Puerto rico’s political status debate: a general lack of consensus

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has a unique history as a part of the United States. US suzerainty over Puerto Rico originated with the acquisition of the islands in 1898 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris after the conclusion of the Spanish-American War. For decades, the federal government administered government operations in Puerto Rico through military liaisons or civilian officialsappointed by the President. Legislation enacted by Congress in 1950 (P.L. 81-600) and in 1952 (P.L. 82-447) granted Puerto Rico authority to establish a republican form of local government through a constitution approved by the citizens of Puerto Rico and the Congress in 1952.
Today, Puerto Rico remains subject to congressional jurisdiction under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Underthis authority, Congress has passed legislation that governs elements of Puerto Rico’s relationship to the United States. For example, residents of Puerto Rico hold U.S. citizenship, serve in the military, are represented in the House of Representatives by a Resident Commissioner elected to a four-year term who does not have privileges to vote on the floor of the House, are subject to federallaws and are beneficiaries of federal aid as approved by Congress, do not vote in national elections, and pay no federal income tax.
Within domestic political proceedings, the three major political parties have led the debate on the political status issue. Founded in 1938, the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) supports an enhanced commonwealth status. Organized in the 1940s, the Puerto RicanIndependence Party (PIP) advocates independence for the island. The New Progressive Party (NPP), founded in 1967, supports statehood.

In the past, three Plebiscites have been held on the political status of Puerto Rico (1967, 1993, 1998), but the results are seen as inconclusive for a number of reasons. Plebiscites and referenda are similar in that they are designed for voters to express their positionon policy issues. A plebiscite is a non-binding vote on matters of governance that have not previously been considered by the legislature. A referendum is a binding vote on an issue that has previously been approved by the legislature. There has never been a Congress approved referendum to determine the permanent status of Puerto Rico. Consequently, the political relationship between the UnitedStates and Puerto Rico continues to be debated. On several occasions, the United States has expressed its willingness to grant Puerto Rico its desired status option if in fact the request is in accordance with viable US approved status options. However, Due to a lack of consensus among and between Congress and Puerto Rican Political Parties and population, the United States Government has neverapproved a referendum to determine the future political status of Puerto Rico.
In this paper, I will address the reasons for which Congress has yet to enact legislation calling for a binding referendum in Puerto Rico. I will first focus on the lack of consensus between Congress and Puerto Rican leadership regarding the provisions included in federal legislation. Then, I will look at the primarydisagreements among Puerto Rican political parties regarding the determination of status options. Finally, I will consider how the lack of consensus among the Puerto Rican population with respect to the future political status of the island has influenced the debate.

Throughout the history of the United States, different processes have been used to determine whether a territory affiliatedwith the United States changes its status to statehood, independence with legal ties of free association, or a sovereign nation, or remains a territory. Broad outlines of expected actions may be discerned. The process of debate involves assessments of the position of the affected population, development of a means by which the preferences of the population are presented to Congress, and the...