Alaska and Hawaii were admitted by acts of Congress.
But it’s a dangerous issue for the Republicans to take a stand on. If the Democrats propose a Puerto Rican statehood bill and the Republicans oppose it, the Democrats can play that as an anti-Hispanic vote. And the Republicans know they’re in danger of losing too many Hispanic voters to the Democrats.
Texas was not admitted by treaty. Supporters of a treaty of annexation were unable to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority in the US Senate. Texas was admitted by joint resolution, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
Given modern legal complexity, the admission of Puerto Rico would no doubt require a statute, as did Alaska and Hawaii. The procedure is of course the same–passage by both houses of Congress and signature by the President.
Regarding the size of the US House, we haven’t admitted a “large” (>1 rep) state since the size of the House was fixed at 435 members. I suspect that other states would be sufficiently reluctant to lose seats at the next census (it annoys incumbents) so that Congress would permanently increase the size of the House. Perhaps there would even be a long-overdue debate over whether 435 or even 440 members is still the appropriate size.
Texas is not relevant here. As a federal territory, Puerto Rico can be admitted by an act of Congress. In order for that to happen, they’d have to write a Constitution that Congress approves of. (I have no idea if their current Constitution would pass muster, but it might.)
Why?
I think it would be great. Diversity is America’s strength; fully incorporating Puerto Rico makes America better. Also abstractly I’m not keen on in-between-status territories. All-in, or go your own way.
Republicans have already lost a remarkable amount of demographic ground here, with trends only going against them in the future–unless they somehow reinvent themselves in relation to Hispanic citizens (as all Puerto Ricans already are, of course).
If they think Puerto Rican statehood, or Spanish-speaking Americans, constitute an insane idea, some kind of threat to America–well, that characterization by Democrats would be accurate.
The Republicans are getting progressively nuttier. At this point I don’t think that “they’d never do that; it would be stupid/crazy” is an argument that holds water when in comes to them.
Exactly how certain is it that PR would align strongly Democratic? After all, isn’t it a primarily-Catholic country? And don’t Catholics frequently align with Republican platforms due to the abortion debate?
We have a lot of Hispanic vote here in Texas (and lots of Spanish speaking American citizens as well) and Texas usually swings Republican… I’m just curious, has anyone seen any data that would support the assumption that PR would be an absolute Democratic windfall in the House and Senate?
It does seem to me that it would make more sense to just add 4 more House seats to support PR’s population if it is admitted, rather than water down some other state’s voting power… Especially when the “2 senators per state” rule seems hard-and-fast. I guess they must have capped the House member numbers for a reason (I agree that a House of 30,000 voting members would get unwieldy) but adding a measly little four seats just this once doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.
It’s not like the US adds new states to the Union every other week or something. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime event nowadays. (If indeed it EVER comes to pass again.)
OR
Let’s assume PR is entitled to 5 Reps. Congress could increase the size of the House to 440 permanantly.
Strictly speaking, the voting power of (at least some) states must be ‘watered down’ either way. There’s no way to represent more people without proportionally reducing the influence of (at least some of) those already represented.
The House chamber has 448 seats–actual, physical seats. I believe 441 are presently spoken for, counting the six non-voting delegates. So there’s room to welcome a few more without renovations.
Moderator Note
Peremensoe and Der Trihs, political jabs are not permitted in GQ. No warning issued, but don’t do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
It wasn’t meant as a jab, but apologies.
Since this is a sensitive subject for me, I’ll limit myself, but I need to answer a few misconceptions.
Puerto Rico has a constitution that was approved by the US Congress in 1950. In fact, there are parts that were originally in our constitution that were thrown out in order for the rest to be approved.
I don’t think the trade situation will change any between US and Puerto Rico, if PR becomes a state. There is already as much free trade situation as there could be.
Most of the politicians in Puerto Rico that support statehood are also Republicans, including the current governor who just lost his re-election yesterday (yea, we had general elections yesterday too).
Lastly, the ballot (separate from the candidates’ ballot) had two questions in it. One was if the current status was what they wanted, and in that, the clear majority wrote “No”, with very few of those who went to vote leaving the whole ballot blank.
The second question, though, was asking for which type of status preferred. Although statehood “won” in that question, overall, it received less than half the total numbers. A very significant portion of those who answered the first question (either a yes or a no) left the second question blank.
Oops, had been reading mostly Elections threads and didn’t realize where this was. Sorry.
Isn’t foolsguinea’s original “insane” charge at least as much a ‘jab’ as the response to it?
Anyone know why the vote went this way? Personally I’m in favor of whatever the populace of PR chooses, just curious what led to the change.
Taking your premise at face value, I think there’d still be enough Republicans who would vote in favor, out of their own best interest, even if the Party leadership were opposed. Much more than the number of Democrats who would have some reason to oppose it.
Admission requires only an Act of Congress, through common legislation. When, if or how Congress addresses such a petition is strictly a Political Question. The current Commonwealth Constitution could be the one for the state with minimal amendments: adding Congressional Districts to the section reapportionment, and retitling the official name of the entity in the Spanish version.
What she said.
The institutional pro-statu-quo leadership called for ignoring the second question. Yet blanks on Q2 are substantially less than the yes-to-statu-quo votes in Q1 so a nontrivial number of pro-enhanced-autonomy and pro-statehood voters marked a “yes” to current statu-quo out of concern that they want a change but don’t want it quite yet.
Also:
Under the Federal Relations Act, with the exception of taxation it is already treated as a state for domestic commerce.
SOME NUMBERS ON THE PR ELECTION:
Election night in PR was the sort of exciting all-nighter we could do without. Had to work the War Room straight round-the-clock until 7 am today. Have been in that awful state where all the coffee I had to take over the night is preventing me from properly crashing. I should definitely not operate heavy machinery.
As mentioned, in spite of the win of Statehood in a ballot question political status, the pro-statehood New Progressive Party(NPP), incumbent in all branches, was upset by the pro-statu-quo Popular Democratic Party(PDP).
The vote margins were narrow, but very broadly distributed, and included a very unexpected upset of the mayor of the largest city (San Juan) resulting in a broad switch of party domination of both executive and legislative branches, though with a high potential of recount challenges.
The one major retained NPP seat was that of Congressional Delegate Pedro Pierluissi, probably reflecting the result in favor of statehood in the downballot question. However it has already been announced by the presumptive Governor-elect that there will be no support for pushing statehood from the administration, whose official position was to denounce the question as not valid.
Today mid-morning with 95% of returns in:
Governor Luis Fortuño, a supposed national Republican rising figure, loses to challenger Alejandro Garcia-Padilla, who just affiliated D and latched on to Obama this last cycle, 873K-858K, barely outside the margin for forced recount.
Congressional Delegate Pedro Pierluissi (caucuses with the Democrats) held off his challenger, 877K-857K, suggesting a high number of split ballots at the top of the ticket.
The Senate races stood at 18 PDP, 8 NPP, 1 PIP; with two seats possibly subject to changes depending on the detailed tally of absentee/special ballots and wards pending report, that would at best make it 17/10
The House races stood at 28 PDP, 23 NPP, with up to 5 races that could be sent into recount if the special ballots/missing wards broke strong the other way but that’s a longshot.
On the Political Status question:
Question 1 – whether to retain the statu quo or change it, Change was ahead 54%/46%, 934K/796K
Question 2 – on alternatives: Statehood 802K, 61%; Devolving sovereignty to the Commonwealth 437K, 33%; Independence 72K, 5.5%; left blank 468K – the latter reflecting the call of the statu quo establishment to NOT express preference for an alternative.
So what if there’s a split and we have Puerto Rico Norte and Puerto Rico Sud? 
I suppose it would have to be a clear referendum question for statehood, but this will definitely stir the pot, won’t it?
Any movement to make DC a state? I’m sure it would appreciate 2 senators.
Wow, I’m surprised.
I’d be interested to hear a short summary of the argument for statehood. As I understand it, they currently pay no US Federal income tax. What would statehood bring that would compensate for a big increase in the tax burden for individuals?
I was lucky enough to visit PR once as a youth, and loved it. I hope to visit again. I support whatever the Puerto Ricans choose for themselves.
There was really not a change (compared to the last time this was done). Of the total people who went yesterday to vote (or who voted absentee like me), and who according to the results, voted for at least one other candidate, there was a minority who did not vote at all on this ballot, which was separate from the other ballots but given at the same time. Also, this ballot had TWO questions in the same ballot. So a tiny minority who voted for some other candidate (or at least make the whole line and did everything to go vote), left the whole ballot blank.
Of the majority that did vote in this ballot, most of them (over half) said they did not like the current status. This was the first question. The vast majority of those who voted for other candidates answered this question.
Now, the second question on the ballot was about the type of status preferred. A very significant portion of people left this question blank, although this was less than the number of people who voted “yes” to the previous question. It is in this question that statehood “wins”, but again, if you count all the votes, statehood has less than half the votes of the total number of people who went voting.
An example of possible scenarios for those who voted on this ballot:
-
Leave both blank, but vote for other candidates (very few did this)
-
Answer “yes” to the first one, don’t answer the second question.
-
Answer “no” to the first question, don’t answer the second question.
-
Answer “yes” to the first question, but also answer with one of the other options.
-
Answer “no” to the first question, and then select one of the options.
There is no breakdown (so far) that shows, of those who voted “no” on the first one, if they also selected “statehood” in the other one. There is a possibility that some who voted “yes” on the first question may have also selected “statehood” in the second question.
And back to the original question, of the total number of people who actually got in line and went to vote, less than half voted for statehood (whether they voted “yes” or “no” to the first question).
The tax part is ignored mostly. Non-economically, of course, and one of the few good objective reasons for statehood is that PR people would be able to vote in Congress and have a voice in who is in the White House and sends their young men and women to war. Puerto Ricans have participated in all the major wars the US is in, but they have never been able to vote for the President who authorizes sending them there. Also, every federal applies and takes presedence in PR over a state law. Hence, even though PR would be an anti-abortion place (maybe, I hope eventually no), thanks to Roe vs Wade, abortion is legal there.
Tax burdens are not mentioned at all, and in fact, the opposite has been widely said and promoted by even the same pro-statehood party and its leaders at various times. That if PR is a state, the poor will receive even more benefits, and we could get access to even more benefits from the federal government.