Today, we celebrate the legacy of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. And appropriately, later this month, we will see one of his successors, the Reverend Raphael Warnock sworn in as a United States Senator from Georgia.
But there is a lot of work still to be done. And while I could probably write a much longer essay on the full civil rights agenda, I am going to limit this post to a very key symbolic part of the agenda. Voting Rights was a key part of the King agenda. And, while other parts of the voting rights agenda are important, today — over 4 million Americans are being denied the most basic of rights, voting representation in the House and the Senate.
At the time of the framing, the United States had vast, mostly unsettled territories. Even in the states, the settlements were mostly limited to the coasts. However, between 1784 and 1787, the original Congress under the Articles of Confederation adopted a series of ordinances related to the Northwest Territories (what are currently the states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin) that governed the settlement of those territories and their ultimate admission to statehood. Under those ordinances, a territory was eligible for statehood when it had population in excess of sixty thousand people.
Since the adoption of the Constitution, the 60,000 population figure was a good estimate of when a territory would be admitted to statehood. Putting aside West Virginia and Maine which were formed from the population of other states, as a general rule, most territories became states either before or shortly after the first census that showed them with more than 60,000 inhabitants. And the exceptions are states with large minority populations: New Mexico (large number of Hispanic and Native Americans — crossed 60,000 in 1850 census, not admitted until 1912); Utah (large number of Mormons, crossed 60,000 in 1870 census, not admitted until 1890); Arizona (large number of Hispanics and Native Americans — crossed 60,000 in 1890 census, not admitted until 1912); Oklahoma (large number of Native Americans — crossed 60,000 in 1890 census, not admitted until 1907); Hawaii (large number of Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders — had population over 60,000 in 1900 census, not admitted until 1959); and Alaska (large number of Native Americans — crossed 60,000 in 1940 census, admitted in 1959).
A secondary measure would be when a territory became larger than the smallest state. Using that rule, New Mexico should have been admitted shortly after 1850 rather than waiting until 1912. Utah should have been admitted in 1870 rather than 1890. Arizona and Oklahoma should have been admitted shortly after 1890. Hawaii should have been admitted shortly after 1900.
By either measure, Puerto Rico should have been offered statehood shortly after 1910. But here we are 110 years later with Puerto Rico still being a territory subject to Congressional intervention in what would otherwise by matters reserved to its elected government. While several of the other territories of the U.S. are now larger than 60,000 given the growth in the average congressional district and the total population, the smallest state or congressional district is probably a better measurement today.
I have only heard three arguments against statehood for Puerto Rico. One argument is based on the fact that Puerto Rico is primarily Hispanic with the dominant language in Puerto Rico is Spanish. That reason is clearly contrary to the language and spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. And the denial of the right to full representation to almost four million U.S. citizens is a clear civil rights violation by the federal government and Congress.
The second argument is based on the economic status of Puerto Rico. But Puerto Rico is comparable to Mississippi and several other red states which oppose admission of Puerto Rico as a state. It would be one thing if the wealthier states were opposing the admission of Puerto Rico, but the states leading the opposition are in a similar economic situation to Puerto Rico. And, arguably, as a territory, Puerto Rico is more of a burden on the federal government than it would be as a state.
The final argument is based on the inconclusive nature of past votes by Puerto Rico on statehood. But those have all been non-binding referendums. Puerto Rico has never been invited by Congress to draft a state constitution and request admission to the union. If Congress were to start the process and Puerto Rico were to reject statehood, this argument would have merit. But until the offer is formally made, there will always be reasons to find that any non-binding vote is inconclusive.
The District of Columbia is differently situated than Puerto Rico, but it is still a violation of democratic norms. At the time of the framing, the framers wanted neutral territory for the home of the federal government. And for first seventy years of the United States, the population of D.C. was too low to justify statehood even aside from the language of the constitution. For the past 150 years, however, the population of D.C. has been large enough to merit statehood for the civilian part of the district.
In every other major democracy, the seat of government has representation in the national legislature. The arguments made at the framing about neutral territory no longer justifies keeping 600,000 people from representation or making their local government subject to congressional oversight. There are two viable options — both of which will require some constitutional amendment to fix the provisions that will be made obsolete by them. First, previously, the part of the District ceded by Virginia was returned to the state of Virginia. If Maryland were willing to accept it back, the same could be done for the rest of the District. For those who do not want another small state with two Senators, this remedy should be acceptable. Second, we can allow D.C. to become its own state — the Commonwealth of Douglass. Either as part of Maryland or as its own state, D.C. is approximately the size of an average congressional district and deserves its own voting representative in the House. But, D.C. is majority-minority; so its easy for those who want to restrict minority votes to vote against statehood for D.C.
Of course, statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. will not completely get the U.S. out of the territory business. We still have four other territories — Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas have around 250,000 people (or one-third of a congressional district). The U.S. Virgin Islands has around 100,000 people. Realistically, none of these territories will probably ever have the population that would justify statehood on their own. Given the distinction that the U.S. Constitution makes between territories and states, prolonged territorial status is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the Charter of the United Nations which requires promoting the self-government of territories. There needs to be a serious discussion of the future status of these territories. Whether that means joining these territories to existing states (perhaps Puerto Rico for the Virgin Islands and Hawaii for the Pacific territories) or granting them independence is a decision that will have to made, but permanent territorial status is not a valid answer.
At the time of the revolution, one of the intellectual arguments between thinkers in the colonies and the United Kingdom was over whether the American colonies were represented in the British Parliament. The American position was that the only way that the colonies would be represented in Parliament was if the colonies actually elected members to the British Parliament. The American position rejected the idea that somebody picked by the voters of the City of London somehow “virtually” represented the American colonies. While the position was often summarized as “No Taxation without Representation,” the opposition was to any power to regulate without representation. It is equally unfair and unjust today for people elected by a body that excludes the voters of Puerto Rico and D.C. to have the authority to enact laws that apply to the people of Puerto Rico and D.C.
The House of Representatives should make extending an invitation to Puerto Rico and D.C. to draw a state constitution and apply for statehood an immediate priority. And the Senate should find that matters related to admission to the union are exempt from the filibuster and quickly pass those bills after receiving them from the House. Denying the most basic democratic right — the right to vote — to 4 million people must end and must end now.
