As you may have heard, one of the more interesting results of the election on Tuesday was that Puerto Rico passed a non-binding referendum requesting US statehood. Personally, I find the idea of the United States of America expanding the family of states for the first time in more than half a century very exciting, and would welcome Puerto Rico as the 51st state if that came to pass, but at the same time I recognize there are a number of obstacles that may prevent that from happening - and not all of them are illegitimate. So, although I am new to the issue, here is what I've been able to glean about it.
1. Divided opinion, and ambiguity with the compound plebiscite.
The referendum contained two questions: The first was whether Puerto Rico should change its status, which passed 54% to 46%. Although a margin of 8% would be large in an election for office, on a matter of status it is rather small. The next part was how that status should change, with three options being offered: Statehood (61%), somewhat greater autonomy as a US territory (33%), and independence (6%). Upwards of 26% of voters from the first question did not select an option in the second part, and thus were not part of the percentage calculation for the second. What this means is that the pro-statehood vote was actually only 44% of total votes cast - a minority - although it still won by far the largest plurality vs. greater autonomy (24%) and independence (4%).
Now, that doesn't mean a majority are against statehood - one could reasonably interpret failure to select an option as a statement of indifference or neutrality. But even that interpretation is troubling, since it would mean that 54% were either indifferent, neutral, or opposed to statehood. On the other hand, it also means that 70% are either indifferent, neutral, or in favor of statehood. As you can see, this is a rather ambiguous result despite the optics of 61% of those choosing an option in the second part favoring statehood.
What I would recommend is that Puerto Rico hold another plebiscite with a simple Yes or No vote on US statehood, with no other options. This will produce a simple, unambiguous statement of the will of Puerto Ricans regarding that option, and give the United States federal government the clearest possible signal about the level of desire behind it. Obviously the higher the Yes vote, the stronger the case for proceeding with action on the federal level. A weak Yes would indicate that opinion is still divided, and lend credence to arguments that there is no clear consensus among Puerto Ricans justifying statehood. A strong Yes - e.g., if the indifferent votes from the compound plebiscite broke strongly in favor - would demonstrate just such a consensus.
However, the likelihood of such a follow-up referendum being held is unclear since the newly-elected Governor of Puerto Rico reportedly favors the status quo over statehood, and an unscheduled territory-wide vote could not practically be organized in the remainder of the pro-statehood incumbent's term. So with just the results of this compound plebiscite in hand, there would be credible arguments for opponents of Puerto Rican statehood in the US federal government to delay action on the question.
Nonetheless, there are no legal impediments to proceeding, and a strong argument in favor of doing so is that part of the process of accession mandated by the federal government could include a subsequent up-or-down plebiscite on statehood. So even if such a second vote is not organized independently by the Puerto Rican territorial government, the federal government can encourage it by stipulating it as a requirement. It is also notable that public opinion on a purely abstract theoretical question can change drastically once it starts looking like an imminent possibility, so I think there would be a great deal of new enthusiasm generated around statehood if the process were begun in earnest, and I'd be willing to bet that indifferent/neutral and status quo voters from this election would break strongly in favor of statehood in a subsequent up-or-down vote.
2. The next step: A Puerto Rico Enabling Act.
If / when Congress decides to act on the referendum, the first step would be to introduce legislation establishing the parameters for adopting a state constitution in line with the US Constitution and any other legal changes that would be involved. I know nothing whatsoever about the structure of Puerto Rican government apart from the broad fact that it's democratic as per being a United States territory, but I don't anticipate any radical structural changes being necessary. This legislation could include the aforementioned requirement for an up-or-down vote on statehood, and possibly stipulate some threshold of majority to proceed, since too small a margin would indicate strongly divided opinion.
Once this legislation passes both houses of Congress and is signed by the President, Puerto Ricans would (1) hold the up-or-down vote, if required, (2)organize a constitutional convention and propose a constitution in line with the parameters established by the Enabling Act, and then (3)presumably this constitution would be voted on by yet another referendum.
3. The final step: Accession.
If Puerto Rico adopts this constitution in line with the requirements of the Enabling Act, the final step is a resolution introduced in the US Congress acceding Puerto Rico to statehood. Passage through both chambers requires only a simple majority, and unlike Constitutional Amendments, does not have to be submitted to state legislatures, so it is essentially the same as any other kind of statute. It is then delivered for Presidential signature, which would be overwhelmingly likely to occur if the process had moved that far along, regardless of who is in the White House.
4. Customary steps following accession.
The most famous customary step following a new state's accession is to add another star to the star field of the American flag, which also results in changing the arrangement of stars so that their distribution is reasonably aesthetic. I assume this would also require legislation, but it's very unlikely that a new state would be added and then this prominent matter of custom be neglected. Generally speaking, and with only a few rare exceptions, the flag star field has adhered to one of three broad design categories: Evenly staggered, rectangular, or "anvil" shaped with short rows at some point in the middle, with the choice largely dictated by the number. Some examples of these designs:
Evenly staggered:
Rectangles:
Anvils:
All three of these design types share a row-by-row design, which has been an overwhelming feature of the American flag. There have been circular patterns, such as the Betsy Ross 13-star circle flag, unusual distributions, and larger star-shaped arrangements of the stars, but with the exception of the Ross flag these were never in general use, as far as I know, but may have been used as naval ensigns or by people who just liked the look of them better (since flag design wasn't official for quite a long time). Examples:
Were Puerto Rico to become a state, the star field would have 51 stars, and I have no idea how the process of considering new field designs would proceed, but it could be a lot of fun and get the public enthusiastic about the process. As was pointed out in an earlier diary by Rimjob, the two designs with the most heritage and credibility are an even stagger (like our current flag), or a solid circular field:
The row-by-row arrangement has overwhelmingly dominated American flags in the past, and so the even stagger version would have the strongest customary case, and it also looks far more like our current flag, so there would not be nearly as jarring a symbolic shift involved. Basically this option is our current flag with one more star and a slightly different pattern to keep them evenly distributed. Given that we have had the current flag for 52 years, the overwhelming likelihood would be for this pattern. The circular field would also symbolically convey a far more profound departure than would really be justified by what is actually happening by adding one state with a middling population.
On a completely unrelated subject, a funny thought struck me about changing the US flag - Islamic militant mobs would have to throw out their current stock of American flags for burning and shell out cash to get the new one. :D But anyway, all the ceremonies and symbolic changes that would surround the retirement of the old flag and introduction of the new one would get people engaged and enthusiastic, and could be a great educational experience for school kids. It would also, I think, more generally get people to look outward again and realize that America is a living thing rather than some kind of finalized museum statue set in stone.
5. Potential obstacles to statehood.
First and foremost, as already identified, there is a credible argument that the most recent plebiscite results are ambiguous and insufficient to demonstrate public will in favor of statehood. However, that can be used by both opponents and proponents of moving forward on the federal level, since as I discussed the Enabling Act can stipulate a subsequent up-or-down referendum and whatever voter threshold is thought necessary to demonstrate a reasonable consensus. Still, those who have ulterior motives in seeking to delay or prevent Puerto Rico becoming a state would have a strong argument in the insufficiency of the recent vote, and could use it to obstruct or delay federal action.
There are several potential motives behind such obstruction: (1) Ethnocentrists who do not want a primarily Spanish-speaking culture to have statehood, even though English is also an official language of Puerto Rico. (2) Greed on the part of states that fear they would lose out on money that would go to Puerto Rico. (3) Republicans not wanting to admit a state whose population of 3.7 million (about 1.8 million people voted on the first part of the referendum) would likely lean Democratic due to the far stronger position of Democrats among Latinos in general. (4) Members of the House and Senate not wishing to dilute their power by adding new members to their respective bodies. (5) States not wanting to lose out on subsequent House reapportionment due to the introduction of a state that would have the 27th largest population. Or (6) just plain curmudgeons who hate the idea of doing anything new.
Not a single one of these motivations is the least bit legitimate: There would be no ethical excuse to deny Puerto Rico statehood for any of the above reasons, so notwithstanding the fact that the loonier tunes of the Republican right might actually admit being motivated by such things, we could expect most of the official opposition to revolve around ambiguity in the current referendum, some economic excuses, and leave the rest to dog whistles. Attempts by the dimmer lights to portray Puerto Ricans as Others would be laughed at and shouted down since they are all already American citizens, and granting them statehood would merely put them on a footing of legal equality with everyone else. I would expect most opponent tactics to revolve around seeking indefinite delay and setting moving goalposts for proceeding rather than outright saying No.
Since Republicans have kept control of the House of Representatives, this could be a serious problem. On the other hand, a major realignment has just occurred in American politics, and the GOP has been confronted with an imminent demographic apocalypse in the form of the growing proportion of Latino voters. Appearing to obstruct Puerto Rican statehood might reinforce their extreme alienation from that demographic without really doing much to delay its consequences, while going along with it - despite adding a substantial number of new Democrats into federal politics - might give them an inroads.
On the other hand, there is no guarantee that most Latinos, who are primarily Mexican-American, would identify with Puerto Rico - they may see it as only tenuously related to them, in the same way that neither French nor Americans nor British care whether Quebec is part of Canada despite the issue around it being Francophone vs. Anglophone. But if, as seems likely, the GOP is unable to restrain its loony tunes from characterizing their opposition as some kind of Alamo against the "brown hordes," the sheer antipathy that would be generated would likely drive Latinos to pay attention even if the non-Puerto Rican majority among them don't care about the issue in isolation.
I would be particularly concerned with the unwillingness of Senators to dilute their power by adding two new members, since they are a uniquely insular, patrician body with a lot of incredibly selfish and narcissistic members even among Democrats. The actual numerical dilution would be trivial - each vote would only be diluted by 0.2% - but the culture of the Senate is basically the pettiest and most exclusionary country club you could possibly find, and their arrogance and unaccountability is legendary. So I won't bother to hazard a guess about how the Puerto Rico question will fare there.
The other matter is simply that the opponents would likely care about stopping it a lot more than those favoring statehood would care about pushing it - that is, unless it becomes tied into larger issues, such as that of the demographic shift already discussed. So I don't really know what's going to happen now, and that's part of why I find the idea exciting: The very worst that can happen on the issue is that things stay the same, while at best we may be expanding the family of American states, changing the flag, adding 2 million new voters into presidential elections, adding two new Senators, adding five new members of Congress, and sparking a newfound interest in and curiosity about a reputedly beautiful part of US territory that most Americans don't know much about.
On the matter of eeconomics, as far as I'm concerned, such issues are completely illegitimate to this discussion and are unworthy of being aired. A nation is not a business partnership to be entered into for convenience or just as cavalierly abandoned - it's a family, and a set of ideas and values. So I will not discuss economic arguments for or against Puerto Rican statehood, nor economic consequences upon accession beyond to state the broadest facts about it: As a state, it would be eligible for the same federal aid and support as other states, and its residents would have to pay federal income and business taxes that they presently are exempt from. Those considerations may or may not balance each other out, but either way it's an unworthy subject.
On the level of presidential elections, its population would grant Puerto Rico 7 electoral votes - same as Oregon, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Connecticut. Since those votes would likely be Democratic, that would be an incentive for Republicans to oppose statehood, but then again, as I say, that could simply backfire by perpetuating the alienation from Latinos they've already inflicted on themselves, especially given that so many Puerto Rican-Americans Americans from Puerto Rico are residents of other states and influence who their electoral votes end up going to. So I'll enjoy watching the evolution of this process, and hopefully we will see some kind of action on it next year.