Balkinization: Puerto Rico and the d(D)emocratic process

Puerto Rico and the d(D)emocratic process

Sandy Levinson

In an earlier post, I noted the possibility that Clinton and Obama might be paying visits to Puerto Rico. That now seems almost certain, given the closeness of the race and the fact that Puerto Rico has 53 delegates at the Democratic convention, only four less than Iowa's and 23 more than New Hampshire's (to mention only the two most notorious states in the primary process). For reasons given in that post, I'm actually quite pleased that the two candidates will be forced to offer some cogent comments about the world's largest remaining colony.

An enduring issue within American constitutional law involves the juristic location of Puerto Rico. Is it really part of the United States (like, say, Hawaii, far more distant from the US mainland than Puerto Rico), or is simply a "possession" of the US, with no right to participate in the nation's decisionmaking process? University of Virginia political scientist LarrySabato (who also, incidentally, believes that we need a new constitutional convention to correct the deficiencies of the existing Constitution, but I digress....) has written a column mentioning this point for the BBC, which includes the following:

An ancillary issue is whether the U.S. territories, none of which has electoral college votes in November, should even be included in the party nominating system.

In an extremely close race, their delegates could decide the outcome of a presidential nomination, and potentially the Presidency itself. Should Puerto Rico, voting on 1 June, have more delegates than half the American states, as the Democrats have assigned?

Neither Clinton nor Obama will raise this concern, of course, but unbiased observers ought to do so. In most conventions, the territorial votes are a harmless matter, but every now and then, the unintended consequences of their inclusion could become enormous.

This is, of course, an extremely controversial, as well as interesting, issue. What he is suggesting, basically, is that Puerto Rican participation, like DC's electoral vote or, to take a closer example, student representation on faculty appointments committees or university boards of trustees, is really intended to be only "symbolic," not actually having any operative importance. (This obviously turned out almost to be not true in 2000, but, thanks to the Supreme Court, DC's 3 electoral votes turned out to be, as no doubt intended, irrelevant.) At no point in the past has anyone really had to be concerned with Puerto Rico's views re the parties' nominees. This will certainly be the case with Puerto Rico's 14 delegates to the Republican convention. One can be absolutely confident that straight-talking John McCain will say absolutely nothing interesting about the future of the world's largest remaining colony, since he has no incentive to do so. And, of course, this will be true in the final election, when Puerto Rico will return to the shadows of American politics. To take up Prof. Sabato's criticism is, I believe, to say that Puerto Rico should indeed remain only in the shadows. But the American president, whoever he or she turns out to be, will, for better and for worse, be Puerto Rico's president as well. As of October 15, 2007, "an estimated 68 Puerto Ricans have given their lives for Bush’s war against terror." That is only one reason that they are every bit as entitled as anyone living in one of the states to have views on who should occupy that office.

Posted 5:40 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

As of October 15, 2007, "an estimated 68 Puerto Ricans have given their lives for Bush’s war against terror." That is only one reason that they are every bit as entitled as anyone living in one of the states to have views on who should occupy that office.

Hm. They would be entitled to "have views" regardless, wouldn't they?

If you really mean "have votes for delegates," then by your died-for-Bush's-war logic, delegates should also be elected in the UK, Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy, Poland, ....

# posted by

Anderson : 5:46 PM

Of course, every time the Puerto Ricans hold a plebiscite between statehood, independence and the status quo, the status quo always wins.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 6:06 PM

The status quo wins by default, since there are approximately 46-7% for statehood, 46-7% for commonwealth, and the remainder for independence. There is no reason at all to believe that this translates into happiness at having no representation whatsoever in the process by which they are governed by the national government.

And, with regard to Anderson's comment, it is indeed an interesting question, given the scope of the US president's decisionmaking powers, why those who are subject to being strongly affected by his/her decisions don't have some right to vote. Citizenship is a poor proxy for those who are affected. I'm not really advocating that everyone in the world get a vote for president, but we should recognize that an awful lot of people have a thoroughly legitimate interest in the outcomes of our elections and that their lives might be drastically affected by the outcomes. Think only of poor farmers in Africa who are the victims of our protectionist policies concerning agriculture.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 6:18 PM

As of October 15, 2007, "an estimated 68 Puerto Ricans have given their lives for Bush’s war against terror." That is only one reason that they are every bit as entitled as anyone living in one of the states to have views on who should occupy that office.

1) The United States is at war pursuant to the authority granted by a bipartisan super majority of both elected branches of the federal government, not at the whim of Mr. Bush.

2) The military actively recruits foreigners into the service from dozens of different countries whose citizens have no say in our military policy.

3) No one from Puerto Rico is compelled to serve. There is no draft. Like everyone else, Puerto Ricans get what they contracted for when they enlisted.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:03 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

The United States is at war pursuant to the authority granted by a bipartisan super majority of both elected branches of the federal government,...

Do they wear their underpands on the outside?

... not at the whim of Mr. Bush.

LOL. The Doofus-In-Chief, according to the Tales Of Bartdom: "Maaaaa!!! Those meanies maaadddeeee me do it!!!!"

This is why people think you're a complete cock-up, "Bart". You say things so completely oblivious of the real world that eventually people have a hard time believing anything you say, including the words "and" and "the"....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 8:42 PM

The complete phrase should be " ... not at the whim or caprice of Bush."

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 6:08 AM

1) The United States is at war pursuant to the authority granted by a bipartisan super majority of both elected branches of the federal government, not at the whim of Mr. Bush.

It wasn't the "bipartisan super majority of both elected branches of the federal government" who gave the order to invade, it was Bush.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:02 AM

Love is an untamed force. When we try to control it, it destroys us. When we try to imprison it, it enslaves us. When we try to understand it, it leaves us feeling lost and confused.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

# posted by

Unknown : 4:29 PM