# Puerto Rico statehood -- how would it work?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-statehood-how-would-it-work/786500>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [May 13, 2017, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-statehood-how-would-it-work/786500 "2017-05-13T01:38:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 23

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-statehood-how-would-it-work/786500/23 "2017-05-13T14:38:51Z")

</div>

Added, because it does have a factual:

> [@OldGuy](#):
>
> Not really true. In the last vote  
> 46% voted in favor of the status quo  
> of those who voted ‘no’  
> 61% voted for statehood  
> 33% voted for free association  
> 5% voted for independence
> 
> half a million ballots that voted no left this selection blank causing lots of confusion
> 
> This year’s vote is  
> Statehood  
> independence/free association
> 
> if the latter wins there will be a second referendum between those two. Now “free association” is sort of the status quo, but not exactly as per the previous vote. I wouldn’t be at all surprised for statehood to win the upcoming referendum

Actually Free Association was defined as not the statu quo, but a variant of national sovereignty.

However, there was a requirement that in order to use 2.5M in federal elections dollars for this, they needed to have it vetted by US DoJ. In Mid-April US DoJ proceeded to issue a memo to the effect that what was presented was not satisfactory and recommended:

(a) that the alternative of remaining in territorial statu quo be reintroduced – with the strong suggestion that the ballot question NOT imply it’s an offer from Congress to grant an enhancement or expansion of autonomy, as in DoJ’s opinion that would be unconstitutional, but simply a choice to stand pat.

(b) that it be expunged from the statehood definition that it 's the only alternative that ensures birthright US citizenship, as it already exists under the statu quo.

(c) that it be clarified that Free Association\* as it is recognized by the USA \*is a form of Separate Nationhood Sovereignty, NOT an enhancement of the “commonwealth”, and that language be expunged from the ballot definition that would suggest it would include an offer to countenance continuing birthright citizenship.

The local administration has proceeded to reword the ballot question strictly as per the DoJ Memo, including presenting alternative (a) as “territorial statu quo” and not using the word “commonwealth”. Of course even with this change now there’s likely no time for the vetting to happen again to get the funds, so it will be held fully at our own cost.

As a result of these events ALL the anti-statehood political parties have announced they will boycott the vote; the independentists because including statu quo means it’s not really a decolonizing vote, the statu-quo-ers because it does not allow them to write an aspirational definition of their alternative.

ETA: **AK84** - as things stand right now, it would look very likely, but with a high rate of abstention tainting its political weight. Under the original wording I’d have placed Statehood into at least the high 60s depending on how the turnout machinery moved.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-statehood-how-would-it-work/786500)._