John Oliver on why U.S. territories don’t have full voting rights
This was a real eye-opener. U.S. citizens in at least some of the territories have a higher portion of the population who are either currently serving in the military or are veterans yet can not vote in U.S. elections.
Consider it a preview of a talking point. Suffix it with “And this is why we need a National White Person Voter ID in this country.” if that helps. You want 2020 to at least be competitive, right?
This is news? It’s the way the constitution was written. It took a constitutional amendment (the 23rd) to give residents of the District of Columbia a vote for President, and they still have no Senators or Representatives.
The territories are not states, and thus have no constitutional standing for voting in federal elections. Oliver is not telling the full story.
This is not really relevant to voting. Incorporated territories do not get presidential electors or voting representation in Congress either.
Beyond that, they could (mostly) just become states if they wanted to. Puerto Rico has a statehood plebiscite every 10 years or so but always vote down statehood because they don’t want to pay federal income taxes.
That is also my belief.
No other territory has had any such chance of seeking statehood though.
Yup. It’s the way the system’s organized, not some sort of sketchy brown person disenfranchisement scheme. If I had to guess, it’s because all of the territories today are war spoils (Spanish-American war, WW 2) and there wasn’t really any intention of integrating them into the US. Puerto Rico keeps refusing statehood anyway- if they’re not a state, they don’t have to pay income tax (no taxation without representation, I suppose).
Guam has scheduled several plebiscite on its “national status” options. Apparently, they keep getting cancelled because nobody is registering to vote in them. Congress has authorized funding for similar plebiscites (and related voter education drives) in the other territories.
American Samoa is something of an outlier, though.
No representation without taxation.
This has two parts: I wish I were not too busy today to go in more detail but, as to the whole thing about us “voting down statehood to not pay taxes”, suffice to say there has never been a truly legally binding vote on it, those have always been part of a multiple-choice ballot, and the last few times the results were at best inconclusive; plus, on the tax side, once you do the net accounting of federal vs local credits, most of us would likely end up with about the same personal tax load – corporations of course are another tale, and they can pay more for ads and lobbyists.
In any case the argument about the vote that has been mentioned is mostly over whether the vote and representation at the federal level is an endowment of the individual citizens of the USA or of the citizenry as the polities of the states; that is more along the lines of the Electoral College vs. Popular Vote debate, when you think about it.
The second part is that yes, until Downes v. Bidwell, the Territories since the Northwest Ordinance had merely been divided into Unorganized and Organized, based on whether a formal local government and subdivisions had been put in place. The distinction of Incorporated vs. Unincorporated was a pure act of “Legislating from the Bench” in order to distinguish those 1898-99 acquisitions that were seen as not susceptible to being settled and assimilated with a view to make them become states some day, but just strategically sought as forward bases and extraction colonies. However, the records of the time DO indicate that this WAS influenced by how the peoples of the new possessions were seen as unsuited to become “real Americans” due to their ethnic and religious backgrounds and it DID create a “separate but equal” situation by which the “Incorporated Territories” would be considered irreversibly a part of the US homeland with a reasonable expectation of stewardship towards statehood, while the “unincorporated” would be sort of left hanging there as a mere possesion until further notice, or eventual divestiture (Phillippines).
Today the last Incorporated Territory is deserted Palmyra Island, which somehow was left outside the state of Hawaii. So on one of the issues, the point becomes whether the US should maintain the by now largely academic fiction of Incorporated vs. Unincorporated, with the stench of Plessy and of White Man’s Burden imperialism that underlay the doctrine, or the presumption that one word means your future defaults to eventual statehood. It can be argued that, for instance, all the federal legislation applied to Puerto Rico AFTER 1952 has had the effect of de-facto “incorporating” us in all but name, as for all everyday legal and practical purposes we function as a (flat broke) State except for the vote/representation and uniform taxes.
On the other point, that of the federal voting franchise being individual, that is a harder constitutional nut to crack. Unlike other federations the US contemplates one and only one class of Federal Constituency, the “several states” – there are no tiers of subcategory with different representation level. Mainland citizens temporarily abroad get to vote as absentees of the state which remains their US domicile of record, but if they move to one of the territories and officially change their residence there, they are as disenfranchised as us natives.
CGP Grey has an amusing video on the division of states, territories, and classes of territories here: American Empire - YouTube
Never mind voting, there was once a Letter to the Editor in the Bangkok Post from a Thai decrying the fact that non-citizens could not run for US President. Heart-felt, passionate, it was painfully obvious the writer believed with all his heart that Americans were just waiting for a Thai to run so they could vote for him. Must have been a slow week on the Letters desk.
Well, there are some… “job” creation… opportunities that could be promised to be brought from Thailand to US cities, y’know.
Getting away from the hijack: voting by noncitizen residents was once more common, but at the start of the 20th Century there was a trend to limit it due to the large numbers of immigrants. In this more mobile age it is still a reasonable requirement. I can understand, though, the feeling that long-time lawful residence should make for an easier, cheaper transition.
Not necessarily. How’s his English? Can he pass the civics exam? Does he have a law enforcement history that disqualifies him? Does he owe outstanding taxes or child support? Is he willing to swear that he would perform military service in time of war, or alternate civilian service?
One friend of mine had his citizenship application held up because he couldn’t document that he was paying child support to his ex in the Old Country ( because he paid by sending cash via traveling friends, rather than wire transfers that were taxed at 70% because Belarus was insane).
I had my citizenship application denied because my face was too big in the passport photo. It sat dormant for a year and then they sent it back with my money order. That was eight years ago and I haven’t gotten around to refiling yet.
Have you tried going on a diet?
*Now *you tell us.
I sometimes wonder about that, when I see some of the letters my local newspaper prints. :o
Anyway, I hadn’t seen any posts from her for a few days (she hardly ever goes a day without posting pictures of her grandchildren, most of whom live with her) and I found out she unfriended me! :rolleyes: Oh, well, it’s just Facebook.
Sorry, I only just saw this. Really not all that Bright put it succinctly - for centuries Lords didn’t need a vote because they had seats in Parliament directly, and until recent centuries had a powerful stake in budgets. Now it’s entirely Commons-only, but the principle of non-voting Lords has remained.
A Lord who does not sit in the House, however (such as the majority of hereditary peers removed in 1999, or Members that have retired from the House) gain the right to vote for the Commons, however.