Statehood for Puerto Rico seems like right (and left) choice — it’s not
What if I told you that the future of 3 million Americans, not just for the next two years, or six years, but for generations, had been decided by a margin of less than 5 percent?
What if that election included thousands of blank ballots, 26 briefcases full of ballots found after the votes were counted, and more than 1,000 overvotes (precincts that reported more votes for the “winning” side than there are eligible voters in those districts)?
This is the current situation for the people of Puerto Rico.
During the November 2020 election, a misleadingly worded referendum on statehood appeared on the ballot, asking voters living in the unincorporated U.S. territory: “Should Puerto Rico be immediately admitted to the United States as a state? Yes or No.”
Sounds fair enough, right? Well, yes no.
First, there is no mechanism by which the referendum could “immediately” grant statehood, and voters on the island knew it. Only Congress can grant statehood. A body of caselaw extending back 122 years asserts this. But Puerto Rican voters don’t need to be constitutional lawyers to understand this. The November 2020 referendum was the seventh island-wide status vote since 1967. Nevertheless, Puerto Rico’s colonial status remains.
Given that the referendum was added to the ballot precipitously and contained no other status options, and that the November election was preceded by a controversial primary election that shook voter confidence on the island, it’s fair to assume many voters did not take the referendum seriously.
In the weeks leading up to November 2020, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed he would never bring Puerto Rican statehood to a vote. Since then, current Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said he opposes H.R. 1522, the current bill in favor of statehood.
Even if Congress voted to offer statehood to Puerto Rico, a second vote would need to be held on the island to accept. Then, Congress would have to hold yet another vote to affirm statehood, which it could then deny. So much for the prospect of “immediate” statehood.
Consider what’s at stake for Puerto Ricans living on the island. Statehood would mean that Puerto Ricans would get to vote in national elections for the first time since the island was essentially claimed as bounty following the conclusion of the Spanish-American War in 1898.
As a state Puerto Rico could declare bankruptcy and shake off the usury level interest rates and austerity measures that have plagued it since 2014. It would gain up to seven voting members of Congress and access to federal programs it is currently precluded from. These are the benefits statehood advocates are attempting to sell to the Puerto Rican people.
It’s a hard sell that has prostatehood standard-bearers Gov. Pedro Pierluisi and non-voting U.S. Congresswoman Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon promising everything to everyone.
During a Congressional hearing on status held last Wednesday, Pierluisi testified that becoming a state would not change Puerto Rico’s obligation to pay back a crushing $34 billion worth of debt under austerity measures imposed by the U.S.appointed Financial Oversight and Management Board. (A proposal by the board that could potentially slash that amount by two-thirds is currently in litigation.)
In the same hearing, GonzalezColon
Meanwhile, Connecticut’s Congressional delegation is notably absent as cosponsors for either bill, despite Connecticut having the highest concentration of Puerto Ricans in the United States, even as lawmakers from other high-density states such as New York, New Jersey, and Florida have weighed in.
continuously sought testimony from pro-statehood witnesses underscoring that statehood allow Puerto Rico to declare bankruptcy, and thereby default on the high-interest loans currently held by Wall Street lenders and hedge funds, including many with offices or high-ranking officers in Connecticut.
Why give two opposing answers on debt recovery? Because statehood advocates want to garner support from Republican lawmakers by assuring them their wealthy donors won’t lose their pound of flesh if Puerto Rico becomes a state, even as they assure pensioners and workingclass voters that statehood would end austerity. But both things can’t be true.
Another status bill, H.R. 2070, calls for a more deliberative process that would include the election of delegates to a status convention to weigh the pros and cons of all options, including independence. Independence would allow the island to negotiate its own treaties, trade deals, and accept foreign from whoever offered it. Arguably, it would also allow the island to petition for 123 years’ worth of reparations for labor and resources extracted by the United States, as well as human rights violations for atrocities such as human experimentation.
Meanwhile, Connecticut’s Congressional delegation is notably absent as cosponsors for either bill, despite Connecticut having the highest concentration of Puerto Ricans in the United States, even as lawmakers from other high-density states such as New York, New Jersey, and Florida have weighed in.
Perhaps they believe they are ceding the stage to those living on the island. But Puerto Rico’s current status means those on the island can vote and lobby all they want. None of it counts. In the end, Puerto Rico will remain a colony until Congress decides to act. Connecticut delegates have an obligation to weigh in on this important question of justice and human dignity.
After 123 years of colonization, this is no time to stand on the sidelines. Conventions held to determine governing status have a pretty good track record. I’m particularly partial to the results of the one that took place in 1787 in Philadelphia.