Gov. Pedro Pierluisi: ‘Puerto Rico will be the first truly Hispanic state’

[GMDino]

I found two links that show DC would be the 3rd least populated state despite its incredibly small size.

https://www.infoplease.com/us/states/state-population-by-rank
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states

The first link, in keeping with the original topic, says PR would be just above Iowa at #30.

I am assuming the numbers at those links are permanent residents.

If Wyoming and Vermont get two senators with fewer residents to represent I don't see why DC could not.

And I'm not even arguing for statehood for them.  I'm not smart enough to know the best way to get them the representation I think they should have as citizens.  I'm just saying that if we give states two senators and DC becomes a state and they get two senators they are in line with the bottom five states population wise.

Edit to add the question: What makes a state? Landmass? Population? Other?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-11-2021, 03:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: I found two links that show DC would be the 3rd least populated state despite its incredibly small size.

https://www.infoplease.com/us/states/state-population-by-rank
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states

The first link, in keeping with the original topic, says PR would be just above Iowa at #30.

I am assuming the numbers at those links are permanent residents.

If Wyoming and Vermont get two senators with fewer residents to represent I don't see why DC could not.

And I'm not even arguing for statehood for them.  I'm not smart enough to know the best way to get them the representation I think they should have as citizens.  I'm just saying that if we give states two senators and DC becomes a state and they get two senators they are in line with the bottom five states population wise.

This is a facile argument as D.C. is not a state.  I don't care if their population was 15 million, it wouldn't change that fact.  You're raising an irrelevancy with the population argument.

[GMDino]

So to follow up on my own question of what parameters should be used:

https://www.legislativeprocedure.com/blog/2020/10/23/the-procedures-for-adding-states-to-the-union

Quote:There has been renewed public interest in bringing Puerto Rico into the Union as a new state in recent years. While the statehood question has long structured territorial politics in Puerto Rico, Hurricane Maria in 2017 convinced many Puerto Rico and the United States citizens that territorial status was to blame for the perceived lackluster federal response.


Meanwhile, increasing partisan hardball in Congress has many Democrats eyeing statehood for Puerto Rico (and Washington, DC) as an opportunity to shift the balance of power in the United States Senate and national politics.  
   
As a procedural matter, how are new states created?

The short answer is that Congress passes a federal law. The admission of new states is governed by Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, which reads:

Quote:“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

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.”

Although various detailed plans for structuring the statehood process were considered both before the adoption of the Constitution and as revisions to it in the 19th century, the Framers went with a plan that did not constitutionally constrain either the size of new states or set a population threshold required for admission. Nor did they require any supermajority procedures. In effect, they made it surprisingly easy to add new states. Creating a new state is arguably the only irreversible process in the entire Constitution. Yet, it requires no more than federal law to achieve it.


And it was immediately and always controversial. Throughout the 19th century, statehood played a prominent role in destabilizing American politics. New states' ability to alter the balance of political power in the federal government led to near-constant political jockeying over state admissions, as partisans sought to expand the Union as a mechanism of consolidating political power.  Frustration with the process led to routine calls for its reform, especially for the imposition of size and population threshold restrictions on Congress's ability to add states.

Bills that propose the admission of Puerto Rico are referred to the Natural Resources Committee in the House and to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the Senate. Various Puerto Rico statehood bills have been introduced in recent years; during the 116th Congress, H.R.1965 and H.R.4901 have been introduced and referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. No further action has been taken on either bill. 

Statehood bills in Congress are considered as any other legislation. They are not privileged for floor consideration in the House or considered privileged business in the Senate. When the Washington, DC Admission Act (H.R.51) was considered in the House this year, it was brought to the floor under a special rule (H.Res.1017). Statehood measures reported from the Senate committee are placed on the Legislative Calendar, and debate would not be limited on either the motion to proceed or on the bill itself. Cloture to end debate on either would require 3/5 of the Senate under Rule XXII.

While the basic procedures for admitting states to the Union are straightforward and the constitutional constraints on admission minimal, Congress has used various legislative mechanisms to admit new states. In some cases, Congress has passed a straightforward law declaring a new state (see, for example, the 1850 California admission act). In other instances, Congress has passed what is typically called an "enabling act," which sets forth a process, which, if completed satisfactorily, will result in the proclamation by the president of the new state (see, for example, the 1894 Utah enabling act). 

These mechanisms reflect both normative ideals and positive realities of the statehood process. As a normative matter, Congress has long believed that no state should be admitted to the Union unless the people of the new state have affirmatively voted in favor of statehood. As a positive matter, Congress has to deal with the reality that creating a state involves more than just admitting it; most importantly, the new state must have specified boundaries.

Thus the politics of the statehood process involves the recognition of political communities, both by the new community itself and by Congress, and the geographic bounding of those communities. In both cases, it means that political actors in both Congress and the potential states will play an essential role in the process.

In practice, statehood has come up in Congress during various stages of this recognition and bounding process. Both congressional actors and settlers in the new communities tend to work toward these goals as they pursue their own political goals. Statehood is usually an instrumental strategy of political actors seeking other goals,  be it the admission of new slave/free states, the creation of territories to construct railroad lines, or the separation of a territory to forestall the political takeover of a rival faction in a growing area of the territory. 

For example, settlers on unorganized federal land might petition Congress to formally create a new territory (recognition); a territorial legislature or a separatist portion of a territory might petition Congress to divide a territory into two political communities (recognition and bounding); a territory might seek statehood for a portion of their existing territory (bounding), or a separatist portion of a territory might seek to avoid being part of a new state, preferring to create a new territory (recognition). 

Congress has added 37 states to the original Union. Of those 37 acts, nineteen were the admission of an entire territory, already bounded and recognized as a political community. Ten were the partial admission of a territory. Some territories became a state, and the residual portion of the territory was reorganized as a new community. One state (California) was created out of unorganized federal land. One state was formed from a bounded nation (Texas). And four states (Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia) were created from land legally held by existing states. 

In practice, the vehicle Congress chooses to admit a state depends on where the prospective states lies in the current politics of recognition and bounding, separate from where it lies legally. California, for instance, was federal land under military rule and residual Mexican rule in 1850. But the political leaders of the proto-state had already held a constitutional convention, approved a constitution, and set boundaries for their new state within the new Constitution. Congress simply ratified these decisions. In other cases, neither the final boundaries, nor the new state constitution, nor the plebiscite has taken place. In these cases, Congress is likely to produce an enabling act to structure those decisions.

Regardless, things can go wrong. Voters in the proto-state can reject the state constitution (Kansas). Congress might reject the Constitution (Kansas, again). The president might veto the act because he rejects the Constitution (Arizona). A political community most commonly might spend years seeking statehood, only to be ignored by Congress (many). Often, the proto-state will begin the process without Congress, holding a plebiscite, writing a state constitution, and even electing shadow Senators and representatives, in an effort to spur action in Washington. 

In the case of Puerto Rico, boundaries almost certainly will not be a question. Any statehood act is likely to include the admission of the entirety of the current territory. The political community is fully formed; it is unlikely any portion of Puerto Rico’s population will seek a partial admission to the Union at the exclusion of some parts of the territory or seek a separatist territory that is excluded from the admission as a state.

Puerto Rico also has a mature government structure that resembles a state government more closely than a traditional 19th-century territorial government. Most notably, it has an elected governor rather than a federally appointed one. 

Both H.R.1965 and H.R.4901 provide for Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union with its current boundaries and with its current Constitution as the new state constitution.

The most important question for Puerto Rico statehood, however, is voter approval. Statehood is highly contested in Puerto Rico, with large numbers both in favor and opposed. There have been six plebiscites on the question since 1967, and another one is on the ballot in 2020. Both the 2012 and 2017 plebiscites were controversial. Statehood won narrowly in 2012. In 2017, it won convincingly, but the turnout was only 23 percent of the population, as the anti-statehood party boycotted the vote.

The two bills currently in Congress take different views on the plebiscite question. H.R.1965 provides for immediate admission, based on the 2017 plebiscite. H.R.4901 provides for admission contingent on statehood winning the 2020 plebiscite. Congress has never admitted a state to the Union against its will. It is highly unlikely Congress would admit Puerto Rico to the Union absent a bona fide majority vote in the territory in favor of statehood in the upcoming plebiscite.

So the way I read it, if the citizens want it and they meet whatever requirements congress decides...that's it.  In a case like PR they have most of the requirements and would need a confirmation that that is what the citizens want.  DC would be more complicated.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2021, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Absorption is easily the simplest solution (D.C. could even maintain autonomy from the state government in some ways) and would give the area more HoR seats as well.  Of course we know the Dems will push for statehood because representation is not their real concern, expanding their power is. 

There is nothing "more simple" about Maryland absorbing DC than making DC a new state to itself.

Absorption would be opposed by citizens of Maryland who see the value of their votes being diminished.

And if you have to reapportion the entire House of Representatives to take into account the Marylands absorption of DC then that is no more simple than just creating an entire new state.

Here is what it all boils down to.  Currently about three quarters of a million voters don't count.  Republicans want to give them a right to vote without really giving any new power to their number of votes.  And the only reason they want to do it that way is because it benefits them.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2021, 02:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Name another city that has two Senators.

(03-11-2021, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a facile argument as D.C. is not a state.  I don't care if their population was 15 million, it wouldn't change that fact.  You're raising an irrelevancy with the population argument.

But we're talking about DC statehood, so it would be a state. Which would mean their power would not be outsized.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-11-2021, 06:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But we're talking about DC statehood, so it would be a state. Which would mean their power would not be outsized.

Which is why D.C. statehood is such a horrible idea.  Giving one city the federal representation of a state is obviously outsized power.  I've yet to hear an argument for why absorption into an existing state, which would solve all representation issues without providing D.C. undue influence at the Federal level, is less preferable than giving a single city two US Senators.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2021, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I've yet to hear an argument for why absorption into an existing state, which would solve all representation issues without providing D.C. undue influence at the Federal level, is less preferable than giving a single city two US Senators.

Because absorption devalues the votes of the Sate that takes in DC.  You just like the plan of Maryland taking in DC because it dilutes the votes of an already Democratic state.

Absorption would be extremely inefficient because of all the different laws of different states.  Every DC school, business, and Court would have to adjust to new rules.

DC already has more population than Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska, so it does not matter if it is a "single city". You can't call it "outsized power" when there are more citizens than in some existing states. The voters of DC deserve their own representatives.  and the voters in Maryland do not deserve to have their votes diluted.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2021, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which is why D.C. statehood is such a horrible idea.  Giving one city the federal representation of a state is obviously outsized power.  I've yet to hear an argument for why absorption into an existing state, which would solve all representation issues without providing D.C. undue influence at the Federal level, is less preferable than giving a single city two US Senators.

When an independent city has more people than at least two states, and then that city becomes a state itself, I fail to see the logic of an argument that their power would be outsized. If that many people are not worthy of that representation, then the next logical step would be for Wyoming and Vermont to be absorbed by neighboring states because them having that level of federal representation would be outsized power. If we're setting minimum requirements for states then we should start applying them universally.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-11-2021, 07:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When an independent city has more people than at least two states, and then that city becomes a state itself, I fail to see the logic of an argument that their power would be outsized. If that many people are not worthy of that representation, then the next logical step would be for Wyoming and Vermont to be absorbed by neighboring states because them having that level of federal representation would be outsized power. If we're setting minimum requirements for states then we should start applying them universally.

Again, not an argument against absorption into an exiting state.  No one has advanced why creating a new state for one city is in any way preferable to having that city incorporated into another, pre-existing, state.  Unless you're a Democrat and want the two automatic Senators that a voting population that votes ~90% Democrat.  Which is also a heavy argument for why absorption into an already deep blue state would not "dilute" anything.

It's interesting that, recently, when Democrats don't get what they want they seek to change the rules.  Don't like two POTUS elections, let's get rid of the Electoral College!  Don't like the SCOTUS make up, let's add more justices that we can appoint!  Don't like the Senate working as designed, let's add more states from heavily blue areas!  It's not a good look.

It's so blatantly obvious that I doubt many people are blind to it. 

[hollodero]

(03-11-2021, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which is why D.C. statehood is such a horrible idea.  Giving one city the federal representation of a state is obviously outsized power.  I've yet to hear an argument for why absorption into an existing state, which would solve all representation issues without providing D.C. undue influence at the Federal level, is less preferable than giving a single city two US Senators.

Well, the issue, rightfully or not, seems to be that the current influence of Maryland and its current inhabitants would be diminished.

I mean... it's an argument. Not worse than many I heard regarding PR. And from Maryland's perspective, I understand it. Why meddle with our state?

- I'd suggest melting DC into Maryland in exchange for merging the two Dakotas into one state and giving the panhandle to Alabama. If meddling is on the table.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-11-2021, 08:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, the issue, rightfully or not, seems to be that the current influence of Maryland and its current inhabitants would be diminished.

I know you didn't make it, but that's a horrible argument.  Maryland would gain a large number of people, that vote Dem ~90% of the time.  They'd add two HoR seats as well.

Quote:I mean... it's an argument. Not worse than many I heard regarding PR. And from Maryland's perspective, I understand it. Why meddle with our state?

From a US citizen's perspective, my meddle with my Senate?

Quote:- I'd suggest melting DC into Maryland in exchange for merging the two Dakotas into one state and giving the panhandle to Alabama. If meddling is on the table.

I'm down with that if we also break off Jefferson from Northern California.

[GMDino]

Democrats are for it.  The gop platform supports it.  The last vote in PR was in favor of it.  There no requirements except what congress would say they want and based on the past PR seems to have most in place.

There isn't an argument against statehood for PR.

DC is a different beast as far as having a state constitution, governor, etc.  But that's still all based on whatever congress passed for its requirements because there's nothing in the constitution to say it should be based on how much land is in it or what the population is.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2021, 08:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, not an argument against absorption into an exiting state.  No one has advanced why creating a new state for one city is in any way preferable to having that city incorporated into another, pre-existing, state.  Unless you're a Democrat and want the two automatic Senators that a voting population that votes ~90% Democrat.  Which is also a heavy argument for why absorption into an already deep blue state would not "dilute" anything.

It's interesting that, recently, when Democrats don't get what they want they seek to change the rules.  Don't like two POTUS elections, let's get rid of the Electoral College!  Don't like the SCOTUS make up, let's add more justices that we can appoint!  Don't like the Senate working as designed, let's add more states from heavily blue areas!  It's not a good look.

It's so blatantly obvious that I doubt many people are blind to it. 

Well, that would be because I'm not arguing against the absorption position, I am saying that the whole "outsized power" argument is flawed.

Also, don't act like this is a Democrat thing. There are so many attempts at disenfranchising voters going on right now in Republican states all over this country that it is sickening. Georgia Republicans are scrambling to undo laws that they put in place because they no longer help them. My positions on this are consistent: I want to improve representation and improve our democracy. More power in the hands of the people. At least I'm not trying to suppress votes to get my side to win, stripping people of their rights.

And I know you're not a full on Republican, it just rubs me the wrong way how you are completely ignoring what is going on right now in this country.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-11-2021, 08:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, that would be because I'm not arguing against the absorption position, I am saying that the whole "outsized power" argument is flawed.

Well, I disagree, but we've already made our positions on this known.

Quote:Also, don't act like this is a Democrat thing. There are so many attempts at disenfranchising voters going on right now in Republican states all over this country that it is sickening. Georgia Republicans are scrambling to undo laws that they put in place because they no longer help them. My positions on this are consistent: I want to improve representation and improve our democracy. More power in the hands of the people. At least I'm not trying to suppress votes to get my side to win, stripping people of their rights.

I've already stated that everyone who can vote and wants to should be able to (although I'd prefer a free ID being needed to do so).  I don't like attempts at disenfranchisement and I don't think you'll find a post in which I stated otherwise.  If I haven't posted in a thread about this subject it's likely due to my seeing my positions covered by the arguments of someone else's already made post.

Quote:And I know you're not a full on Republican, it just rubs me the wrong way how you are completely ignoring what is going on right now in this country.

Not ignoring it, as described above, but I can understand your perception.

[hollodero]

(03-11-2021, 08:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know you didn't make it, but that's a horrible argument.  Maryland would gain a large number of people, that vote Dem ~90% of the time.  They'd add two HoR seats as well.

Yeah well, they'd also have to share power in the senate. With new state members/citizens whose interests don't necessarily align with theirs, eg. in primaries, where now the more urban candidte might win and do stuff some Marylanders don't like, and so on. And I did not comment on the argument's value. But I always figured that if you are an US state, no one, and also not the US federal government, can just come along and take away a piece from it you like or add a piece to it you for whatever reason don't like.

(03-11-2021, 08:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: From a US citizen's perspective, my meddle with my Senate?

Good thing you're not a Puerto Rican US citizen to make this point.
I rather referred to meddling with states and their borders though.

(03-11-2021, 08:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm down with that if we also break off Jefferson from Northern California.

Well, then put in a binding referendum about PR statehood and for me, it's a deal.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2021, 08:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, not an argument against absorption into an exiting state.  No one has advanced why creating a new state for one city is in any way preferable to having that city incorporated into another, pre-existing, state.  Unless you're a Democrat and want the two automatic Senators that a voting population that votes ~90% Democrat.  Which is also a heavy argument for why absorption into an already deep blue state would not "dilute" anything.

So, here is my argument against absorption, and it is the reason why the city was created as an independent city to begin with. Jurisdiction. I stated earlier in this thread that my biggest issue with the topic is that DC needs to remain under some federal authority. Statehood for DC means that in the state's constitution, this can be taken into account. However, inclusion in another state, like Maryland, sets up jurisdictional conflicts for oversight of the local government. This is a complicated web that would have to be figured out, and it is why statehood for DC is the easier, and more practical solution for representation for the citizens of DC.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-11-2021, 09:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is my argument against absorption, and it is the reason why the city was created as an independent city to begin with. Jurisdiction. I stated earlier in this thread that my biggest issue with the topic is that DC needs to remain under some federal authority. Statehood for DC means that in the state's constitution, this can be taken into account. However, inclusion in another state, like Maryland, sets up jurisdictional conflicts for oversight of the local government. This is a complicated web that would have to be figured out, and it is why statehood for DC is the easier, and more practical solution for representation for the citizens of DC.

I have a major issues with statehood for a city, especially one that was set apart from the rest of the government intentionally.  Under no circumstances should D.C. get two Senators, and I'd have the same issue with any other city.  We want to treat D.C. as different, fine, then treat it as different.  I'm fine with statehood as long as it involves no Senate representation, which, I am aware, is the only reason it's being sought in the first place.

[hollodero]

Just give them one senator then. Not that it matters, civic rights are up for horsetrades anyway and the even number of senators only complicates things.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2021, 09:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a major issues with statehood for a city, especially one that was set apart from the rest of the government intentionally.  Under no circumstances should D.C. get two Senators, and I'd have the same issue with any other city.  We want to treat D.C. as different, fine, then treat it as different.  I'm fine with statehood as long as it involves no Senate representation, which, I am aware, is the only reason it's being sought in the first place.

Well, we would need a constitutional amendment to make it so they wouldn't get two Senators. That is what a state is entitled to. The problem is that the founders didn't really expect people to live in DC. Who would want to live in that swamp? Well, now it has a lot of people living within its boundaries, and these citizens do not enjoy the same privileges and immunities as other citizens in this country.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2021, 09:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I'm fine with statehood as long as it involves no Senate representation, which, I am aware, is the only reason it's being sought in the first place.

So you are fine with everything as long as it does not hurt the GOP, right?

Size does not determine how many senators a state gets.

Population does not determine how many senators a state gets.

So why the hell would the term "city" determine how many senators a state gets?