Of course, Puerto Rico!

(No, not the others)

So, in light of last week’s discussion of D.C. Statehood, I have been (wisely) told that I should discuss whether Puerto Rico should become a state.  I see no reason why Puerto Rico is not a perfectly acceptable candidate for statehood as soon as possible.

I say this both because it’s true and because, in these times, you sometimes have to ‘just get on the record’ about things because if you don’t, people might say ‘but what you really mean...’  Two readers wondered if my opposition to D.C. statehood wasn’t due to lurking hostility to Democrats getting more seats in the Senate, because they most likely will if Puerto Rico  gains statehood. I really meant what I wrote last week about D.C. Statehood and I really mean this too.  What I don’t really understand is why Democrats are even talking about, much less leading with, D.C. statehood in the first 100 days, particularly since, in many respects. statehood for Puerto Rico is likely an easier lift, politically.  

First, both Democrats and Republicans have affirmed publicly for decades that Puerto Rico has every right to apply for statehood, and that the U.S. should admit it (despite weasley comments by some, recently, to the contrary), and it has higher levels of support among GOP and right leaning voters.  There are Senators among the GOP who would have a difficult time back home explaining why they blocked PR statehood (I am looking at you, Florida) making it far more likely to find a defector, creating the ability to pass it.  

Second, there are no major constitutional issues to consider, as opposed to D.C. Statehood.  Moreover, despite numerous attempts to have an unmarred referendum for statehood, the most recent one on November 3, 2020,  Puertican voters were clearly in favor of joining the United States and turnout was high.  On its face, this would be a ‘pure vanilla’ accession to the Union. 
The only three credible arguments I have heard against statehood for Puerto Rico (please feel free to send others). 

The first concerns the idea that there is a part of Puerto Rican society that is very much against statehood, and that it is imprudent to admit a state with an active seperatist movement.  But, this is, relatively speaking, rather small beer.  A number of states were admitted to the Union with active separatist movements existing at the time such as  Alaska, Texas, Vermont, and in Hawaii, where  Anti-statehood sentiment is still quitemainstream.  The movement in Puerto Rico would be expected in any fraught constitutional fight. Unless we are suggesting that states should never be admitted without unanimous support from the populace of that potential state, or that admitting Texas, Vermont, Alaska, and Hawaii was in some sense disastrous for the well-being of the rest of the Union, I can’t see how this matters.  Puerto Rican independence is routinely less than 6% of the vote in the many referenda Puerto Rico have held on the subject.   

The second argument deals with the margin voting to approve statehood.  This margin was indeed more narrow than we might like, but not historically very narrow:  52.52% in favor and 47.48% opposed.  This one seems more pressing to me, but it also seems like a question that is best answered by Puerto Rican’s and their delegates than the U.S. Congress.  It’s also worth noting that the 2012 referendum also showed a strong majority (60% in favor of statehood and less than 6% favoring independence).  This seems, overall, to be a strong signal in favor of statehood by the majority of Puerto Rico’s population and for a substantive period (ignoring the much context 2017 referendum with very low turnout and more than 90% favoring statehood).   

Finally, there is concern about the shape of Puerto Rico’s economy and infrastructure.  I think this is the most serious concern, but it is also a complicated one.  It is true that Puerto Rico would be the poorest state in the country were it to be admitted (and D.C. the richest in per capita terms, btw).  But it’s poverty has a good deal to do with the colonial dependence of its economy on the U.S.  Attempts to help develop the economy were repealed before the great recession tanking an economy and the public financing dependent on it.  Were Puerto Rico a state, it’s two Senators and House Representative would certainly have had more sway and the country greater interest in developing more sustainable growth strategies, with greater mutual adjustment and cooperation in the process.  This also plays into the story about infrastructure.  The destruction of the power grid by hurricane Maria and recovery following was hampered by a sluggish federal response that would not have occurred for a U.S. state. The collapsing public finances were due to a colonial development regime.  Puerto Rico is probably just too big an economy to be run this way. 

So, while it is certain, as with all things, that the issue of statehood for Puerto Rico is complicated and complex, it need not be from the perspective of constitutional politics or good governance.  Regardless of my personal feelings about Puerto Rican statehood versus Independence, it seems clear that procedurally, in terms of the stated views of both major parties over years, and in terms of practical benefit to the U.S. and Puerto Rico materialy,  that there is no reason why Puerto Rican statehood has to wait.  This is in contrast to statehood for D.C. where it should wait for a constitutional conversation and an amendment amending the requirement for a federal district in such a way as to address the arguments and concerns motivating the initial provision for the district on substantive constitutional and political (as opposed to legal) grounds.

While less prominent in the discussion, there is also a desire in some quarters to see the other U.S. territories made into states, such as Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.  However, these economies are tiny, and where there is an economy of any size, it is mostly Federal government spending.  For these outlying territories, there are good arguments for special voting rights and representation, but little grounds for admission to statehood.

So, the big question is: Why didn’t Democrats go for Puerto Rican statehood before going for D.C. Statehood?  The fact is that D.C. statehood is an issue over which voters are more divided, and has clear constitutional quandaries.  Indeed, why pick the one that looks like a power grab to their opponents (correctly, I think, by the way)?  I could imagine many possible lines of thought:

D.C. Statehood advocates were just more proximate with their demands, and perhaps the capitol riot increased that volume?  As a friend also notes, D.C. is basically 40% black and 40% well-to-do white, so maybe it’s also about fundraising? 

Maybe they think expending political capital on D.C. first - if it succeeds paves the way for Puerto Rico?  This seems risky to me.  Going for the constitutionally-fraught power grab of D.C. Statehood and having it go badly in a high profile way could color any attempt to admit Puerto Rico (but, then, why not the reverse?).

Perhaps the economic and governance concerns are worse than I understand them to be.  If so, opening the issue of PR statehood could very well reveal this to the embarrassment of all.  D.C. clearly looks better economically in terms of having the most wealthy per capita of any U.S. state or territory. Moreover, there is some weak evidence that in wake of the capitol riots more Democrats favor statehood for D.C. than before, so this may be attempting to capitalize on that event.  Or, perhaps Democrats now favor decolonizing Puerto Rico with independence as has been the balance of opinion in the United Nations for some time?  It’s hard to say in our polarizing times.  What is clear is that regardless of the times, Puerto Rico is a far better candidate from a constitutional and governance perspective than statehood than D.C.


Bottom line:  It’s wrong and unwise to admit our constitutionally provisioned federal district as a state without a constitutional amendment, even if you can swing it on a legal technicality.  It’s right and not at all imprudent to admit Puerto Rico as a state after the November 3rd referendum.  It’s a bad idea to risk the legitimate requests of Puerto Ricans who have inhabited their island long before the U.S. acquired it.  D.C. residents however, with a handful of possible exceptions, have all moved to the district with full knowledge of its political and governance status.