Evelyn is a longtime family friend, Puerto Rican native, and scholar. She generously agreed to contribute a guest piece on the background of this issue and what the Puerto Rico Democracy Act would mean. -Adam
There have been a lot of questions abound after last week's House passage of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act about what it means. As a native and someone who is currently publishing a paper on the relationship of PR with the US, I thought the OpenLeft community would be interested in some background on the issue, current U.S. policy, and what the Act could do for Puerto Rico and the structure of the United States as a country.
Background
For decades the issue of Puerto Rico and its relationship with United States has been in debate before the United Nations in regards to the status quo (as a Commonwealth) as described and/or defined by the people of Puerto Rico and its Constitution; accepted and recognized by the United States as Estado Libre Asociado (in English, Free Associated State) since 1952. This topic has been discussed in the General Assembly of the United Nations in particular from the 1960's onward. In Resolution 1514, it was determined that in order for a nation not to be considered a colony it should have equal benefits in both parties involved (see here and here). That is not the case between Puerto Rico and the United States. Meaning, PR is not a State (we do not have equal benefits as other states have; Puerto Ricans cannot vote for the President of the US unless living in the US); it is not Free (because PR is not a Republic; our government is overseen by Congress, controlling trade, communication, transportation, the judiciary, etc.). Another example of this is that PR cannot trade with any country directly if not via the US. It is also not Associated (as defined by the UN) because it is in disadvantage, particularly economically. Since there are no such equal benefits in both countries, PR fits the definition of a colony.
More on why this is important and the politics of Puerto Rico around this issue, in the extended entry.
Hawaii, of course, is a state. And there's 600,000 Pacific Islanders on the mainland, along with 3.4 million Puerto Ricans, 1.2 million Cubans, 0.8 million Dominicans, and 1.7 million from the West Indies. So there's actually a large number of Pacific Islanders and Caribbean Americans who, if citizens, can vote in the United States federal elections and do have representation.
But Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands are all United States Territories, and they do not have voting representatives in Washington DC, nor can they participate in the electoral college. (Additional US Territories have populations ranging from none to a handful.)
On Tuesday, President Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor as his pick to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Sotomayor could be the first Latina appointed to the Supreme Court. Predictably, attacks and slurs from the Right are already flying. Regardless, Sotomayor would be an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, signaling to Latino/as that the White House is aware of our need for more representation in government.
Today, the Senate is debating amendments to the D.C. Voting Rights Act. The act will grant permanent, full voting rights to the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives, add a fourth Representative to Utah, increase overall membership in the House to 437 (from 435), and increase the number of electoral votes to 539 (538). It has achieved cloture, and is certain to pass.
During a time when we are expanding civil rights in America by granting D.C. full voting rights in the House, and when part of the great promise of our civil rights legislation is realized through President Obama, it is high time that the issue of Puerto Rican statehood receive more attention from the federal government. Puerto Rico has a population of over four million (3.8 million according to the 2000 census), which is larger than 24 states according to the 2000 census. To have such a large territory not receive full voting rights in the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and in Presidential elections is a travesty for our democracy. While Puerto Ricans do not have to pay income tax, and thus don't face the taxation without representation problem D.C. faced for so long, it is still inexcusable to deny the franchise to so many United States citizens.
Very important piece by labor journalist Steve Early. It discusses SEIU's union-busting campaign to destroy the progressive, militant Puerto Rican teachers union.
Teachers Remind SEIU That Unionism (in Puerto Rico) Means More Than PR
San Juan Showdown
By STEVE EARLY
San Juan, P.R.
Operating with its usual purple panache, controversial political ties, and a huge advertising budget, America's most Latino-friendly-union has been romancing San Juan all week long.
As the Clinton and Obama campaigns wrapped up their paid media assault on Democratic primary voters, the 1.7 million member Service Employees International Union (SEIU) continued its own PR offensive, laying the groundwork for an upcoming vote among 40,000 teachers. In that election, SEIU seeks to replace a militant independent federation as Puerto Rico's largest labor organization.
Attendees of the SEIU Convention in Puerto Rico are facing a protest encampment and multiple pickets by Puerto Rican teachers, parents and schoolchildren, furious at Andy Stern and his North American union for their efforts to bust a historic strike and take over the independent Puerto Rican Teachers Union (FMPR-Federacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico).
The Puerto Rican convention center hosting the Service Employees International Union's big confab is kind of an eerie cross between Superman's Fortress of Solitude and a prison in some isolated part of rural California. The entire complex was fenced in or gated off, with police and security guards posted at every entrance. Apparently the looming threat is the Puerto Rican teachers, whose union is known by its Spanish acronym FMPR. About 100 teachers gathered outside the convention center Saturday morning to protest SEIU's raid on their union (read the full story from the February Labor Notes). In January the FMPR was decertified by the Puerto Rican government for authorizing a strike. The decertification coincided with SEIU's announcement that they were affiliating a rival teacher union and making plans to scoop up Puerto Rico's 40,000 teachers.
CNN talking head reporting low turn out, and speculating that many voters there feel disenfranchised and don't think voting in the primary really makes up for being disenfranchised in the general.
Electoral-Vote has a good run down on the island. He's predicting 31C, 24O for the 55 pledged delegates at stake today. He also figured there would be large turn out, so the CNN report might call his predictions into question.
What do you think?
Update, 15:01 EST - CNN calls it for Clinton "by a wide margin." Exit polling seems to indicate support of Bill Clinton and support of statehood were big drivers in support of Hillary.
As Matt noted below, Obama is going to get crushed in West Virginia tonight. In fact, crushing victories look par for the course the rest of the way out:
Current polling projects that Obama only needs 42.5 superdelegate endorsements between now and June 3rd in order to clinch the nomination on June 4th, at least according to his campaign's count.
'
The Clinton campaign count doesn't help her that much, as Obama only needs 35.8% of the remaining superdelegates, Edwards delegates, and Michigan delegates in order to secure the nomination. It buys her time, but really only until June 15th, and does not change the outcome. Don't expect superdelegates to accept what will be a clearlybogus argument on the popular vote, either. And, as a final problem, one of her pledged delegates switched to Obama today.
Ah, I'll miss the nomination at a glance series. What are your predictions for tonight?
Back on Friday evening, I argued, in a fashion that would have made Michel Foucault proud, that there is no objective, "true," delegate count, but instead only the power each campaign possessed to make its delegate count a reality. In other words, the truth of delegate counts and the power over the selection and credentialing of, not to mention rule making for, delegates are interchangeable concepts. As such, my new goal in delegate counting is not to determine the "true" delegate count, but instead to accurately determine the delegate count being argued for, and kept by, both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. From that point, we will see who has enough power over the process in order to make their delegate count a reality.
Which leads to the following, dueling projections:
Democratic Nomination Delegate Projection
Type
Obama
Clinton
Edwards
Remaining
50% + 1
Obama Count
2,155
2,013
18
230
2,208
Clinton Count
2,070
1,999
37
310
2,208
The disparity in the "remaining" column in the two counts comes from the argument over Florida and Michigan. The Clinton campaign count currently leaves 45 Michigan pledged delegates (all PLEO and at-large), 21 Michigan superdelegates, and 14 Florida superdelegates in the undetermined column. The 45 Michigan pledged delegates will be determined at the state party convention on May 17th, and will allow Clinton to gain some ground in her count. The rest of the "remaining" column in both counts are non-add-on superdelegates from outside Florida and Michigan.
Since it is one of the few times I have been able to apply Michel Foucault to something outside of academia, I am enjoying this new post-modern delegate counting that eschews a belief in an objective delegate reality. Even so, I do actually have a personal preference on how Michigan and Florida should be decided. If I were in charge, I would seat Florida's pledged delegates as is, and seat the pledged delegates from Michigan Clinton 73-55 Obama. From that point, I would strip both states of their superdelegates. This way, the voters of the two states are not punished, but the superdelegates who are responsible putting both states in this mess are. I actually think that this should become the standard punishment for states that flout the primary calendar: keep the pledged delegates, but strip the superdelegates with no possibility of reinstatement. I also really like the idea of superdelegates whining that they should be seated at the convention. That would be an hilarious press conference.
With Clinton + Edwards coming within four delegates of Obama, the possibility of a convention fight looms. In order to avoid fights at the credentials committee, rules committee, or floor of the convention, it is important for Obama to secure the as many of the 28 remaining uncommitted delegates from Michigan as possible, and to improve on the delegate projections for states and territories yet to hold nominating contests. It is also important that the remaining superdelegates commit to a candidate, just as almost every primary voter or caucus goer has already had to commit to a candidate. I still don't see a way for Clinton to pass Obama, short of Edwards moving his delegates to her in a block. Remarkable that Edwards still has an important role to play in the campaign, even at this late date.
STATE BLOGS
