Political Effects of Puerto Rican Statehood

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the results of Puerto Rico’s latest statehood referendum, and how residents of the island should have the final say on whether or not they become the fifty-first state. It was outside the scope of that post to discuss the effects that a bid for statehood would have on national politics, but I wanted to briefly address some of those political considerations here.

The greatest effect that Puerto Rican statehood would have on national politics would be in two areas—Congressional representation and the number of votes in the Electoral College. The population of the island, which currently stands at a little over 3.4 million according to the latest Census Bureau estimates, would presumably entitle the hypothetical state to either four or five U.S. representatives (when all states are ranked by population, Puerto Rico lands between Iowa, with four representatives, and Connecticut, with five). It would also receive two U.S. senators and, depending on the exact size of its congressional delegation, either six or seven electoral votes.

The most immediate result of statehood would be the reallocation of congressional seats. Whereas there is no statutory limit on the total membership of the U.S. Senate (or, for that matter, the number of votes in the Electoral College, which currently stands at 538), there is currently a cap on voting members of the House, set at 435. Unless Congress decided to raise that limit, or do away with it altogether (which wouldn’t be advisable, for practical reasons), several states would automatically lose a member of Congress to make way for Puerto Rico. As noted by the author of the Hill article linked above, the states most at risk, based on the 2010 redistricting process, would be California, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington.

Of course, which specific districts in those states would be consolidated, and how the maps would be redrawn, would be anyone’s guess until the process actually occurred. But it is a certainty that none of those states would take the prospect of losing congressional representation particularly well.

The partisan makeup of the new state’s congressional delegation—as well as the island’s partisan tendencies in presidential elections—would be the other major question with regard to the political effects of statehood. Here as well, those effects are difficult to predict. Puerto Ricans in the United States are known for their tendency to vote Democratic, but island politics are more often based around local parties such as the PNP and PPD. Many politicians also choose to affiliate themselves with the mainline Democratic and Republican parties, and based on this Democrats would start out with a significant advantage in island-wide elections, as well as in many of the new congressional districts (currently, the governor and all three nonvoting representatives in Congress are Democrats). But several Republican-affiliated candidates have also found success in recent years, at both the gubernatorial level and in races for the several at-large seats in the legislature, indicating that the island would couldn’t be counted on to vote as a heavily partisan block.

In short, none of the very real effects of admitting Puerto Rico as the fifty-first state can be known for sure, until that day comes (if it ever does). But two things are a certainty: the substantive impact on national politics will be both noticeable and permanent, and that impact will be sure to become a key factor in any debate over the formal admittance of Puerto Rico into the Union.

Puerto Rico Needs To Make Up Its Mind

This past Sunday, Puerto Ricans went to the polls to vote in a referendum on whether the island—currently a U.S. territory, should become an independent nation or the 51^st state in the Union. Ninety-seven percent of voters in Sunday’s referendum favored statehood, as does the current governor—but turnout was low, due to a boycott of the vote by several opposition groups, so the importance of that 97% figure is open to interpretation, to say the least.

There are strong arguments on both sides of the independence versus statehood question—arguments of culture and identity, economic well-being, and political representation, as well as the electoral effects of admitting a new state for the first time in over half a century (the addition of Puerto Rico as a state would require the addition of two U.S. Senators, the redistribution of five House seats, and a new block of seven votes in the Electoral College). At some point I’ll look at how these changes would affect national politics. For now, however, I’ll content myself with saying that it should be the citizens of Puerto Rico themselves that make a final determination—and stick with it.

The island has held five separate statehood referendums over the past few decades, two in just the last five years. There seem to be legitimate questions about whether the most recent vote was an accurate representation of the will of Puerto Ricans (how often does any election see 97% of the voting populace agree on something?), but the multiple, nonbinding votes are becoming a waste of both time and money on an island currently struggling with massive debt.

What Puerto Rico should do is have a final, binding referendum, supported by all of the various political factions and free of the taint of any large-scale boycott efforts. The leadership of the island should agree that whatever the outcome of this final referendum—statehood, independence, or the status quo—it will be presented as the unified voice of Puerto Rico. If the consensus is a request for statehood or independence, Congress may then begin to take formal action. But either way, the question should not be endlessly litigated. Whatever the decision of the people may be, they need to be allowed to come to a final consensus, so that political leaders can focus on the island’s numerous other pressing issues.