Underinformed young voter that I am, I did not know Puerto Ricans could not vote in the Presidential election. This decision was upheld on Oct 14., with a 3-member panel of the First Circuit Court
ruling that "Under First Circuit precedent, a panel such as ourselves is bound in the present circumstances by a prior panel's ruling. Only the en banc court, i.e. all the judges of the First Circuit sitting together, can alter a prior panel precedent."
In retrospect, the basic reasoning is obvious. The people don't elect the President; States do. There is no intrinsic right to vote in the Presidential election as determined in the Constitution. That makes perfect legal sense. Personally, I think it's a load of horse hockey on the level of the 3/5ths compromise creating a legal basis for slavery. The prime argument, however, is that Puerto Ricans pay no federal income tax on island sources. This, of course, somehow denies them basic U.S. rights. A man who pays virtually no income tax by accounting wizardy can still vote. Those entrapped in severe poverty can still vote. I mean, come on.
Conversely, there is a right to representation, and frankly the frontier expansion with its subsequent concerns with statehood and representation are far behind us. Furthermore, Washington D.C. residents which also don't live in a state DO have a say in the Presidential election. Why would US citizensliving in one none-state be able to vote but not ones living in another state? Both have none-voting delagates to Congress, after all. Furthermore, Puerto Rico residents are subject to military draft. In World War II, 62,000 served. In Korea, 43,000 served, 40,000 of whom were volunteers.
Part of the reason that Puerto Rico's right to vote is viewed with suspicion is that if ratified, it would have 8 electoral votes, more than most states, and these would be of an entirely hispanic population. Bushco could be expected to fight this beyond tooth and nail- All those hispanics (wingnute codeword: illegal immigrant; never mind that that is ridiculous) would certainly throw the election for Kerry.
One man, Igartúa de la Rosa, has been pushing this for at least a decade. He brought similar cases before the First Appeals Court in 1994 and 2000.
There is some reason to think that he is finally enjoying some success. One Judge on the panel who voted with the majority in previous decisions issued a dissent this time. It is highly likely that the case will at least be referred to the full court. And eventually, it will make it's way to the Supreme Court.
I guess the one problem with justice is that it's usually slow.