# Puerto Rico Status Vote, 11 Jun 2017 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 11, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691 "2017-06-11T15:06:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**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:** [June 11, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/1 "2017-06-11T15:06:20Z")
Since the most recent thread on the matter is in GQ, I felt that FWIW rather than bump that I’ll make one for this event specifically in case anyone has interest in the results or feels like inserting opinion. But first, some Recapitulating - bear with me, for the benefit of those who may be new: Currently PR is a US Territory with a form of limited Home Rule styled “The Commonwealth” that has a government very similar to a state but is subordinate to Congress’ authority; has birthright citizenship but no presidential vote and no vote in the floor of Congress, and though exempt from Federal Income Tax is heavily taxed in other modes and receives only limited, capped federal funding. Years of fiscal mismanagement has led the Congress to create as of last year an Oversight Board that is in the process of restructuring, essentially the Commonwealth is in bankruptcy court by another name. Nobody really likes things as they are, and pro/anti-statehood is the local political parties’ alignment (thus preventing a true alignment of parties on gorvernance policy lines) so every so often there is a _locally called_ vote to see if there’s any movement in any direction. (That is important to point out: _ **The US Congress has NOT, EVER put up to the voters in Puerto Rico a multichoice or Y/N vote on statehood/independence/reformed commonwealth with their commitment to honor it. The ONLY Congress-sanctioned votes in PR ever were in the early 50s as a Y/N to move from straight colonial rule to the current constitution.** _) So in 2012 there was the latest one, and it was desgined as a two-parter: First Part: Keep the statu quo, yes or no? NO won with 54% Second Part: If there were to be a change, what would you choose? Of those who marked a choice, the result was: (A) Statehood = 61% (B) Outright Independence = 5% (C) Free/Sovereign Association = 33% (where the entity is UN recognized as sovereign but an agreement is made to have some functions e.g. defense, posts, monetary carried out by the partner country) HOWEVER: though there were **half a million more votes in the 2d question than voted “NO” on the first** , there were \*\*also \*\*over 470,000 ballots that went blank in the second question, **and it was NOT tabulated how many of the 2nd question answerers had answered what in the first!** This has led to questioning what weight if any should that vote have (is it really 61% or is it really 44% if you count blanks as a protest?). On top of it as usual the major local party that favors the statu quo raised bloody hell that they were not allowed to define it on their terms, and that a “fair” election should mean that it should be called “The Commonwealth” on the ballot so they can campaign for it without in any way implying there’s anything wrong with it. Having promised to do something about the issue in their first term and failed to deliver, the Obama Admin signed a bill in the 113th Congress in which the carrot of federal funds was dangled subject to the next ballot containing choices and definitions worded so as to be compatible with the US Constitution, laws and policies, as vetted by DoJ. Political adversaries say Obama did not act in his first term because the then pro-statehood Puerto Rico Governor was a neocon Republican darling of the stateside GOP Hispanic outreach. More likely he just had other things like the economic meltdown, ACA, killing BinLaden and the Tea Party to occupy his attention. Then in 2012 the island administration got replaced with an ANTI-statehood party, who did not lift a finger to take on the offer. In 2016 SCOTUS had a couple of cases in which they ruled that “the Commonwealth” has no sovereignty of its own, its powers are purely devolved by Congress and what is given can be taken away. So this year a pro-statehood majority is again in power, and decided to take on the offer and that in view of those rulings, the alternative of “keep statu quo” was mooted, and set up for today a vote that originally was to be: Statehood vs. Separate Sovereignty (as either Independence or Free Association) If the latter choice prevailed, then a runoff in October as ot the form. Then they sent it to be vetted by DoJ. And they ran into a wee bit of an issue. Let me quote myself… > [@Puerto Rico statehood -- how would it work?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-statehood-how-would-it-work/786500/23): > > 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. DoJ’s reasoning on (1) being apparently that the statu quo IS constitutional and legal and the court ruling did not change that – it may suck and be a subjugated condition but the Constitution and Laws do allow it to exist, it’s true. The pro-statu-quo-ers position is that if they do not get to campaign on promoting their vision for enhancing and improving it, it’s a trick to create a fake majority. Now up to see what happens today. Heading out to vote, will probably be quite a bit later than I get back to this. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/2 "2017-06-11T16:26:28Z")
I’m very curious to see how this vote goes and I appreciate your views and the clarity you bring to a very complicated situation, **JR**. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/3 "2017-06-11T19:06:49Z")
So given the boycotts, how much campaigning have you seen? I think this vote pretty much snuck up on the rest of the country. Lol. And seriously, boycotting because you don’t get to put an aspirational message on the ballot? Wtf? That’s what the campaign is for. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/4 "2017-06-11T19:35:10Z")
If its a clear majority (say 3/4ths) do you think the US Congress will then move to grant Statehood. IIRC Trump has said he would support Statehood. ---
**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:** [June 11, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/5 "2017-06-11T19:43:21Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So given the boycotts, how much campaigning have you seen? I think this vote pretty much snuck up on the rest of the country. Lol. > > And seriously, boycotting because you don’t get to put an aspirational message on the ballot? Wtf? That’s what the campaign is for. 1. Very little until the last month and mostly the last 2 weeks. And largely so the pro-statehood voters will bother to show up: off-year non-election votes here and everywhere tend to be low-turnout events and without a horse race you depress total turnout further. Not only that, but with the boycott, the opposition has NOT sent their own poll watchers to the stations and one of them has already decreed that any turnout over 25% will be purely ballot-box stuffing. 2. The statute and case law here requires that in plebiscites and referenda (as opposed to elections for office) the ballot spot contain an abstract of what specifically is it you are voting for or against(\*). The statu-quo-ers refused to participate unless (a) the box said the word “Commonwealth”, (b) they got to draft the included text something that i suppose would be roughly like “By this vote I express that what we have is actually a tremendous, happenin’, swell thing, and call upon the government to Make The Commonwealth Great Again” 😃 and (c) the vote was delayed. So the under the boxes for each choice what appears today is: A: Statehood > [@](#): > > With my ‬vote, I reiterate ‬my request to ‬the ‬Federal‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ Government to immediately begin the process for the decolonization of Puerto Rico with the admission of Puerto Rico as a state of the United States of America. ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬I am aware that the result of this request for Statehood would ‬entail ‬equal ‬ ‬rights ‬and ‬ duties ‬ with ‬ the ‬other‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ states‬, and ‬the ‬permanent ‬union of‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ Puerto Rico with the United States of America. I am also aware that my vote claiming Statehood means my support to all effort towards the admission of Puerto Rico as a state of the Union, and to all state or federal legislation aimed at establishing equal conditions, congressional representation and the presidential vote for the American citizens of Puerto Rico. B: Independence/Free Association (\*\*) : > [@](#): > > With my vote, I make the initial request to the Federal Government to begin the process of the decolonization through either: (1) Free Association: Puerto Rico should adopt a status outside of the Territory Clause of the Constitution of the United States that recognizes the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico as a complete and unencumbered Independence. The Free Association would be based on a free and voluntary political association, the specific terms of which shall be agreed upon between the United States and Puerto Rico as sovereign nations. Such agreement would provide the scope of the jurisdictional powers that the People of Puerto Rico agree to confer to the United States and retain all other jurisdictional powers and authorities. Or; (2) Proclamation of Independence, I demand that the United States Government, in the exercise of its power to dispose of territory, recognize the national sovereignty of Puerto Rico as a completely independent nation and that the United States Congress enact the necessary legislation to initiate the negotiation and transition to the independent nation of Puerto Rico. My vote for Independence also represents my claim to the rights, duties, powers, and prerogatives of independent and democratic republics, my support of Puerto Rican citizenship, and a “Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation” between Puerto Rico and the United States after the transition process. C: Current Territorial Status: > [@](#): > > With my vote, I express my wish that Puerto Rico remains, as it is today, subject to the powers of the Congress and subject to the Territory Clause of the United States Constitution that in Article IV, Section 3 states: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State”. (\* IMO this is one of the things that bogs down the process, as the political classes then proceed to try and front-load the question with things that may or may not survive a process of negotiation.) The position of the statu-quo-ers is, paraphrasing of course, \*Get serious, man, we are NOT going to defend a ballot choice presented as “This Turd Sandwich”. \* (\*\* As mentioned earlier, if this choice prevailed, there would be a second vote to choose which mode of sovereignty to seek) ---
**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:** [June 11, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/6 "2017-06-11T20:50:06Z")
Polls closed 3pm local. Now 4:50 local Prelim Results: Less than 24% turnout (a round 500K), 95%+ statehood votes. The boycott held. > [@AK84](#): > > If its a clear majority (say 3/4ths) do you think the US Congress will then move to grant Statehood. > > IIRC Trump has said he would support Statehood. As things stand now, politically unlikely. ---
**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:** [June 11, 2017, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/7 "2017-06-11T21:44:55Z")
The turnout of statehooders is a relief to the faction in the sense that at least people showed up. As it stands now it’s 97% statehood, 1.5% sovereignty, 1.33% statu quo, with 23 to 24% turnout. Should be like 525-540K total votes. As to the political viability in Congress, the hard-right ultracon Repubs and some of the Luis Gutierrez type Dems will be unmoved and point to the boycott as meaning 75% of the voters don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/8 "2017-06-12T00:51:06Z")
Why does the boycott invalidate the referendum? Unless the Puerto Rico constitution requires a certain turnout for an election to be valid, the result should stand. If you choose not to vote, you give up your say in the process. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/9 "2017-06-12T01:10:48Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Why does the boycott invalidate the referendum? > Unless the Puerto Rico constitution requires a certain turnout for an election to be valid, the result should stand. The referendum isn’t binding on the US Congress that has to take action to move the process forward. The result that would stand is the request for statehood. Like JR pointed to if most residents don’t care enough to vote, Congress can just choose to not care enough to do anything with the request. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/10 "2017-06-12T01:19:23Z")
Isn’t voter turnout in Puerto Rico usually quite high? Like way above the American average? This low a turnout, I feel, is quite incorrect to call “not caring” and more reasonably called a boycott. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/11 "2017-06-12T02:47:49Z")
Again, why boycott an election? Do they think the counting is so fraudulent as to be untrustworthy? Here on the mainland, if we boycotted elections, the winners would just say, “Well, you should have voted. Now we can put the screws to you.” ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/12 "2017-06-12T03:42:02Z")
I think the territories such as Puerto Rico would be better off as states. I’d like to see it happen. ---
**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:** [June 12, 2017, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/13 "2017-06-12T03:43:14Z")
True, **foolsguinea**. But that works if the winners are those in a position to put the screws on. This is not the case here. There is no supermajority or minimum turnout requirement, but the US Congress’ tacit position for decades, aggravatingly, has been “you guys achieve a unified consensus first, then we’ll talk, mind you we guarantee or promise nothing”. The point of the boycotters, is to be able to go to Congress with their lobbyists to say “Don’t take that vote seriously, it was loaded to one side from the start, you don’t know if that majority’s real, there is no consensus.” Congress is NOT chomping at the bit to admit us, never mind GOP campaign rhetoric – they support statehood in their platform but consistently avoid doing anything to bring it about. Not one has cosponsored the latest bill. And as I said the main claim is not about fraudulence in the counting (due to the turnout) but about that a segment of the population was denied competing on favorable terms. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/14 "2017-06-12T03:50:01Z")
I don’t see Puerto Rico becoming a state as a result if this vote. Maybe it could lead to a Congressionally sanctioned vote in the near future though (say 2018 or 2020). > [@octopus](#): > > I think the territories such as Puerto Rico would be better off as states. I’d like to see it happen. For Puerto Rico I agree; for the smaller territories like the USVI or Guam not so much. I’d support amending the Constitution to allow their delegates to the US House of Representatives full voting powers. ---
**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:** [June 12, 2017, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/15 "2017-06-12T03:57:00Z")
Also, the local “Deep State” and our Cultural/Academic/establishments are overwhelmingly immobilist, themselves fully buying in on that nothing should happen unless there is vast consensus. (To further hinder statehood, our cultural/academic establishment is also majoritarily Identity Nationalistic to boot) ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/16 "2017-06-12T04:20:55Z")
Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, not a territory. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/17 "2017-06-12T04:27:14Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, not a territory. “Commonwealth” is a title, not an actual type of government. The Northern Mariana Islands is also a “commonwealth” but is structured very differently, because “commonwealth” is a meaningless term. There are also several states that use the word, but it’s just as meaningless there. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/18 "2017-06-12T06:38:02Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > There is no supermajority or minimum turnout requirement, but the US Congress’ tacit position for decades, aggravatingly, has been “you guys achieve a unified consensus first, then we’ll talk, mind you we guarantee or promise nothing”. The point of the boycotters, is to be able to go to Congress with their lobbyists to say “Don’t take that vote seriously, it was loaded to one side from the start, you don’t know if that majority’s real, there is no consensus.” But it looks like a consensus to me. If there were no boycott it would not look like a consensus, if the results followed the polls, with statehood probably only obtaining a slim majority. I wouldn’t have supported statehood in that situation, because I dislike making undergoing major changes without a firm majority (see: Brexit), but now there is a firm majority, so I do support statehood. ---
**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:** [June 12, 2017, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/19 "2017-06-12T11:49:53Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > “Commonwealth” is a title, not an actual type of government. The Northern Mariana Islands is also a “commonwealth” but is structured very differently, because “commonwealth” is a meaningless term. There are also several states that use the word, but it’s just as meaningless there. Right, PL 81-600 that created the current constitutional arrangement did not say it was to “establish the Commonwealth”, that is just the formal name that the body politic that emerged from that process adopted for itself, and is used as efficient shorthand to refer to the current status. SCOTUS has reaffirmed that it may be “not just any other territory” but it is one nonetheless. (That itself is kind of tautological. There is no uniform Federal Unincorporated Territories Act so every one of them has a different Act in place about what their federal-territorial relation look like.) > [@Ludovic](#): > > But it looks like a consensus to me. If there were no boycott it would not look like a consensus, if the results followed the polls, with statehood probably only obtaining a slim majority. I wouldn’t have supported statehood in that situation, because I dislike making undergoing major changes without a firm majority (see: Brexit), but now there is a firm majority, so I do support statehood. From you lips to the Congress’ ears – though as I mentioned, I am not hopeful about _this_ Congress. The boycotters also have an \*internal \*purpose in this, obviously, this is going to be used to rally up the anti-statehood base with the 2020 election in mind, they are counting on a failure of Congress to do jacksquat about it (and on associating it with Trump if he does not change his mind) to demoralize the pro-statehood base. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691/20 "2017-06-12T12:34:26Z")
Would Puerto Rican statehood be like a normal bill, requiring the House, Senate and President’s signature? My googling has surprisingly failed on this. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puerto-rico-status-vote-11-jun-2017/788691.md?page=2)