In Pursuit of Statehood: Puerto Rico and the Failing of the American Congress
Many Puerto Ricans have been fighting for statehood for decades. Photo by Ard Hesselink.
The issue of Puerto Rico’s statehood has made its way to Congress again during the 117th session. On March 18, 2021, Representative Nydia Velázquez (D-NY-07) and Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) introduced the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021 in their respective congressional chambers. In the bill, congressional members and co-sponsors recognize that the United States, as a colonizing force, has ignored the voices of Puerto Ricans for far too long. The House of Representatives’ version of the bill, H.R. 2070, delves into Puerto Rico’s history with the United States, stating that “Puerto Rico was not part of the United States and subject to the plenary powers of Congress, which in turn established a colonial relationship” after the U.S. acquired the territory in the Spanish-American War. Now, 123 years later, the House bill argues that “[t]he United States has a legal duty to comply with Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which establishes that all peoples have the right to self-determination and ‘by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’.”
At first glance, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act seems to put the interests of Puerto Ricans first: it would require the U.S. federal government to finally acknowledge and act upon the decision Puerto Ricans make regarding self-determination. More specifically, the bill would allow the territorial government to convene a status convention with delegates to determine the territory’s options, which would then appear in a future ballot that Puerto Ricans would vote on.
Although the Velázquez-Menendez proposal seems well-intentioned, the bill introduces more obstacles in the fight for Puerto Rico’s self-determination rather than acknowledging the decisions that Puerto Ricans have already made.
Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González- Colón and former Governor Ricardo Rosselló, both pro-statehood candidates, celebrate their victories and the referendum outcome in 2017. Photo.
A Recent History Of Puerto Rican Votes
The people of Puerto Rico have already voted on the question of statehood three times in the past decade: in 2012, 2017, and 2020. In 2012, the ballot asked if Puerto Rico should keep its current status, followed by a question that solicited a preferred non-territorial option. For the preference question, three choices were given—statehood, free association (a sovereign status but still associated with the U.S.), and independence. In 2017, three preference options were given: become a state, independent nation (or free association) with the U.S., and keep its current territorial status. In 2020, the most recent status referendum, the ballot directly asked Puerto Ricans if they should immediately be admitted into the U.S.
Although the ballot questions varied slightly each time, the people’s choice was made clear: in each referendum, the majority of Puerto Ricans voted in favor of admission into the U.S. Yet, despite these electoral results, Representative Velázquez, Senator Menendez, and the supporters of their bill object to acknowledging these referendums. If the original intention of the bill was to put Puerto Rican voices first, why does it object to acknowledging these referendums—or at least the 2020 referendum?
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14), and Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY-07) unveil the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act. Photo.
Criticism of the Velázquez-Menendez Bill
The sponsors and co-sponsors of the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act object to acknowledging these referendums by arguing that the wording of the questions in each referendum lured Puerto Ricans who are ignorant about the consequences of joining the U.S. to vote in favor of admission. Furthermore, they elaborate that these referendums have been a political tool employed by the New Progressive Party, a political party in Puerto Rico advocating for statehood, to push their agenda instead of promoting the best interest of Puerto Ricans.
Despite these claims, the Velázquez-Menendez bill does not solve the problem it supposedly argues against. Instead, the bill actually excludes everyday Puerto Ricans from having the final say in determining territorial status. Instead of directly voting for a certain status, the bill calls for Puerto Ricans to vote for delegates who will design the ballot and negotiate to develop a long-run strategy for each option. This added bureaucratic step has nothing to do with amplifying the voice of Puerto Ricans, but, rather, only concerns micromanaging elections. The bill is a roadblock to democracy in the territory because it does not allow the electoral process to play out without an external force. Referendums on various issues occur in several states throughout the U.S. with no federal involvement, and Puerto Rico should not be an exception to this norm.
Another argument that supporters of the Velázquez-Menendez bill make to ignore the existing referendums points to the referendums’ statistics. The 2017 referendum had only a 23% turnout. These supporters claim that the boycott from pro-sovereignty proponents and the nonbinding feature, which meant that Congress did not have to act on the results of the referendum, skewed the results in favor of statehood. Since the 2017 referendum was also held on an election off-year, in which the governor and resident commissioner were not on the ballot, many argue that there was less of an incentive for Puerto Ricans to head to the polls. However, upon a bit of further research, these claims fall flat, since the 2012 and 2020 referendums had much higher turnouts—78% and 55%, respectively—and both had the same end result. Furthermore, supporters of the Velázquez-Menendez bill also claim that the 2012 referendum had inconsistencies with counting ballots that were blank, because Puerto Rican election authorities did not know whether blank ballots should be counted as voting against statehood.
The only referendum that has not received much criticism from supporters of the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act is the 2020 referendum. The results of the 2020 referendum are more representative of what Puerto Ricans desire for several reasons. The status question appeared on the same ballot as the governor, resident commissioner, and other election officials, driving more people to vote. Additionally, Puerto Ricans voted for a New Progressive Party governor, a party that advocates for statehood, with a margin similar to the referendum outcome. According to the official election results, 52.5% of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood, while 47.5% did not; 33.2% voted for Pedro Peirlusi of the New Progressive Party, while 31.8% voted for Carlos Altieri of the Popular Democratic Party, a major party that opposes statehood. This trend proves that there is some consistency between voting for statehood and voting for a party that approves of statehood, and these results should be enough of a basis for legitimizing the electoral choices. Furthermore, unlike the 2012 election, there are not enough blank ballots in the 2020 referendum to change the outcome of the electoral results. Thus, anti-statehood claims that can be made about Puerto Ricans’ voices being heard unfairly and inaccurately in 2020 are irrelevant.
Ultimately, despite rightfully claiming that colonialism suppressed the voices of Puerto Ricans, the Velázquez-Menendez bill paradoxically reinforces colonialist behavior by ignoring the results of three recent, undeniable referendums that do not adhere to their arbitrary standards. More specifically, it completely bypasses Puerto Rican voices by implementing a delegate system that comes up with the rules for an election rather than everyday Puerto Ricans having the final say on their status.
Governor Pedro Pierluisi (PR) joins Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González-Colón (R-PR), Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL-07), Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL-27), and Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL-09) to unveil the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act. Photo.
The Alternative Paths Forward
The Velázquez-Menendez bill is not the only bill in Congress that focuses on Puerto Rican statehood; in fact, there is a competing bill in the House sponsored by Representative Darren Soto (D-FL-09) and Resident Commissione8r Jenniffer González-Colón (R-PR) that was proposed before the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act: the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-MN) sponsored a companion bill in the Senate. Unlike the Velázquez-Menendez bill, the Colón-Soto bill is cosponsored by a group of elected officials with very different political ideologies, such as Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX-17), Representative María Elvira Salazar (R-FL-27), Representative Stephanie Murphy (D-FL-07), and Representative André Carson (D-IN-07). The wide variety of progressives and conservatives, and Democrats and Republicans, endorsing this bill indicates that it will have an easier time passing in both chambers and into President Joe Biden’s hands.
Most importantly, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act differs significantly from the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act in that it acknowledges the electoral results of the 2020 referendum without asking Puerto Ricans to participate in yet another election. Essentially, the bill makes a comparison between Puerto Rico’s state referendum and the referendums that led to Hawaii and Alaska’s admittance into the Union in the late 1950s. It states, “[i]n November 2020, following Alaska and Hawaii precedent, Puerto Rico voters were presented with the question: ‘Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State? Yes or No’. A clear majority of 52.52 percent voted in the affirmative.” This section of the bill has been used to solicit Republican support for statehood, especially since the Republican platform has changed to embrace a rising Latino base.
It is crucial for any Puerto Rican statehood bill to appeal to Republican members of Congress because party leaders like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have voiced extreme opposition to admitting the territory into the U.S. In fact, the 2016 GOP platform states: “We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state. We further recognize the historic significance of the 2012 local referendum in which a 54 percent majority voted to end Puerto Rico's current status as a U.S. territory, and 61 percent chose statehood over options for sovereign nationhood.” Furthermore, the platform is grounded in the GOP’s strict interpretation of the Constitution—namely, the New States Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1) which enforces the equal footing doctrine, which states that territories seeking statehood must be admitted without any additional conditions made by Congress. Since the Colón-Soto bill does not add any additional conditions for Puerto Rico to become a state and respects the limited powers the Constitution bestows on Congress, Republicans are more likely to support this bill over the Velázquez-Menendez bill.
Ultimately, the Puerto Rico statehood debacle should be put to rest by allowing an immediate admission of Puerto Rico into the U.S. As hurricane season and the COVID-19 pandemic continue to wreak havoc on the island, the bureaucratic processes ushered by the Velázquez-Menendez bill would make it harder for Puerto Ricans to recover and receive the aid they deserve. The bill, ironically, continues to perpetuate American colonialism by failing to recognize the will of Puerto Ricans, at least in the form of the 2020 statehood referendum results.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to stop advancing their interests or their party’s interests and remember the fundamental role of their positions as elected officials: listening to their fellow Americans.
Mark Torres (SEAS‘21, CC’22) is a senior in Columbia College studying Political Science. He recently completed his Bachelor of Science in Operations Research at Columbia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science. When he’s not complaining about partisan politics, watching Roll Call’s Congressional Hits and Misses, or browsing the U.S. Senate voting website, you can catch him at the gym.
This article was submitted to CPR as a pitch. To write a response, or to submit a pitch of your own, we invite you to use the pitch form on our website.