Talk:2017 Puerto Rican status referendum

The Outcome.

Hello, I'm not familiar with US Politics (I'm Australian) and I'd like to know, if say, the majority votes for statehood, what exactly happens?

I've heard from some people it will take up to 8 years for Puerto Rico to become the 51st. Is it true? I would be very glad if someone could explain all this to me, thanks -The2016 a.k.a. Firestorm The2016 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Territories (and historically some independent countries) submit petitions for statehood, but ultimately the US Congress must act by ratifying an admission bill, which is then sent to the President to sign. Numerous admission bills have died in committee, but once passed only one President (Andrew Johnson, in the aftermath of the Civil War and the Lincoln assassination) ever vetoed any admission bills (the veto on Nebraska was overridden, and the veto on Colorado delayed its admission for 10 years). Some admission bills have included transition periods before the territory becomes a state, others have taken effect immediately. Because Puerto Rico is "unincorporated" and not all US federal law currently applies, it is regularly assumed that US law would need to be phased in to avoid economic disruption should it be admitted as a state. So, a relatively long transition period where Puerto Rico becomes "incorporated" before being admitted as a state is anticipated.

The congressional delegate from Puerto Rico, Jenniffer González (R-PR) has submitted a bill to admit Puerto Rico that incorporates an 8 year transition. This is to ensure that the state is admitted after the 2020 Census has been completed and congressional seats are reallocated. Because Puerto Rico would be the first new state entitled to more than one seat in the House of Representatives in over a century, it is possible that the Congress will want to increase the size of the House to ensure that no state loses seats to Puerto Rico. The census would be completed in 2020, and reapportionment would take effect for the 2022 election. Congress would be informed in 2021 of how many seats Puerto Rico would be entitled and which states would gain or lose seats as a result of relative population changes under the current formula and they would have the data to determine who would receive more seats if the formula was changed or the size of the House was increased, and they could make a decision on changing the allocation upon approving reapportionment. The states would elect a Congress under the new apportionment in 2022, seated in 2023 and serving for two years. Puerto Rico would then participate in the 2024 election for Congress and the President, and it would be admitted as a state in January 2025 just in time for its representatives to be seated and its Electoral Votes to be recorded.

The referendum legislation that was submitted by Puerto Rico Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz (R-at large) and signed into law by the Governor of Puerto Rico includes the text of the petition that would be submitted to the US Congress should statehood be selected, and it requests admission in January 2021 following a 4 year transition and participation in the 2020 election for Congress and President, but before the census so that Puerto Rico would receive a number of representatives chosen by the Congress, temporarily increasing the size of the House before reapportionment in 2022 (where Puerto Rico's representatives would be involved in the decision to increase the permanent size of the House or not). Delegate González or a colleague could either submit a new bill including that shorter transition timeframe, or they could keep the existing bill, but either way the vote would be on a bill drafted by a member of Congress and not directly on the petition submitted by Puerto Rico. The submission of a petition does not compel Congress to vote on any bill, but because the delegate from Puerto Rico is a member of the majority party and is vice-chair of the committee with jurisdiction over statehood admission legislation, a bill that she supports will almost certainly pass committee and be put to a vote once a petition is received. Astrofreak92 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@The2016: If Congress were to pass a statehood bill, it would include state borders and the initial state constitution. While the preferences of the new state are taken into account in these, a dispute over borders delayed Iowa's admission until a compromise between the state and Congress could be reached and a dispute over the content of the initial constitution lead to an awkward situation where Congress rejected Arizona's initial constitution, but accepted a revised one only to see Arizona re-add the rejected provisions once its statehood was official. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization

This section was a) it was a general statement about the Political status of Puerto Rico and b) it appears to have simply been copied from that broader article. Since this article is about a particular referendum and not about the broader subject of Puerto Rico's status, I removed the section. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

About the use of "plebiscite" as a term for a referendum in American English, concerning a United States-affiliated commonwealth

It has always puzzled me why the obscure-to-many-Americans term "plebiscite" seems to be used here in an article about a North American "commonwealth", where not only Puerto Rican Spanish, but also American English are spoken as everyday languages.

Perhaps the "p-word" for a referendum COULD be a British English-preferred term, and if it was about a referendum in a British Commonwealth-related nation like Canada (especially IF Canadian English used it, too by preference) it would be understandable...but as Americans, as a general rule, seemingly NEVER use the "p-word" for a referendum in the United States in either everyday conversation or even in news media, etc., maybe some consideration towards solely sticking to American English terms like "referendum" instead of terms not in use in American English needs to be thought about. The PIPE (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

In the text of the legislation approving the vote, it is referred to as a "plebescito". "Referéndum" is also a Spanish word with the same meaning as "referendum" in American English. The pro-statehood political leaders who drafted the proposal speak American English and would be familiar with the term referendum, but used the Spanish word for "plebiscite" instead, so I assume there was a legal or historical reason for the use of that term. The page title remains "Referendum" in keeping with Wikipedia style standards, but use of the term plebiscite throughout the article reflects the word choice made in San Juan. Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Just did a check at the Español Wikipedia for "plebescito", and lo-and-behold, guess WHERE a redirection occurs to? None other than es:Referéndum...perhaps the Spanish text for the referendum being voted on TODAY (June 11, 2017) may say "plebescito", but the Spanish Wikipedia's currently configured "definition" for the "p-word" DOES redirect to "referéndum", a whole lot closer to my original assertion that I thought might have existed.

The PIPE (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Results

If the preliminary results (97% for statehood) hold, the turnout number will be incredibly important. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

PPD objections`

The article mentions that the PPD called for its supporters to boycott this referendum because they object to the characterization of Puerto Rico as a colony, and to the description of its current status as being subject to the plenary powers of the US Congress. But seeing as Puerto Rico's status is pretty much the dictionary definition of a colony, and it's indisputable that it is subject to the plenary powers of Congress, shouldn't it be noted that PDD's objections are lies? — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that US law, as reiterated by the Supreme Court, gives lie to the PPD's claims. However, if we want to include language making that clear we would have to be careful to avoid running afoul of WP:NPOV in doing so. It would likely be best to try to find a source that specifically addresses the PPD's claims rather than address them ourselves through references to US law.Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Quorum

Given that the turnout is very low, the article lacks specifics about the quorum for the required minimum of participating voters. Does anybody know anything about it?--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There was no requirement in US or Puerto Rican law for a quorum on this vote. Astrofreak92 (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Comparisons with other Statehood referenda

One anon user added a comparison with other low-turnout votes that also led to statehood. While the way they presented it was clearly synthesis to promote a viewpoint, might it not be valuable for the sake of context to include some comparisons with other statehood votes and their turnout figures? Astrofreak92 (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. Turnout is dependent on local conditions and voting habits, so I'm not sure there is a valid comparison to be made. What is more relevant is historical voter turnout in Puerto Rico. Number 57 11:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)