Ex-Puerto Rico Gov. Rafael Hernández Colon wrote a Guest Observer (“Puerto Rican Statehood Defeated Again,” Dec. 6) about the results of the U.S. territory’s recent status referendum, arguing that “the Puerto Rican electorate defeated statehood.” The truth is far different. The former governor avoided a straightforward description of the referendum results because they were disastrous for the pro-status-quo party he once led.
The ballot consisted of two questions. In the first question, voters were asked whether they want Puerto Rico to remain a territory. Under this status, the 3.7 million American citizens residing in Puerto Rico cannot vote for the leaders who make their national laws, and are treated unequally under those laws.
Over 1.7 million people answered this first question, which is about 75 percent of registered voters on the island. Fifty-four percent said they did not want the current status to continue, while 46 percent said they did. Mr. Hernández Colon’s piece makes no reference to this crucial fact. Instead, the ex-governor ignores the results of the first question completely.
Those voting against the current status included statehood supporters, as well as advocates of independence and nationhood in free association with the U.S. These three groups have different visions for Puerto Rico’s future, but are united in their opposition to the current status, which is colonial in nature. None of my stateside colleagues in Congress would accept this status for their constituents, so they should respect that my constituents no longer accept it either.
After this vote, the question is not whether, but when, Puerto Rico will cease to be a territory and will have a democratic and dignified status — either as a state or as a nation. Defenders of the status quo will seek to obstruct change in the short term, and their initial tactic is to distort the results of the referendum. But in a democracy the will of the people ultimately prevails.
Let me turn to the second question in the referendum, where voters expressed their preference among the viable alternatives to the current status. Over 1.3 million people chose an option. Sixty-one percent voted for statehood; 33 percent for free association; and 5.5 percent for independence.
Critically, the 824,000-plus votes for statehood exceed the 817,000 votes for the current status on the first question. For the first time ever, more people in Puerto Rico want to be a state — the status I support — than to continue as a territory. This fact reveals the “statehood was defeated” thesis to be mere wishful thinking on the ex-governor’s part.
Mr. Hernández-Colon and others seek to downplay the results of the second question by noting that 480,000 voters did not provide an answer, but this argument falls flat. In our democracy, outcomes are determined by ballots properly cast. Power rests with the citizen who votes, not the one who declines to choose from among the options provided. That is because it is impossible to divine voter intent from a blank ballot.
We can speculate that some voters left the second question blank because they prefer the current status to its alternatives. Those voters were able to vote for the current status in the first question, so their viewpoint was reflected in the results. Others may have declined to answer because they thought another option should have been on the ballot—a best-of-all-worlds proposal promoted by the ex-governor’s party called “Enhanced Commonwealth.” But the last four presidential administrations have rejected this proposal, as have all key congressional leaders. A blank vote to protest the exclusion of an impossible proposal is entitled to no weight.
Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations for the IRS, arrives for a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the investigation of the IRS' targeting of political groups. Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right to not testify and caused a protest from some committee members when she offered an opening statement and engaged in dialogue with members before invoking the right.
Roll Call has launched a new feature, Hill Navigator, to advise congressional staffers and would-be staffers on how to manage workplace issues on Capitol Hill. Please send us your questions anything from office etiquette, to handling awkward moments, to what happens when the work life gets too personal. Submissions will be treated anonymously.