Remember When the U.S. Wanted to Figure Out Puerto Rico? That’s Still Happening

Puerto Rico may have voted in favor of statehood, but its future status remains unclear.

Pro-statehood New Progressive Party supporters waves a U.S. flag at the party's closing election campaign rally in San Juan, Puerto Rico last November.
National Journal
Marina Koren
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Marina Koren
Aug. 26, 2013, 3 a.m.

As Hawaii marks the 54th an­niversary of its state­hood this month, we’re re­minded that the fu­ture of one of the coun­try’s ter­rit­or­ies re­mains in flux. Last Novem­ber, Pu­erto Ric­ans voted in a plebis­cite — the fourth of its kind since 1967 — in fa­vor of state­hood for the first time ever.

Des­pite the res­ults, con­ver­sa­tions about the fu­ture of what some call Amer­ica’s last colony have petered out. Con­gress held a hear­ing on Pu­erto Rico’s status at the be­gin­ning of this month, with sen­at­ors call­ing for a change, any change.

“After 115 years, it is clearly time for Pu­erto Rico to de­term­ine what polit­ic­al path it will take,” Sen­ate En­ergy and Nat­ur­al Re­sources Com­mit­tee Chair­man Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said at the hear­ing, re­fer­ring to 1898, the year Spain ceded Pu­erto Rico to the United States. “The cur­rent status un­der­mines our na­tion’s mor­al stand­ing around the world.”

What’s keep­ing Pu­erto Rico in polit­ic­al limbo?

While more vot­ing is sure to come, law­makers from the is­land and the main­land have yet to fig­ure out what to ask Pu­erto Ric­ans on the bal­lot. The Sen­ate com­mit­tee lead­ers read last year’s res­ults as Pu­erto Ric­ans re­ject­ing the cur­rent status, but some ques­tion the valid­ity of the vot­ing out­come. The first ques­tion on the bal­lot asked voters if they favored U.S. ter­rit­ory status; 54 per­cent said they didn’t. The second asked voters to choose from three op­tions: state­hood, in­de­pend­ence, or sov­er­eign free as­so­ci­ation — a status that would give Pu­erto Rico more autonomy than it cur­rently has.

Sixty-one per­cent chose state­hood, but 26 per­cent of voters left the bal­lot blank. Pu­erto Rico Gov. Ale­jandro Gar­cia Pa­dilla be­lieves this shrank sup­port for state­hood to 44 per­cent. He calls for something like the cur­rent com­mon­wealth status, not full-fledged state­hood, but at this month’s hear­ing he didn’t provide de­tails on how that would work.

Mean­while, Res­id­ent Com­mis­sion­er Pedro Pier­lu­isi, the is­land’s non­vot­ing mem­ber of Con­gress and a state­hood sup­port­er, is push­ing for a fed­er­ally com­mis­sioned “yes” or “no” vote to de­cide Pu­erto Rico’s fu­ture once and for all, just like the one for Hawaii 54 years ago. Pier­lu­isi’s party, the New Pro­gress­ive Party, filed a law­suit this sum­mer against Pa­dilla, claim­ing the gov­ernor was try­ing to dis­suade law­makers on the main­land from sup­port­ing state­hood.

Wyden says an “en­hanced com­mon­wealth” such as the one Pa­dilla is pro­pos­ing is not an op­tion. Pa­dilla coun­ters that neither is state­hood, say­ing that last year’s vote was “an elect­or­al pro­cess rigged in fa­vor of state­hood” be­cause it didn’t in­clude a range of dif­fer­ent op­tions, a pro­cess known as self-de­term­in­a­tion. While he hasn’t said as much, un­der Pa­dilla’s stand­ards, the bal­lot that helped de­term­ine Hawaii’s fu­ture in 1959 would be con­sidered a fraud.

Al­though it doesn’t mat­ter now, the Hawaii­an plebis­cite vote was once ques­tioned too. “It pre­ten­ded that Hawaii did not have to go through a self-de­term­in­a­tion,” says Jonath­an Osorio, a Hawaii­an stud­ies pro­fess­or at Uni­versity of Hawaii (Manoa). “We were not giv­en the full range of op­tions.”

U.S. law­makers are anxious to re­define Pu­erto Rico’s status. But the tug-of-war between its lead­ers, com­bined with un­cer­tainty about past state-com­mis­sioned votes and fid­get­ing over po­ten­tial fed­er­al ones, sug­gest that the is­land will have to keep wait­ing.

What We're Following See More »
STARTS LEGAL FUND FOR WH STAFF
Trump to Begin Covering His Own Legal Bills
18 hours ago
THE DETAILS
DISCUSSED THE MATTER FOR A NEW BOOK
Steele Says Follow the Money
19 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

"Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who wrote the explosive dossier alleging ties between Donald Trump and Russia," says in a new book by The Guardian's Luke Harding that "Trump's land and hotel deals with Russians needed to be examined. ... Steele did not go into further detail, Harding said, but seemed to be referring to a 2008 home sale to the Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev. Richard Dearlove, who headed the UK foreign-intelligence unit MI6 between 1999 and 2004, said in April that Trump borrowed money from Russia for his business during the 2008 financial crisis."

Source:
BRITISH PUBLICIST CONNECTED TO TRUMP TOWER MEETING
Goldstone Ready to Meet with Mueller’s Team
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The British publicist who helped set up the fateful meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016 is ready to meet with Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's office, according to several people familiar with the matter. Rob Goldstone has been living in Bangkok, Thailand, but has been communicating with Mueller's office through his lawyer, said a source close to Goldstone."

Source:
SPEAKING ON RUSSIAN STATE TV
Kislyak Says Trump Campaign Contacts Too Numerous to List
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak said on Wednesday that it would take him more than 20 minutes to name all of the Trump officials he's met with or spoken to on the phone. ... Kislyak made the remarks in a sprawling interview with Russia-1, a popular state-owned Russian television channel."

Source:
“BLOWING A SURE THING”
Sabato Moves Alabama to “Lean Democrat”
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login