Voting Rights for Territories

NoahFence

Banned
NoahFence
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
22,131
Location
Patriot Nation
Saw John Oliver last night on DVR and he was discussing the disenfranchisement of the residents of US Territories, which are evidently populated with honest-to-goodness American Citizens, fighting and dying in our wars.

Any reason why these antiquated laws haven't changed yet? Are they too brown and different? That in a nutshell was the original reason why they weren't able to vote to begin with.

From a decision in the early 20th Century:

The decisions also found the territories were inhabited by "alien races" who might not be able to understand Anglo-Saxon laws, so the U.S. Constitution didn't have to apply. The lead decision in one of the rulings was written by the justice who wrote the "separate but equal" decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Henry Billings Brown, and was intended to be temporary.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...u-s-territories-dont-have-full-voting-rights/

Thoughts?
I think if you're allowed to fight and die as a US Citizen you should be able to vote for the guy who sent you there.
 
In some cases, there are advantages to remaining a territory. Puerto Rico seems to reject the statehood vote whenever it comes up. I've been told by Puerto Ricans it's because there would be significantly higher taxes if they became a state.
 
TragicMonkey said:
In some cases, there are advantages to remaining a territory. Puerto Rico seems to reject the statehood vote whenever it comes up. I've been told by Puerto Ricans it's because there would be significantly higher taxes if they became a state.
Click to expand...

The point about residents of American Samoa not even being citizens a lot harder to justify.
 
NoahFence said:
Saw John Oliver last night on DVR and he was discussing the disenfranchisement of the residents of US Territories, which are evidently populated with honest-to-goodness American Citizens, fighting and dying in our wars.

[...]

I think if you're allowed to fight and die as a US Citizen you should be able to vote for the guy who sent you there.
Click to expand...

It's a volunteer army. You don't even have to be a US citizen to fight and die for the US, and you're welcome to do so as long as you meet the requirements and you don't mind not receiving voting rights as quid pro quo. ETA: I mean, technically you're welcome to do so even if you do mind, but if you don't think it's a fair deal then why volunteer to begin with? Oh, and don't Puerto Ricans have essentially the same voting rights as residents of Washington, D.C.?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It's a volunteer army. You don't even have to be a US citizen to fight and die for the US, and you're welcome to do so as long as you meet the requirements and you don't mind not receiving voting rights as quid pro quo. ETA: I mean, technically you're welcome to do so even if you do mind, but if you don't think it's a fair deal then why volunteer to begin with? Oh, and don't Puerto Ricans have essentially the same voting rights as residents of Washington, D.C.?
Click to expand...

No, Washington DC can vote for President. Puerto Rico cannot. (23rd Amendment)

It was all a pretty enlightening and disgusting segment. If you live in Guam for instance, the nearest VA is in Hawaii.

Nice.

It would do good to watch it as he's far more articulate and prepared than I am.
 
The territories have to become states in order for its residents to have presidential voting rights or the constitution would have to be amended to allow territories voting rights.
 
Spindrift said:
The territories have to become states in order for its residents to have presidential voting rights or the constitution would have to be amended to allow territories voting rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I believe the time for that to happen is now. Well, it was probably 50 years ago but I understand the whole "brown and different" thing that prevents it.
 
NoahFence said:
Yes, and I believe the time for that to happen is now. Well, it was probably 50 years ago but I understand the whole "brown and different" thing that prevents it.
Click to expand...

A problem is that unless they change the size of the House, some states would lose seats.

Another issue is that I believe the territories are very Democratic and the Republicans don't look on that as a good thing.
 
Another, much less pleasant issue, is the minimum wage. As I understand it, territorial status allows companies to slap "Made in the USA" labels on things but pay the workers Third-World wages.
 
NoahFence said:
No, Washington DC can vote for President. Puerto Rico cannot. (23rd Amendment)

It was all a pretty enlightening and disgusting segment. If you live in Guam for instance, the nearest VA is in Hawaii.

Nice.

It would do good to watch it as he's far more articulate and prepared than I am.
Click to expand...

That might not have been strictly true, it is that Guam has the highest precentage of former service people in its population of anywhere and the lowest per capita spending on veterans affairs. The 3000+ mile trip wasn't for any VA coverage but for a PTSD program.
 
Spindrift said:
A problem is that unless they change the size of the House, some states would lose seats.

Another issue is that I believe the territories are very Democratic and the Republicans don't look on that as a good thing.
Click to expand...

Yes but thr push/pull on statehood is disingenuous on both sides. Republicans don't want two more Democratic senators. Democrats do, and don't give a hoot about memetic verbiage about wonders of citizens voting, either.

"Here, give up your tax-free status and give us two more senators, kthxbie."
 
I don't think territories should be given the vote (although the territories which do not grant citizenship should be changed to grant it). One of two things needs to happen: The territories need to become states, or the US needs to divest itself of the territories, granting them full independence.
 
Fizil said:
I don't think territories should be given the vote (although the territories which do not grant citizenship should be changed to grant it). One of two things needs to happen: The territories need to become states, or the US needs to divest itself of the territories, granting them full independence.
Click to expand...

Why? What if the people in the terrorities like being territories? Maybe they enjoy being part of, but not too much part of, the US. For instance, a small territory might be vulnerable to predatory neighbors if it were independent, whereas being a territory (however nominally) of a superpower confers some protection.
 
Fizil said:
I don't think territories should be given the vote (although the territories which do not grant citizenship should be changed to grant it). One of two things needs to happen: The territories need to become states, or the US needs to divest itself of the territories, granting them full independence.
Click to expand...

Why not? They're citizens.
 
Fizil said:
I don't think territories should be given the vote (although the territories which do not grant citizenship should be changed to grant it). One of two things needs to happen: The territories need to become states, or the US needs to divest itself of the territories, granting them full independence.
Click to expand...

I suspect that if they were given the option of being cut loose or remaining as territories, all of them would prefer to remain as territories.
 
NoahFence said:
Why not? They're citizens.
Click to expand...

What the hell would be the difference between a state and a territory if they were given voting representatives and senators? They already have the same sort of self-government that states have internally, so that wouldn't really be any different. What is it you think should make them continue to be territories in this case, and how would they remain different than states?
 
Fizil said:
What the hell would be the difference between a state and a territory if they were given voting representatives and senators? They already have the same sort of self-government that states have internally, so that wouldn't really be any different. What is it you think should make them continue to be territories in this case, and how would they remain different than states?
Click to expand...

I don't put much care if they're territories or states, but if they're citizen's, which they are, they should get representation and a vote.

The law that prevents it is literally because they're brown and different. Seriously.
 
NoahFence said:
I don't put much care if they're territories or states, but if they're citizen's, which they are, they should get representation and a vote.

The law that prevents it is literally because they're brown and different. Seriously.
Click to expand...

The thing that prevents the territories from having representation in Congress is not a racist law (you are referring to a legal opinion anyways, not a law). What prevents it is the Constitution:

Article I Section 2, Clause 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Click to expand...

Nope, territories don't get Representatives.

Article II Section 1, Clause 1:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Click to expand...

Nope, territories don't get Senators.

What about President? Nope.

Article III Section 1, Clauses 2-3:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that you don't even have the right to vote for President if you live in a State, it is just that all States choose their electors by popular vote now.

So if you want the citizens in the territories to have the vote, what you are asking for is a constitutional amendment, not a law. Any such law that attempted to give them representation would be unconstitutional.

Now, maybe we should have such an amendment, but wouldn't it be somewhat easier to just make them States, so our current framework works properly? I frankly find the US holding long term territories like this unsavory, for exactly the same reason you want to give them the vote. Cut them loose or make them States. The US shouldn't be holding onto large territories with civilian populations that it doesn't intend to turn into States.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
I don't put much care if they're territories or states, but if they're citizen's, which they are, they should get representation and a vote.

The law that prevents it is literally because they're brown and different. Seriously.
Click to expand...

How can that be true if they instantly get the right to vote if they move to California?

And if it's about them being brown and different, why would John McCain lose the right to vote if he moved to Guam?
 
I get a feeling most people (unfortunately including John Oliver) don't understand the Downes v. Bidwell ruling in any case. They are correct that it contains quite racist sentiments, but they are incorrect that it has anything whatsoever to do with voting rights. It has to do with whether the entire Constitution covers the territories. The point being the federal government is given the power to manage territories (as distinct from States) but does that mean all the rules that apply in "The United States" apply to those territories?

The answer has tended to be no, and that is why situations like American Samoa exist. Territories like Puerto Rico are incorporated territories, meaning they are part of the United States, and the Constitution extends to them. American Samoa is an unincorporated territory, meaning the Constitution does not apply to them (they are at the whim of Congress more than the incorporated territories).

I will certainly agree that the existence of unincorporated territories is an abomination that needs to end. There is no reason whatsoever that every territory the US possesses (if it possesses any at all) shouldn't always be incorporated. This certainly could be changed without a constitutional amendment, since whether a territory is incorporated or not is a matter of law. All Congress has to do is say "American Samoa, you are now an incorporated territory", and boom, they are all US citizens.
 
Last edited:
Fizil said:
I don't think territories should be given the vote (although the territories which do not grant citizenship should be changed to grant it). One of two things needs to happen: The territories need to become states, or the US needs to divest itself of the territories, granting them full independence.
Click to expand...

So do we make our capital a foreign country or a state?
 
It's almost enough to make you think that we should find a less idiotic way of electing the federal government.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Why? What if the people in the terrorities like being territories? Maybe they enjoy being part of, but not too much part of, the US. For instance, a small territory might be vulnerable to predatory neighbors if it were independent, whereas being a territory (however nominally) of a superpower confers some protection.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was kind of wondering if this is something the people of the territories (a majority of them that is) themselves care about or is John Oliver being concerned on their behalf about something that a majority of them are OK with?

Because last time I checked, Puerto Rico had a referendum on whether to become a state and the people voted against it (less than 50% of the people who voted voted for statehood). They voted to not have voting rights.

As to the other territories, they are much smaller than even the smallest state population-wise. I don't really know what they think. Did Oliver ask them?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So do we make our capital a foreign country or a state?
Click to expand...

It should be it's own state, or subsumed by one of the nearby states (preferably the latter, we already have too many absurdly small states skewing the Senate). The only sections of D.C. that should remain federal are non-residential portions.
 
Damien Evans said:
I assume none of these people are required to pay taxes. After all, no taxes without representation.
Click to expand...

Puerto Ricans (bona fide ones) are exempt from the Federal Income Tax. Most other taxes they pay.

Hey, I bet you a lot of Americans would take that deal. Lots of them don't even bother to vote anyway. Vote or no income taxes? I'd take the latter myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Puerto_Rico
 
Puppycow said:
Puerto Ricans (bona fide ones) are exempt from the Federal Income Tax. Most other taxes they pay.

Hey, I bet you a lot of Americans would take that deal. Lots of them don't even bother to vote anyway. Vote or no income taxes? I'd take the latter myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Puerto_Rico
Click to expand...

It's not like they pay no taxes, they just pay them to someone else.

In Puerto Rico, the tax rates are about the same as the Federal rates. So effectively it's like living in a state with no state income tax and they still pay Medicare and Social Security.
 
theprestige said:
I suspect that this is just about as good as it gets, and that the few viable options that do exist are pretty much just trade-offs of the "six of one, half dozen of the other" variety.
Click to expand...

Not sure what's so hard about majority rules. If you get more votes, you win. Easy-peesy.
 
Puppycow said:
Because last time I checked, Puerto Rico had a referendum on whether to become a state and the people voted against it (less than 50% of the people who voted voted for statehood). They voted to not have voting rights.
Click to expand...
I think that's an underdetermined analysis. The 2012 referendum was structured as a two-part question, with a majority rejection of the status quo, the only situation under which Peurto Ricans would not have presumptive voting rights. For the second part of the referendum, post-territorial status, statehood was the clear winner, although many (presumably those who favor the status quo) left the question blank.

theprestige said:
I suspect that this is just about as good as it gets, and that the few viable options that do exist are pretty much just trade-offs of the "six of one, half dozen of the other" variety.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I have never seen a rational defense of the electoral college, and FPTP voting in districts is a thing of the past in most of the world, because it's a bad way to get a grip on voter preferences.
 
Puppycow said:
Yeah, I was kind of wondering if this is something the people of the territories (a majority of them that is) themselves care about or is John Oliver being concerned on their behalf about something that a majority of them are OK with?

Because last time I checked, Puerto Rico had a referendum on whether to become a state and the people voted against it (less than 50% of the people who voted voted for statehood). They voted to not have voting rights.

As to the other territories, they are much smaller than even the smallest state population-wise. I don't really know what they think. Did Oliver ask them?
Click to expand...

Well you have to ignore DC as well, it beats out two states in population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
 
Spindrift said:
It's not like they pay no taxes, they just pay them to someone else.

In Puerto Rico, the tax rates are about the same as the Federal rates. So effectively it's like living in a state with no state income tax and they still pay Medicare and Social Security.
Click to expand...

Ah, well, they can vote for the people who impose those taxes.

Overall, I'm sure they get more money from the Feds than they pay in taxes to the Feds. Googling for that info I didn't immediately find the answer but I did find this:

http://www.economist.com/node/6980051
 
mumblethrax said:
I think that's an underdetermined analysis. The 2012 referendum was structured as a two-part question, with a majority rejection of the status quo, the only situation under which Peurto Ricans would not have presumptive voting rights. For the second part of the referendum, post-territorial status, statehood was the clear winner, although many (presumably those who favor the status quo) left the question blank.
Click to expand...

I looked at the results of the 2012 referendum and "undetermined" or "ambiguous" are the only way to describe the results. What is clear is that less than 50% of the people who cast a "valid" ballot voted for statehood. Another thing that is clear from the numbers if you add them up is that a lot of people voted for two or more different things: either they voted for the status quo AND statehood or they voted for the status quo AND to become a sovereign nation (to secede in effect).

The last referendum where voters were presented with a clear binary choice between statehood and the status quo happened in 1998 and in that one the status quo won.

It may be that there is not a majority in favor of any of the three mutually exclusive options. People who want to become an independent sovereign nation are clearly a minority. The vast majority favor remaining part of the United States in one form or the other. For those who want independence, the status quo may be preferred because it leaves that option open whereas becoming a state is a step toward the opposite direction from their preferred direction. In that case, if you give them only two choices, they would probably opt for the status quo, whereas if you give them 3, a plurality (but not a majority) may prefer statehood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom