The island has long been divided between those citizens who want statehood and those who want the status quo. Yet in an upcoming referendum, the status quo option has mysteriously disappeared.
Here are a few other details that might help readers with evaluating the “rigging”, history, and context of this process.
The referendum in Puerto Rico passes with a majority vote for statehood, several steps must follow for Puerto Rico to become a state:
1. Congressional Approval: The U.S. Congress must pass legislation (an “enabling act”) to admit Puerto Rico as a state. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate would need to approve this legislation by a simple majority vote.
2. Presidential Signature: After passing Congress, the bill must be signed by the President of the United States to become law.
3. Drafting a State Constitution: If Congress passes the enabling act, Puerto Rico would then need to draft a state constitution, which would be consistent with the U.S. Constitution. This document would outline the state’s government structure and include key rights and laws.
4. Local Referendum on State Constitution: Puerto Ricans would likely vote on their new state constitution in a local referendum. This step ensures that the residents agree on the governance framework for their prospective state.
5. Congressional Ratification of the State Constitution: Once Puerto Ricans approve the state constitution, it would be sent to Congress for review. Congress would need to ratify the constitution, formally admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st state.
6. Official Admission as a State: After all steps are complete, Puerto Rico would officially be admitted to the Union, gaining full representation in the House and Senate and the right for its residents to vote in federal elections, including the presidency.
This process would likely be contentious, requiring significant political will and support, particularly given the current divided opinions on Puerto Rican statehood and the implications for Senate composition and voting power.
Readers might also benefit from some additional history and context on the historical positions:
It might be important for readers to understand the historical nuances of Commonwealth status. Established in 1952, Puerto Rico’s commonwealth status formalized a unique political and legal relationship with the United States. This arrangement allows Puerto Rico a degree of local self-governance under its own constitution while still being subject to U.S. federal laws.
Under this status, Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but do not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress and cannot vote in presidential elections. However, they do have a non-voting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Commonwealth status provides Puerto Rico with certain benefits, such as exemption from some federal taxes and access to specific U.S. programs, though these benefits are limited and dependent on Congress’s discretion.
2. It might be important for readers to review a the historical popularity is statuses in referendums; here is a brief summary below:
1967 Referendum: Puerto Rico held its first plebiscite on status, where voters were given the choice between statehood, independence, and commonwealth. 60% of voters chose commonwealth status, indicating a strong preference for the status quo at that time.
1993 Referendum: With renewed interest in Puerto Rico’s political future, voters were again presented with multiple options, including commonwealth. In a close vote, 48.6% favored commonwealth status, with statehood receiving 46.3% and independence only 4.4%.
1998 Referendum: This vote offered four options (statehood, independence, commonwealth, and “none of the above”), though the commonwealth option was controversially revised to reflect what some saw as diminished sovereignty. As a result, “none of the above” won with 50.3%, largely as a protest vote from commonwealth supporters who felt their preferred option was misrepresented.
2012 Referendum: This was a two-part referendum, asking first whether Puerto Ricans wanted to change their status, followed by a second question asking which status they preferred (statehood, free association, or independence). 61% voted for statehood in the second part, but the validity was questioned since about 500,000 voters left that part of the ballot blank, a tactic used by commonwealth supporters to protest the exclusion of a clear commonwealth option.
2017 Referendum: Puerto Rico again voted on its status, with 97% favoring statehood; however, voter turnout was only 23%, as many pro-commonwealth voters boycotted the referendum, indicating ongoing support for the commonwealth option even though it was not formally represented.
It would also be good if we discussed how the “rigging” happened.
The short answer is: legally.
The long answer is that in 2022, House Democrats, in collaboration with Puerto Rico’s pro-statehood New Progressive Party (PNP), passed the Puerto Rico Status Act, which outlined a referendum on Puerto Rico’s political status but excluded the commonwealth option. The act’s design favored “non-colonial” options—statehood, independence, and free association—arguing these choices align with principles of self-determination and democracy. By securing support within the House and aligning with Puerto Rico’s pro-statehood leaders, Democrats crafted a referendum without the traditional commonwealth choice, limiting voters to other paths .Legally, Congress has the authority to structure referendums for U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico Status Act was passed following standard legislative procedures, making it technically legal.
Finally, it’s also good to include an argument for statehood. The best argument for Puerto Rican statehood isn’t about what political party benefits or doesn’t. It is to grant what are U.S. citizens on the island full democratic rights and equal representation, correcting the current inequity where they lack voting power and full benefits. Statehood would ensure equal treatment, economic stability, and align with American values of democracy and self-determination.
It hasn't happened in a long time, but I think the procedure to become a state requires the legislature to petition Congress for admission as a state. Would that pass the Puerto Rican legislature?
Coleman, I trust your judgment, but still would like to understand what is the benefit of the status quo? I always thought that Puerto Ricans want to be a fully recognized state of the US. If becoming a state is so unpopular , would the unwanted consequence be that angry Puerto Rico would start voting Republican and thus diminish Democrats' chances to win federal elections?
I also would like to know more. What I don't get is why no one's talked about this. I have heard that statehood was a dream of the dems, but not about the new referendum, especially with all the "Puerto Rican" rhetoric of late. Republicans should have been screaming "foul". I am neither a Trump nor Harris supporter. I have encouraged the Harris voters I know to split their votes so as to have a split legislature that could thwart these and other ridiculous progressive & MAGA ideas. Do you think this could be something the Supreme Court will end up with?
I can’t help feeling that I’m not getting the full story.
Here are a few other details that might help readers with evaluating the “rigging”, history, and context of this process.
The referendum in Puerto Rico passes with a majority vote for statehood, several steps must follow for Puerto Rico to become a state:
1. Congressional Approval: The U.S. Congress must pass legislation (an “enabling act”) to admit Puerto Rico as a state. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate would need to approve this legislation by a simple majority vote.
2. Presidential Signature: After passing Congress, the bill must be signed by the President of the United States to become law.
3. Drafting a State Constitution: If Congress passes the enabling act, Puerto Rico would then need to draft a state constitution, which would be consistent with the U.S. Constitution. This document would outline the state’s government structure and include key rights and laws.
4. Local Referendum on State Constitution: Puerto Ricans would likely vote on their new state constitution in a local referendum. This step ensures that the residents agree on the governance framework for their prospective state.
5. Congressional Ratification of the State Constitution: Once Puerto Ricans approve the state constitution, it would be sent to Congress for review. Congress would need to ratify the constitution, formally admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st state.
6. Official Admission as a State: After all steps are complete, Puerto Rico would officially be admitted to the Union, gaining full representation in the House and Senate and the right for its residents to vote in federal elections, including the presidency.
This process would likely be contentious, requiring significant political will and support, particularly given the current divided opinions on Puerto Rican statehood and the implications for Senate composition and voting power.
Readers might also benefit from some additional history and context on the historical positions:
It might be important for readers to understand the historical nuances of Commonwealth status. Established in 1952, Puerto Rico’s commonwealth status formalized a unique political and legal relationship with the United States. This arrangement allows Puerto Rico a degree of local self-governance under its own constitution while still being subject to U.S. federal laws.
Under this status, Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but do not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress and cannot vote in presidential elections. However, they do have a non-voting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Commonwealth status provides Puerto Rico with certain benefits, such as exemption from some federal taxes and access to specific U.S. programs, though these benefits are limited and dependent on Congress’s discretion.
2. It might be important for readers to review a the historical popularity is statuses in referendums; here is a brief summary below:
1967 Referendum: Puerto Rico held its first plebiscite on status, where voters were given the choice between statehood, independence, and commonwealth. 60% of voters chose commonwealth status, indicating a strong preference for the status quo at that time.
1993 Referendum: With renewed interest in Puerto Rico’s political future, voters were again presented with multiple options, including commonwealth. In a close vote, 48.6% favored commonwealth status, with statehood receiving 46.3% and independence only 4.4%.
1998 Referendum: This vote offered four options (statehood, independence, commonwealth, and “none of the above”), though the commonwealth option was controversially revised to reflect what some saw as diminished sovereignty. As a result, “none of the above” won with 50.3%, largely as a protest vote from commonwealth supporters who felt their preferred option was misrepresented.
2012 Referendum: This was a two-part referendum, asking first whether Puerto Ricans wanted to change their status, followed by a second question asking which status they preferred (statehood, free association, or independence). 61% voted for statehood in the second part, but the validity was questioned since about 500,000 voters left that part of the ballot blank, a tactic used by commonwealth supporters to protest the exclusion of a clear commonwealth option.
2017 Referendum: Puerto Rico again voted on its status, with 97% favoring statehood; however, voter turnout was only 23%, as many pro-commonwealth voters boycotted the referendum, indicating ongoing support for the commonwealth option even though it was not formally represented.
It would also be good if we discussed how the “rigging” happened.
The short answer is: legally.
The long answer is that in 2022, House Democrats, in collaboration with Puerto Rico’s pro-statehood New Progressive Party (PNP), passed the Puerto Rico Status Act, which outlined a referendum on Puerto Rico’s political status but excluded the commonwealth option. The act’s design favored “non-colonial” options—statehood, independence, and free association—arguing these choices align with principles of self-determination and democracy. By securing support within the House and aligning with Puerto Rico’s pro-statehood leaders, Democrats crafted a referendum without the traditional commonwealth choice, limiting voters to other paths .Legally, Congress has the authority to structure referendums for U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico Status Act was passed following standard legislative procedures, making it technically legal.
Finally, it’s also good to include an argument for statehood. The best argument for Puerto Rican statehood isn’t about what political party benefits or doesn’t. It is to grant what are U.S. citizens on the island full democratic rights and equal representation, correcting the current inequity where they lack voting power and full benefits. Statehood would ensure equal treatment, economic stability, and align with American values of democracy and self-determination.
Thank you for sharing this issue. Shame on me, I did not know about it. I appreciate the chance to learn more it.
It hasn't happened in a long time, but I think the procedure to become a state requires the legislature to petition Congress for admission as a state. Would that pass the Puerto Rican legislature?
Coleman, I trust your judgment, but still would like to understand what is the benefit of the status quo? I always thought that Puerto Ricans want to be a fully recognized state of the US. If becoming a state is so unpopular , would the unwanted consequence be that angry Puerto Rico would start voting Republican and thus diminish Democrats' chances to win federal elections?
Ask the Puerto Ricans that voted repeatedly for maintaining the status quo.
This is exactly what I am doing. He is the only person of Puerto Rican descent that I know of.
I also would like to know more. What I don't get is why no one's talked about this. I have heard that statehood was a dream of the dems, but not about the new referendum, especially with all the "Puerto Rican" rhetoric of late. Republicans should have been screaming "foul". I am neither a Trump nor Harris supporter. I have encouraged the Harris voters I know to split their votes so as to have a split legislature that could thwart these and other ridiculous progressive & MAGA ideas. Do you think this could be something the Supreme Court will end up with?