Political Status of PR

Puerto Rico became a possession of the United States after the Spanish-American War in 1898, but has never been fully incorporated into the Union (Pantojas-Garcia, 2013). It later became a Commonwealth in 1952, a status it maintains to this day. The subject of the status of Puerto Rico has, since that time, been controversial. There have been multiple referendums on the subject, the latest in 2012, but as yet there has not been a change in the status of Puerto Rico. The 2012 referendum indicated a majority of Puerto Ricans want the status of their territory changed, with most preferring full statehood. Yet this number is not sufficient to break what is essentially a stalemate, and there are other options as yet on the table. This paper will look at the issue of the stalemate, its causes, and will explore the ideas of solutions.

Analysis of History

Puerto Ricans are essentially faced with several options with respect to their future political status, ranging from the status quo to statehood to full-fledged independence. The four that have appeared on the official plebiscites (not all on the same one) are commonwealth, statehood, independence and a concept known as free association. Commonwealth is essentially the status quo vote, meaning that any change in the way that Puerto Rico is governed will have to come within this structure. The Commonwealth option was popular in 1967, when it garnered 60.1% of the vote, but in 1998 this option gained less than 1000 votes total, or 0.1% share, and it was removed entirely from the 2012 plebiscite (Pantojas-Garcia, 2013). On the last two ballots the question was split -- the first part asking if a change was desired, which is essentially creating a separate question for the Commonwealth option. Thus, blank ballots for the second question on the type preferred reflect a Commonwealth vote. In 1998, this was 50.3% of the vote, and in 2012 it was 26.5%. In 2012, this option more or less split the pro-Commonwealth vote between the status quo and the adapted idea of free association (Pantojas-Garcia, 2013).

Statehood as an option gained in popularity, and has been the option that has received the most votes in the last three plebiscites. The state option would provide a pathway for Puerto Rico to become the 51st state in the Union, with all of the rights and privileges therein. Full statehood would entail several changes over the existing structure, including greater tax obligations for Puerto Rican people, but greater political representation as well.

Full independence has never fare well in any of the plebiscites to date. Its peak vote was 4.4% in 1993 and full independence has never received even close to 100,000 votes. A plebiscite vote for full independence would not necessarily create a pathway for full independence and the issue has never been serious enough for the U.S. government to give the implementation of this much consideration. There is little to talk about with respect to the independence option.

The free association concept was only viable in the 2012 plebiscite. A sovereign free associated state is akin to a more autonomous commonwealth (Pantojas-Garcia, 2013). The idea received little support in 1998, but basically split the commonwealth or blank vote in 2012. Thus, half of the supporters of the status quo would prefer to have greater autonomy, but without full independence. On a practical level, this means keeping their U.S. passports, while still minimizing tax obligations, and having a stronger local government to run the island.

The Stalemate

Puerto Ricans are not interested in independence, but the split between the current status and statehood seems to have intensified recently. A change to statehood would represent a tradeoff between lower taxes under the current structure and greater political representation. There is an element of feeling that statehood would also represent a step backwards in distinctiveness, as currently Puerto Rico's status makes it unique. As a state, it would be one of 51 states, and therefore would lose some of its distinctiveness. In essence, Puerto Rico would be American first, Puerto Rican second, in contrast to the way it is viewed today. The public representation of Puerto Rican culture would change, along with identity for the island's people (Davilla, 1997). Cultural identity is one of the underlying currents of the stalemate.

That the stalemate is about cultural identity makes sense. The stalemate would be much easier to resolve if the arguments were strictly logical. If Puerto Rican voters were simply making a microeconomic determination of their financial status under different scenarios, surely one status would be preferred by the majority. Identity politics, however, are much more difficult to resolve.

Democratic representation is another key issue, however. At present, Puerto Ricans participate in the Presidential nomination process, but do not vote in Presidential elections. They contribute to the House of Representatives, but not the Senate. Ultimately, this sub-optimal level of democratic representation is behind much of the drive for statehood, so that Puerto Rico can contribute to the government that has all of the legal authority over the island.

The Role of Congress

Congress has a substantial role to play in the question of Puerto Rico's status. As noted in a report to Congress (Garrett, 2011): "Puerto Rico is subject to congressional jurisdiction under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution…Congress has passed legislation governing Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States." By law, therefore, Congress can break the stalemate and settle the issue. However, it has chosen to leave the choice up to the Puerto Rican people, and let them decide the stalemate themselves.

There are other reasons as to why Congress seems reluctant to break the stalemate. As Pantojas-Garcia (2013) notes, Puerto Rico votes Democrat, and a Republican-controlled House has no interest in adding two Democratic senators and a fistful of Democratic Congressmen. Puerto Rico is also nearly bankrupt -- economically it has little to add to the United States.

Breaking the Stalemate

Assuming that at some point in the future the Democratic Party controls Congress and is able to change the status of Puerto Rico, there is the secondary issue of what Puerto Rico wants. The economic tradeoffs with respect to statehood are evidently difficult to reconcile, much less the nationalistic tradeoffs of a move to statehood. The recent plebiscite also served to muddy the question by essentially leaving the Commonwealth/blank option split with the free association option. Given the nuances of these choices, and the inherent vagueness of what a "free association" would actually look like, there is some question as to whether or not support for the status quo is truly rational support, or merely an expression of being risk averse and not knowing a lot about the issue

But statehood has never captured 50% of the vote. The stalemate cannot be broken by imposing statehood on Puerto Rico, even if Congress wanted to. There is even reason to question what is meant by 'stalemate' -- if people are voting to retain the status quo, that is not a stalemate; that is a choice. It is only a stalemate if one considers that change has to happen. The reality seems to be that Puerto Rico, having been given the choice to do so four times, has never voted for significant change to its status. At some point, it has to be respected that this what people want. It seems dubious logic to think that one majority vote for statehood would outweigh what is now four majority votes for the commonwealth option.