Get the Facts on the Puerto Rico Democracy Act

Laurie Lee Masterson: ”I just got off the phone with Congressman Boozman’s office- At this point he is “leaning” against this bill here are some pros and cons they were able to send me~”

· The Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) would authorize a federally-sanctioned plebiscite (vote) of the people of Puerto Rico regarding their political future. Currently, Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory with Commonwealth status. Puerto Rico residents are U.S. citizens, but do not pay federal incomes taxes and are represented in Congress by a non-voting Resident Delegate.

· H.R. 2499 provides for a two-step voting process. The first vote would allow the people of Puerto Rico to choose between selecting a “different political status” or maintaining their “present political status.” If the majority of the people vote in favor of a “different political status,” then a second vote would be held allowing people to choose between three options: independence, free association with the U.S., or statehood.

· While it is said that the results of the plebiscites are non-binding, H.R. 2499 sets the stage for potential Congressional action as soon as next year on making Puerto Rico the 51st state.

· The people of Puerto Rico should be able to go to the ballot box and express their views on their future political status. However, H.R. 2499 is not necessary in order for that to happen. Puerto Rico can conduct their own non-binding plebiscites, as they have done three times in the past.

· There are serious questions regarding the implications of this bill that have gone unanswered. If Congressionally-sanctioned vote is specifically sought as with H.R. 2499, then it must come with an open, thorough understanding of what independence or statehood would mean to Puerto Rico and the existing 50 states.

· The two-step process is not an accurate or fair way to determine which political status the majority of people prefer. The first round of voting unites opponents of the current Commonwealth system, but then excludes the Commonwealth option in the second vote.

· The bill does not require a majority vote in the second plebiscite. The “winner” of the plebiscite will be whichever option receives the most votes – event if it just receives 34%. A decision that could start the island down the road to independence or statehood should not be taken lightly and should have the support of the majority of the people in Puerto Rico.

· This path towards statehood significantly deviates from the process used by Alaska and Hawaii, the last two states admitted to the Union and the only two non-contiguous states. They both held a public “yes” or “no” vote on statehood and both states voted overwhelming (83% and 94%) in favor.

· Those eligible to cast ballots in the plebiscites includes more than just residents of Puerto Rico. H.R. 2499 explicitly allows those born in Puerto Rico and now living in the United States to cast ballots. Longtime residents, registered voters and citizens of the other 50 states could vote on the future of political status of Puerto Rico simply because of where they were born. This is unprecedented. A 70-year-old who was born in Puerto Rico, moved to Washington state as an infant, and has lived in The Evergreen State for the past 60+ years could cast a vote – but their neighbor next door who was born in Seattle could not.

· In Puerto Rico, both English and Spanish are official languages. When the House last debated a Puerto Rico bill (1998), an amendment on the issue of English as the official language was allowed on the House floor for debate. It is unknown whether House Democrat leaders will permit such an amendment and a direct vote during consideration of H.R. 2499. It’s also important to note that during our history, the matter of the English language was addressed during the admission of other states into the Union, including Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

· If Puerto Rico does become a state, the Congress Research Service (CRS) estimates that with a population of approximately 4 million, Puerto Rico would get six seats in the House of Representatives. Assuming the current 435 seat limit remains unchanged, apportioning 6 seats to Puerto Rico means a number of states expecting to gain a seat after the 2010 census would actually lose representation. According to CRS projections, states that could lose an existing seat or not receive an expected new seat if Puerto Rico became a state include: Arizona, South Carolina, Missouri, New York, Texas, and Washington.

· Federal spending in Puerto Rico would increase under statehood – the amount would measure in the billions of dollars per year. Before voting on H.R. 2499, the full cost should be known.

· The people of Puerto Rico currently do not pay federal income taxes on income earned in Puerto Rico, but pay one of the highest state tax levels in the nation. Statehood would significantly impact the tax structure of Puerto Rico.

Some conservatives are in support of H.R. 2499, including a number of former RSC Chairman and several of its founding Members. The office of Rep. Dan Burton, an RSC founder, believes:

As we all know, H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, comes to the floor tomorrow, and already, many misconceptions about the bill are being circulated by its various conservative opponents. Such fallacies should not distract you from the true nature of this bill.

This bill does NOT grant Puerto Rico Statehood. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act simply authorizes a popular vote allowing Puerto Ricans (who are U.S. citizens) to express their preference regarding their political status in relation to the United States.

It’s as simple as that. In a first plebiscite, they will be asked whether they favor the status quo or would prefer another option. If, and only if, the people of Puerto Rico vote in favor of another option, a second plebiscite would be held to gauge the support of voters for one of three options: 1) statehood, 2) sovereignty in association, or 3) independence.

The results of these plebiscites will then be reported to Congress, and no further action on either part is required. H.R. 2499 is NOT the same bill offered in 1998, which required Congress to act on the results of the plebiscite. This plebiscite(s) is non-binding.

Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory acquired by war over 111 years ago. Despite this fact, Puerto Ricans have never had a federally sanctioned plebiscite in order to determine their preference, and Puerto Rico’s status continues to remain unresolved. The people of Puerto Rico should be allowed to exercise the same right and privilege to decide their future as other United States Territories. Although Congress – in conformity with Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution – rightly, retains the exclusive power to further continue the legal and constitutional process, H.R.2499 provides a fair and viable option to allow the people of Puerto Rico to have their say in that process.

As for the English-only question, no one has been more supportive of English as the official language of the United States than conservative supporters of this bill, but the question of whether English should be Puerto Rico’s ONLY official language is irrelevant to the question of whether the Puerto Rican people should be allowed to express their non-binding opinion about the future of the territory.

On the political side, Alaska and Hawaii became states, the popular assumption was that Alaska would be a solidly Democratic delegation and would be balanced by a solidly Republican Hawaii. The exact opposite has been the case. Puerto Rico has a Republican Governor, San Juan has a long-time Republican Mayor, and many Puerto Ricans are social conservatives. When we first took over the majority here in Congress in 1994-95, Puerto Rico had a Democrat Governor, and he had ALREADY enacted most of the planks of the Contract with America.

Even if Puerto Rico votes to become a State, AND Congress passes legislation to grant statehood (again it’s up to the Congress not the plebiscite), it will most likely end up being like any other state. Political affiliation will depend on how district lines are drawn, how strong individual candidates are, and how much money they are able to raise and spend.

See, this is what I am thinking. We need to start thinking of plan Bs. Divide and conquer. Think of ways to turn the Latinos against the Democrats using agit pop. Scare them into thinking the Democrats only want to allow them in because they are re-instituting a draft and plan on drafting them all and sealing the border not allowing them back to Mexico. Rumors travel like wildfire in that community.

Start a rumor that this is all related to a secret plan to re-open the Vieques bombing range by the U.S. Navy.

Something! Who cares how ridiculous they sound! Look at the conspiracy theories on the “Arab Street™”

Not to disparage any of our responsible folks from PR or with ties to PR.

But...one must consider first this one question:

Why is it the Democrats (remember those guys in DC that are rapidly turning the US into a socialist 3rd world country) that are so hell bent on making PR a state? Is it because they believe it will be a solid red state? It ain’t rocket science.

I’m being blunt here, my priority is what is best for the existing states. If it’s good for PR, that’s fine. But what’s good for the US comes first.

It’s not that simple.

These are US citizens. Territorial status is a temporary condition, this whole concept of a ‘commonwealth’ has no constitutional bearing.

They have every right to a plebescite with two options: Independence or statehood. Unfortunately, this bill doesn’t offer anything of the sort.

They have every right to a plebescite with two options: Independence or statehood.

I'd agree with that *if* the other 50 states had a say in it. It is a 2 way street.

They do, that’s what congress is for. Once the motion passes congress, then it’s up to Puerto Rico.

They do, that’s what congress is for

You are correct.

It just galls me that we have a congress that does nothing based on what they believe is good for the country, but only to further the solidification of power for the liberal socialists running it.

So. I can't help feeling that the reality of it is, the "states" are powerless in defending and furthering our interests as we may see them

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.