Territories: people citizens but can't vote because....

[revelarts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CesHr99ezWE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE

Long video but well worth it.

Bottom line the U.S. has several territories.
And the people there are "citizens" who can join the military and fight but they can't vote.
they have to pay taxes but they can't vote.
they have reps in congress.. that don't vote.

And among the primary stated legal reasons is some old bs about them not being ethnically able to participate.

so how does this stand?

[jimnyc]

I might watch this in a bit, Rev, but can you tell me which places these are in written form as well? In theory, I agree with you, but would like to research further.

[jimnyc]

Here's some good reading I found. I don't know what to think so far. It appears it comes down to the COTUS giving the rights to electors, not US citizens. The opinions of the judges are interesting.

----

Voting rights of United States citizens in Puerto Rico, like the voting rights of residents of other United States territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States), differ from those of United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) citizens in each of the fifty states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._states) and the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.). Residents of Puerto Rico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico) and other U.S. territories do not have voting representation in the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress), and are not entitled to electoral votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29) for President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States). The United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) grants congressional voting representation to U.S. states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state), which Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories are not, specifying that members of Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) shall be elected by direct popular vote and that the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) and the Vice President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States) shall be elected by electors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29) chosen by the States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29#Alternative_ methods_of_choosing_electors).[Note 1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_voting_rights_in_Puerto_Rico#cite_note-1)
Puerto Rico is a territory under the sovereignty of the federal government, but is not part of any state. It has been organized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_territory) (given a measure of self-rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-governance) by the Congress) subject to the Congress’ plenary powers under the territorial clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_clause) of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_voting_rights_in_Puerto_Rico#cite_note-2) In the U.S. House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_of_Representatives), Puerto Rico is entitled to a Resident Commissioner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Commissioner_from_Puerto_Rico), a delegate who is not allowed to vote on the floor of the House, but can vote on procedural matters and in House committees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_committee). In most other U.S. overseas (and historically pre-state) territories, a similar representative position is styled Delegate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_%28United_States_Congress%29).
The lack of voting representation in Congress for residents of the territory has been an issue since the U.S. Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress) granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Rico citizens in 1917. All judicial claims have been met with political or constitutional challenges; therefore, there has been no change in Puerto Rico's representation in the Congress or representation on the electoral college for the U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico.

---

Any U.S. citizen who resides in Puerto Rico is effectively disenfranchised at the national level, as are all U.S. citizen residents of U.S. territories.[4] Although the Republican Party and Democratic Party chapters in Puerto Rico have selected voting delegates to the national nominating conventions participating on U.S. Presidential Primaries or Caucuses, U.S. citizens not residing in one of the 50 States or in the District of Columbia may not vote in Federal elections.

Both the Puerto Rican Independence Party and the New Progressive Party outright reject[citation needed] the status quo that permits disfranchisement (from their distinct respective positions on the ideal enfranchised status for the island-nation of Puerto Rico). The remaining political organization, the Popular Democratic Party, is less active in its opposition[citation needed][according to whom?] of this case of disenfranchisement but has officially stated that it favors fixing the remaining "deficits of democracy" that the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations have publicly recognized in writing through reports of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status.[5][6]

Various scholars (including a prominent U.S. judge in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) conclude that the U.S. national-electoral process is not fully democratic due to U.S. Government disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico.[7][8]

The appeals court decision in 2005, on appeal of the decision in the third filing of the case Igartua-de la Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. P.R. 2005), reads in part:[9]

August 3, 2005

OPINION EN BANC

Boudin, Chief Judge. This case brings before this court the third in a series of law suits by Gregorio Igartúa, a U.S. citizen resident in Puerto Rico, claiming the constitutional right to vote quadrennially for President and Vice President of the United States. Panels of this court have rejected such claims on all three occasions. We now do so again, this time en banc, rejecting as well an adjacent claim: that the failure of the Constitution to grant this vote should be declared a violation of U.S. treaty obligations.

The constitutional claim is readily answered. Voting for President and Vice President of the United States is governed neither by rhetoric nor intuitive values but by a provision of the Constitution. This provision does not confer the franchise on "U.S. citizens" but on "Electors" who are to be "appoint[ed]" by each "State," in "such Manner" as the state legislature may direct, equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to whom the state is entitled. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2; see also id. amend. XII.

---Dissenting...

In its haste to "put [plaintiffs-appellants'] constitutional claim fully at rest," maj. op. at 6, the majority has chosen to overlook the issues actually before this en banc court as framed by the order of the rehearing panel, see Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States, 404 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (order granting panel rehearing), which panel the en banc court suppressed, but whose order was adopted as establishing the parameters of the issues to be decided by the en banc court. See Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States, 407 F.3d 30, 31 (1st Cir. 2005) (converting to en banc review panel rehearing in which "the parties [are] to address two issues: first, the plaintiffs' claim that the United States was in default of its treaty obligations and, second, the availability of declaratory judgment concerning the government's compliance with any such obligations."). It is these issues that the parties were asked to brief. Instead the majority has sidetracked this appeal into a dead end that is no longer before us: Puerto Rico's lack of electoral college representation, see U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and our lack of authority to order any constitutional change to such status by reason of that constitutional impediment.

In doing so, the majority fails to give any weight to the fundamental nature of the right to vote, and the legal consequences of this cardinal principal. Under the combined guise of alleged political question doctrine, its admitted desire to avoid "embarrassment" to the United States, and its pious lecturing on what it deems to be the nature of the judicial function, the majority seeks to avoid what I believe is its paramount duty over and above these stated goals: to do justice to the civil rights of the four million United States citizens who reside in Puerto Rico. The majority labels this duty with despect as "rhetoric" and "intuitive values." Maj. op. at 3. I beg to differ, and so, I suspect, do a considerable number of those four million U.S. citizens who, lacking any political recourse, look to the courts of the United States for succor because they are without any other avenue of relief. See United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938) ("[P]rejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities and . . . may call for correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.").

These is much more on this page and other opinions and cases - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_voting_rights_in_Puerto_Rico

[revelarts]

the video goes to the broader points for all territories and points to an older SCOTUS case.

...Court decision in the case of Downes v. Bidwell in 1901 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=182&invol=244). That decision said that the U.S. constitution would not have to apply in territories “inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles...”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/john-oliver-puerto-rico_n_6833310.html


American Samoans are considered U.S. nationals, which means they can legally reside in the United States and apply for a passport.

However, noncitizens often cannot become elected officials and may be barred from government jobs. Additionally, though American Samoa proportionally has some of the highest military recruitment of any U.S. state or territory, they are limited to how high they can go in the ranks.

“I’ve seen for many, many years the struggles our people go through to naturalize,” said Chief Loa Pele Faletogo, president of the Samoan Federation of America, a nonprofit based in Carson. “We’ve been loyal to this government for a hundred years. Lots of our children have died in the wars.
http://newamericamedia.org/2015/03/american-samoans-demand-right-to-vote.php



...the US still formally has five colonies: Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
These nations are often referred to as US “territories” (there are 16 official US territories in total, but only five are inhabited). This term is a euphemism. These five nations have no formal representation in the US political system....
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/13/the-5-us-colonies/

[NightTrain]

Either the territories should be granted Statehood, or the 23rd Amendment needs to be modified where D.C. was given electors but the territories were ignored.

There's no reason in my mind why all of them shouldn't be States.

My buddy that I've talked about that's ex-Special Forces is from Guam. He joined the military one step ahead of the law and made a great career out of it. He's now a resident of Alaska and enjoys full voting rights like any of us. He's told me that most youngsters in Guam head for the States as soon as they can... life isn't grand there for most of them.

[jimnyc]

A question. Do these territories also follow the same federal laws as well?

[fj1200]

And among the primary stated legal reasons is some old bs about them not being ethnically able to participate.

so how does this stand?

Meh, they're not states. Too far away and too small to be given full state's rights IMO.

[revelarts]

Meh, they're not states. Too far away and too small to be given full state's rights IMO.

Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands are farther away than Hawaii and Alaska?
and the populations are more than most of the 1st states when they joined the union.

[aboutime]

And here we are. Once again, rev is defending, and sounding like his idol, Obama.

What other reason would anyone have to bring this topic up here...other than as part of the Obama, dumbing-down principle he is using on the Uninformed Americans by saying 16 year old children should be able to vote???

Not too obvious to me rev. But it is obvious you are intent on creating more disharmony, and hatred to add to the existing problems...OF WHICH...we the people....Haven't got enough of today???

Bottom line rev. If, and Until those territories become states. They DO NOT HAVE states rights.

[fj1200]

Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands are farther away than Hawaii and Alaska?
and the populations are more than most of the 1st states when they joined the union.

Do you know how far Guam and the Marianas Islands really are? I'll grant you Peurto Rico could be a state but they're the only one. And to compare them to states in the union when they joined is disingenuous. They will never support the population of a normal state.

[revelarts]

Do you know how far Guam and the Marianas Islands really are? I'll grant you Peurto Rico could be a state but they're the only one. And to compare them to states in the union when they joined is disingenuous. They will never support the population of a normal state.

if both of those are real issues then why are they territories at all?
they are much closer to other countries why not just give them independence or allow them to be parts of New Zealand or whatever?

and what does distance have to do with the right to vote? the military that are stationed in those territories and foreign countries vote.
There are many military living there. so why should their votes be counted when other military members and vets living their aren't?

sorry makes no sense to me that that you're big enough to send troops into war but not big enough to vote for reps and presidents who call for it.

[fj1200]

if both of those are real issues then why are they territories at all?

...

sorry makes no sense to me that that you're big enough to send troops into war but not big enough to vote for reps and presidents who call for it.

Because history. And it makes perfect sense; they are not states. But I'll agree, they can certainly be independent from my perspective.

EDIT:

Maybe we can make them like the Commonwealth of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations) or a Compact of Free Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association) like the Marshall Islands. Cut them loose, have the POTUS as symbolic Head of State, and they can self govern with our protections. Surely mainland minimum wage laws, for example, aren't necessarily appropriate for the Northern Mariana Islands.

[NightTrain]

Well, in fairness, FJ... Alaska only has 700,000 of us.

North Dakota, Vermont, D.C. and Wyoming all have less than we have.

I don't see what the population has to do with anything here. Hawaii is just as remote as the other island territories, and the reason it's built up like it is - is because it's a State and has real representation.

You have to have real representation in Congress to bring home some bacon. Pork gets shit done, like expensive bridges and highways and other infrastructure.

And it's a pretty shitty deal to be able to serve in the U.S. Military and not be able to vote for President.

[fj1200]

Well, in fairness, FJ... Alaska only has 700,000 of us.

North Dakota, Vermont, D.C. and Wyoming all have less than we have.

I don't see what the population has to do with anything here. Hawaii is just as remote as the other island territories, and the reason it's built up like it is - is because it's a State and has real representation.

You have to have real representation in Congress to bring home some bacon. Pork gets shit done, like expensive bridges and highways and other infrastructure.

And it's a pretty shitty deal to be able to serve in the U.S. Military and not be able to vote for President.

I checked and I think the least populated state had 600k which is a far cry from the most populated territory at 150k. Where does one draw the line? The territory with 50k? They get a rep and two Senators? I'm dubious when there are far better methods of granting their independence and providing protection.

[fj1200]

And as far as Guamanians paying Federal taxes, they use the US code but revenues stay in Guam. And I would hazard a guess that they get their share of pork err, additional subsidies. :)


Guamanians pay U.S. federal income taxes using standard U.S. 1040 forms. However, all federal income tax moneys collected on Guam stay on Guam and go to maintain Guam's local government.
http://www.heptune.com/guam.html

[revelarts]

seems to me if you can die for the country getting senator is not a big deal.

[jimnyc]

They follow federal laws. They pay taxes, which may go back to their own areas only. They can fight for the USA. They have no senators and no voting for the president, although they can partake in primaries.

(I'm thinking out loud and making a list of can's and cannots. Now my dopey brother called, get back to this....)

[jimnyc]

They follow federal laws. They pay taxes, which may go back to their own areas only. They can fight for the USA. They have no senators and no voting for the president, although they can partake in primaries.

(I'm thinking out loud and making a list of can's and cannots. Now my dopey brother called, get back to this....)

Reading into some articles, opinions, legal decisions, Washington DC....

I think ultimately that these people should be able to vote. But I also think it shouldn't be changed overnight, that the route needs to be the same as DC. Clearly the constitution is what is preventing it at this point, and that should be taken seriously. Let it go through congress and then get ratified. Any other way would be unconstitutional, IMO.

[NightTrain]

I checked and I think the least populated state had 600k which is a far cry from the most populated territory at 150k. Where does one draw the line? The territory with 50k? They get a rep and two Senators? I'm dubious when there are far better methods of granting their independence and providing protection.

Puerto Rico has 3.5 million, which would make it the 29th most populous State in the union - above both Connecticut and Iowa. Definitely not fair that they're not having a voice.

Guam has 165,000;

U.S. Virgin Islands has 104,000;

American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands both have a little over 50,000.

Really, population doesn't really have anything to do with it when you consider that California has 38,800,000 with 2 Senators and Wyoming has 584,000 and 2 Senators.

It seems a little preposterous to give 2 Senators and a Rep to 50k people, though. I don't know what the answer is to Samoa and Marianas, but the others should have full representation.

[fj1200]

seems to me if you can die for the country getting senator is not a big deal.

Some immigrants can enlist IIRC and aren't able to vote not to mention we have a volunteer army. But I would think a soldier would be able to vote if they move to the mainland and declare residency.


They follow federal laws. They pay taxes, which may go back to their own areas only. They can fight for the USA. They have no senators and no voting for the president, although they can partake in primaries.

(I'm thinking out loud and making a list of can's and cannots. Now my dopey brother called, get back to this....)

Which dopey brother? :slap:


Reading into some articles, opinions, legal decisions, Washington DC....

I think ultimately that these people should be able to vote. But I also think it shouldn't be changed overnight, that the route needs to be the same as DC. Clearly the constitution is what is preventing it at this point, and that should be taken seriously. Let it go through congress and then get ratified. Any other way would be unconstitutional, IMO.

I think there are superior ways of handling tiny territories than a Constitutional amendment and statehood. Guam and some others are closer to the Philippines and Australia than any part of the US, Hawaii included.


Puerto Rico has 3.5 million, which would make it the 29th most populous State in the union - above both Connecticut and Iowa. Definitely not fair that they're not having a voice.

Guam has 165,000;

U.S. Virgin Islands has 104,000;

American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands both have a little over 50,000.

Really, population doesn't really have anything to do with it when you consider that California has 38,800,000 with 2 Senators and Wyoming has 584,000 and 2 Senators.

It seems a little preposterous to give 2 Senators and a Rep to 50k people, though. I don't know what the answer is to Samoa and Marianas, but the others should have full representation.

You're right, I excluded PR a few posts back and wouldn't see any reason to keep them from statehood as far as this discussion goes. And you could probably role the USVI into PR statehood IMO. But if Tuvalu can be an independent country then Guam and the others certainly can be as well. It's a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.