|
Para ver este documento
en español, oprima aquí.
Puerto Rico Vote Not So Puzzling After All
by Dick Thornburgh
Feb. 1, 1999
©Copyright 1999 Dick Thornburgh
As U.S. Attorney General under Presidents Reagan and Bush,
I urged Congress to sponsor a democratic process to resolve the
status of Puerto Rico based on constitutional principles which
favor equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens, as well
as government by consent of the governed. Even though these basic
values governed our nation's process for resolving the status
of 33 other large and populous territories since 1789, in 1998
Congress again failed to take long overdue action on Puerto Rico's
status.
Yet, instead of asking why Congress still has no plan to end
Puerto Rico's current state of political limbo, many pundits reacting
to a recent status vote held under local law in Puerto Rico seem
puzzled because statehood supporters in the territory have not
abandoned their cause after failing to win a majority. The results
of the plebiscite bear closer scrutiny. With over 73% voter turnout,
45.6% voted for statehood, 2.5% for independence, a mere .01%
for the current political status of Puerto Rico as a commonwealth
territory, .02% for independence with a treaty of "association"
instead of union, and 50.2% for "None of the Above".
Suggestions that a large but indecipherable vote for "None
of the Above" constitutes approval of the status quo border
on the absurd, especially when the actual status quo option was
on the ballot in the most accurate form ever and received negligible
support. The only clear result of the vote is that neither the
current status, independence nor statehood "won" with
a majority of votes cast in the plebiscite.
Many voters clearly remain unwilling to choose between status
options defined in local law rather than directly by an act of
Congress -- even when definitions under local law accurately reflect
federal law. Thus, the 50.2% vote for "None of the Above"
expresses for many uncertainty about options, and for others it
expresses support for a hybrid of statehood and independence not
permitted under the federal constitution. In either case, only
Congress can define terms for statehood, separate nationhood or
continuation of the current status so that informed self-determination
is possible.
The last time Congress exercised its territorial clause power
to define the status and rights of residents of Puerto Rico was
in 1950, when U.S. Public Law 81-600 authorized establishment
of the commonwealth system of self-government in matters determined
by Congress or the federal courts to be local. This limited local
self-rule was approved by the voters in a 1952 referendum sponsored
by Congress, but since then U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico have
had no opportunity to express their aspirations for full self-government
under options for a permanent status recognized by Congress.
In the recent vote, commonwealth as it currently exists under
P.L. 81-600 was rejected by 99.99% of the voters because it was
defined as territorial. The reality is that commonwealth is territorial,
so the vote against territorial commonwealth creates a duty for
Congress to establish a process to restore government by consent
of the governed.
Until that happens, Puerto Rico is once again in the same condition
it was prior to 1950. The 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto
Rico remain disenfranchised in the federal political process to
which they are subject, and administration by the U.S. under the
commonwealth created by Congress is not a consensual or fully
self-governing status. Unlike 1950, Congress now must decide which
of the available status options it is willing to consider, and
inform the voters of the terms and conditions for continuing the
current status or changing to a permanent new status.
That is how Congress proceeded from 1916 until approval and
implementation in 1946 of the terms for independence of the territorial
commonwealth of the Philippines. In this way Congress also managed
the transition to statehood for 32 territories which became states,
including Alaska and Hawaii in the post-WWII era. Territorial
history demonstrates that the recent vote in Puerto Rico was but
one step in a larger self-determination process for which Congress
is ultimately responsible.
For example, in the territory of Wisconsin the vote for statehood
was 25% in 1842, 30% in 1843, and 22% in 1844. After each of those
setbacks pro-statehood leaders petitioned Congress to set the
terms for admission so a more informed vote could occur (just
as Puerto Rico's elected leaders are doing). Once Congress responded
by defining the terms for admission, the pro-statehood vote in
Wisconsin soared to 83% in 1886, resulting in admission.
Similarly, the statehood vote in the territory that became
the State of Washington was 47% in 1869 and 30% in 1871. Once
Congress approved legislation setting forth terms of admission,
60% of the voters approved statehood.
So instead of being puzzled because elected statehood leaders
in Puerto Rico are asking Congress to act on the basis of the
recent plebiscite, let's remember that America became the greatest
nation in the history of the world by empowering people with the
tools for informed self-determination. Sooner or later Congress
will have to do the same for Puerto Rico, and the sooner the better
for Puerto Rico and the nation as a whole.
| 
