather cynical to state DC will never get voting rights because the residents generally vote for Democrats. Shame on you LJ. Party affiliation has nothing to do with civil rights.

And frankly, that proposal is simply another form of non-voting. Lumping them in with the constituents of a state that has no sovereignty over that territory would be almost as bad.

[Scooter]

I'm sure there are many Liberal Democrats who would just love to see two automatic Liberal Democratic seats added to the US Senate, but it ain't never gonna happen, with so I would suggest dropping that pie dream....

Personally, I don't see the big deal here; no one is forced to live in the District of Columbia (though given the heavy federal subsidizes, there are definite advantages) so if it bugs you so much that you don't have voting representation in Congress, move to Virgina or Maryland.

However, those who are genuinely concerned about it ought to be pursuing a course of chance that has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, rather than the "DC Statehood" fantasy.

I've heard a proposal similar to the one Scooter mentions, but that would not involve any changes in the Federal District per se. Simply declare the residents of DC residents of the state of Maryland for the sole purpose of voting for the Senate . The non-voting DC rep would become a voting member, and DC residents would vote in the Maryland election for US Senate, and be represented that way.

This is a proposal that might actually have a chance of succeeding.

But I don't understand how that can happen without a constitutional amendment, and for that reason I don't see it ever happening.

I understand why creating a new state out of DC (or at least, a substantial part of it) "ain't gonna happen" if Article IV, Section 3 doesn't allow it, but what if does? Why couldn't it happen if it is constitutionally permissible?

[Lord Jim]

Its rather cynical to state DC will never get voting rights because the residents generally vote for Democrats. Shame on you LJ. Party affiliation has nothing to do with civil rights.

Yeah, well you can call it cynical if you want, but if the shoe were on the other foot I very seriously doubt we'd see legions of Liberal Democrats lining up to guarantee an additional 2 Conservative GOP votes in the Senate....

The bottom line is that granting DC statehood would require the repeal of the 23rd Amendment. (which of course would itself be a Constitutional Amendment)

So first you need a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress. And then assuming you could over come that hurdle, you would then need to pass it through 3/5th of the state legislatures.

At that point, you have more than just a partisan problem, (which would easily be bad enough to sink it by itself) because you'll also have Democrats in state legislatures in smaller population states that don't want to see the clout of their state's Senate representation diluted by adding two more members.

The hurdles are simply insurmountable. So again, I say that if someone truly wants to find a way for the residents of DC to have voting representation in the House and the Senate, they will have to come up with a different idea than out right statehood; it's a non-starter.

ETA:

Under some circumstances, it may not be completely inconceivable to get the votes in Congress and the state legislatures to change the 23rd Amendment to allow the DC rep to become a voting member of the House....

But the Senate? There's a better chance that I'll be selected Rose Bowl Parade Queen. Not happening, no way no how; fuggetaboutit....

[Scooter]

So what if the 23rd Amendment simply became inoperative by virtue of Congress making DC into a state under Article IV, Section 3? Then there is no longer a "District constituting the seat of government" from which presidential electors are to be appointed.

ETA - or, if the existence of a "District constituting the seat of government" is seen as impossible to eliminate under the current Constitution, then a state could be erected out of the major portion of it, and Congress could still appoint presidential electors from the remaining District and pass legislation directing them not to vote, or to vote with the way the majority of the remaining electors vote, or whatever.

[Lord Jim]

Well Scooter, I haven't looked into this in great detail, but it seems there must be general legal scholarship agreement that a repeal would be necessary since it's already been attempted:

The 23rd Amendment would have been repealed by the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, which proposed to give the District full representation in the United States Congress, full representation in the Electoral College system, and full participation in the process by which the U.S. Constitution is amended. The amendment (as a resolution) was passed by Congress on August 22, 1978, but failed to be ratified by the required 38 states prior to its expiration on August 22, 1986.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-thi ... nstitution

If in '78 they had the votes to do this, would it have made sense for them to go this route if they could have accomplished the goal without having to to submit the plan to the states?

[Scooter]

I don't know. It seems that they were still trying to do it without making DC a state, a process which clearly would require a constitutional amendment, since the rights they were trying to give DC would only otherwise be available to states. It doesn't answer the question of whether the Constitution as written would alllow a state to be carved out of DC.

[liberty]

there would be nothing stopping Congress from enacting a reversion of a large part of the District to the state of Maryland, much like what was done to the part of the original District which had been ceded by and was reverted to Virginia. Congress could maintain control of a fairly contiguous area comprising the main government buildings of DC (with whatever "islands" are necessary to accommodate foreign embassies, etc. that would want to remain within the jurisdiction of the new federal capital district), while the residential and commercial areas of DC could become part of Maryland and thus gain representation in Congress wihout the spectre of additional Senate seats that would likely be perpetually Democratic (although it likely would solidify the Democratic character of Maryland in federal elections).

Well, I agree with Scooter on something.

[liberty]

Personally, I don't see the big deal here; no one is forced to live in the District of Columbia (though given the heavy federal subsidizes, there are definite advantages) so if it bugs you so much that you don't have voting representation in Congress, move to Virgina or Maryland.

I concur with Jim, they don't have to stay. It is not like it is some kind conspiracy that was foster on DC in the dead of the night. I believe the founder never intended for Washington to be a residential city, it was to be dedicated only for the to seat of government and any residents were to be temporary.

[Scooter]

First of all, that's complete crap. Georgetown and Alexandria had both been established decades earlier and were included within the original borders of DC.

Second, the "they could move if they wanted to vote" argument could just as easily have been directed at blacks in the U.S. South up until a few decades ago. I'm guessing most people would not have found that a convincing reason for allowing southern states to continue to suppress their voting rights.

[Lord Jim]

the "they could move if they wanted to vote" argument could just as easily have been directed at blacks in the U.S. South up until a few decades ago. I'm guessing most people would not have found that a convincing reason for allowing southern states to continue to suppress their voting rights.

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with that analogy.

The lack of representation in the House and the Senate doesn't have anything to do with trying to "suppress" anyone's "voting rights".

It has to do with the fact that this is the way the Federal District was established; it has applied equally across the board to all residents, regardless of race or any other criteria. (Sure, today the population of the District of Columbia is majority African American, but that hasn't always been the case. It has however, always been the case that DC hasn't had voting Senate or Congressional representation.)

[Scooter]

And because twas always thus, means that it should so remain forever? I'm sorry, but "if they don't like it, they can move" is nothing but a way to avoid addressing whether the current situation is just. Which, in this case, it clearly is not. There are hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens who have no representation in Congress. To add insult to injury, District residents do not even have the right to manage their own affairs in matters which would normally be left to the states, but rather must subject themselves to the whims of legislators from North Dakota or Missouri who have absolutely zero vested interest in the welfare of DC, and who use it as nothing but a political football to advance their own agendas.

Oh yeah, and as far as I know, DC residents aren't exempt from paying federal taxes. Wasn't that "no taxation without representation" thing a ralllying cry in some war or another in U.S. history? I guess if the colonists didn't like it, they could have just up and moved to France, or something.

[liberty]

This has turned out to more problematic than I expected. The English Honduran forum was easy to use but has a very low readership and not very political. The Spanish forum on the other hand is a different matter; it quite active and appears to have a political forum. I thought that all I would need be a web site to translate my message, but found without the ability to read Spanish not only could I not tell how political the site is, it could be filled with communist as far as I know; I can’t even navigate the site well. Unless I can find some help I am going to be using that translator a lot.

[Guinevere]

Oh my god, a Central/South American political web site filled with communists. The horror.

[Sue U]

Oh my god, a Central/South American political web site filled with communists. The horror.

No need to go abroad; he could get that right here!

ETA: