Puerto Rico statehood referendum 2020

[7,052,770]

I didn't see a thread on this already. Any data on how likely this is to pass? It's a straight up Yes/No vote on statehood, unlike the more convoluted votes PR has had over the past decade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum

[Stuart98]

Not seeing any polls since the referendum was announced. Most recent poll from April had 43% for statehood, 21% for status quo, 15% for independence, 14% for free association, 7% for undecided.

I'd be shocked if this didn't pass based on those numbers. Only question is if it hits a majority of eligible voters (rather than a majority of voters who show up).

[GALeftist]

Not an expert but I suspect it'll pass for a couple reasons: 1. The 2017 referendum had 23% turnout, and very nearly 100% of those who voted voted for yes. This time it's the same time as a general, and the last general had 55% turnout. If we assume this general has a similar turnout and everyone who voted for yes in 2017 votes yes again, yes could theoretically lose 84% of those who didn't show in 2017 and squeak out a victory. My hunch is that yes will win a more significant portion of those who didn't turn out, which should seal the deal. 2. If the PPD thought they had the numbers to reject statehood, I expect they wouldn't have led a boycott in the first referendum. Generally boycotts are led when you simply want to drain legitimacy from a referendum (not saying this doesn't have any merit, referendums where this can work are generally on topics where people aren't engaged enough with the question to begin with, but there you have it).

[7,052,770]

This is me speculating, but the fact that Biden has promised to honor the result of the referendum surely will help, since Puerto Ricans who really want statehood may be more likely to turn out, since they know (or at least have reason to hope) they'll actually become a state if it passes.

This leads to a second question -- if it does pass in November, what's the timeline? It looks like Alaska and Hawaii took about 5-6 months from Eisenhower singing the admission law to actually becoming a state, so maybe a target date of July 4, 2021?

[GALeftist]

Assuming Dems have a federal trifecta, I'd be dismayed (but, knowing democrats, not overly shocked) if DC and PR aren't states by summer's end (assuming no weird court challenges to DC and assuming the PR referendum passes). If it'll happen at all, the end of the year's probably more or less a deadline, because I imagine it'd be a bit of a hassle to redo redistricting after new states are added.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Assuming Dems have a federal trifecta, I'd be dismayed (but, knowing democrats, not overly shocked) if DC and PR aren't states by summer's end (assuming no weird court challenges to DC and assuming the PR referendum passes). If it'll happen at all, the end of the year's probably more or less a deadline, because I imagine it'd be a bit of a hassle to redo redistricting after new states are added.

This is why if Democrats want to do USVI and some of the Pacific islands they need to let governors Bryan, Guerrero, and others know now so they can get a referendum voted on before next fall.

[StateBoiler]

Assuming Dems have a federal trifecta, I'd be dismayed (but, knowing democrats, not overly shocked) if DC and PR aren't states by summer's end (assuming no weird court challenges to DC and assuming the PR referendum passes). If it'll happen at all, the end of the year's probably more or less a deadline, because I imagine it'd be a bit of a hassle to redo redistricting after new states are added.

1. It's not that simple.
2. I think Puerto Rico will someday become a state. But should we be granting statehood to places that vote say 52% in favor? What if that number mildly flips in 5 years and becomes 55% in favor of secession? It's best for all federal entities to not touch on the subject of "a majority of this state's population want to leave" because it's a big can of worms. This country dealt with it once and it ended with 618,000 people dead.

You get upwards to say two-thirds in support, entirely different story.

[GALeftist]

Assuming Dems have a federal trifecta, I'd be dismayed (but, knowing democrats, not overly shocked) if DC and PR aren't states by summer's end (assuming no weird court challenges to DC and assuming the PR referendum passes). If it'll happen at all, the end of the year's probably more or less a deadline, because I imagine it'd be a bit of a hassle to redo redistricting after new states are added.

1. It's not that simple.
2. I think Puerto Rico will someday become a state. But should we be granting statehood to places that vote say 52% in favor? What if that number mildly flips in 5 years and becomes 55% in favor of secession? It's best for all federal entities to not touch on the subject of "a majority of this state's population want to leave" because it's a big can of worms. This country dealt with it once and it ended with 618,000 people dead.

You get upwards to say two-thirds in support, entirely different story.

1. Why isn't it that simple? I was under the impression that statehood only required a simple act of congress.
2. Fair point about secession, I suspect that once PR becomes a state, there's no going back, unless Texas v. White is overturned (which it won't be). However, what's the magic about the 67% number? The other 33% are still just out of luck. And what is the alternative to statehood? It seems unconscionable to me to continue to hold Puerto Rico as a modern day colony, subject to rules made by a different group of people in a Congress it has no votes in. In my mind, Puerto Rico should be progressing to either full statehood or full independence as soon as possible, and I very much doubt that more Puerto Ricans prefer independence to statehood.

[The Mikado]

1. Why isn't it that simple? I was under the impression that statehood only required a simple act of congress.

Technically, Puerto Rico also has to write a state constitution first, though I'd expect statehood folks have a draft ready to go.

[Dr. Arch]

1. Why isn't it that simple? I was under the impression that statehood only required a simple act of congress.

Technically, Puerto Rico also has to write a state constitution first, though I'd expect statehood folks have a draft ready to go.

Puerto Rico already has one, largely modeled on the U.S.'s constitution.

[Nutmeg]

Not seeing any polls since the referendum was announced. Most recent poll from April had 43% for statehood, 21% for status quo, 15% for independence, 14% for free association, 7% for undecided.

The polling has been goofy. The ballot measure will only ask whether PR should become a state: yes or no. These other options are not on the ballot. Presumably pro-independence voters all would vote No, but free association supporters and even status quo/territory supporters probably would do the same because neither of these options aligns with statehood. This indicates to me that Yes is far from assured and if anything would barely eke out a majority.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Do you think hatred of Trump might dampen support for the statehood side?

[GALeftist]

Again, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that Yes having over a fifth of the island, and almost half of the probable turnout, essentially locked in puts them in a good position for November. I see, basically, two paths to victory for No.

1. No gets 100% of those who vote in November who didn't vote in the 2017 referendum (or at least like 90%). This seems improbable; probably at least part of 2017's low turnout was the fact that it wasn't a general (rather than a boycott by those against statehood), and I suspect Maria has made statehood more attractive since then.

2. No taps into some other anti-statehood constituency which doesn't usually turn out. This seems more plausible; I can imagine that you could do this with the youth of the island, for example. However, the clock is ticking on that, and I haven't really seen any news indicating such a constituency planning to vote in November.

With respect for the Trump point, I actually hadn't thought of that, but I kind of doubt it; I think the perception right now is probably that a Biden administration is likely.

[7,052,770]

Do you think hatred of Trump might dampen support for the statehood side?

If hatred of Trump drives anything, wouldn't it make people vote Yes to stick it to him?

[Senator-elect Spark]

Interesting. PR will definitely become a state by 2030.

[Mr. Morden]

Assuming Dems have a federal trifecta, I'd be dismayed (but, knowing democrats, not overly shocked) if DC and PR aren't states by summer's end (assuming no weird court challenges to DC and assuming the PR referendum passes).

Doesn't this also depend on the filibuster being junked?  Is that a sure thing, even if the Senate is 50/50 +Harris as the tiebreaker?  All Senate Dems would have to go along with it.  Are Manchin, Sinema, etc. sure things to vote for junking the filibuster?

[The Mikado]

Reapportionment's gonna be wild if this happens. A lot of states are going to be annoyed at losing/not gaining as many seats as they hoped for.

I mean, Texas isn't going to mind getting 38 rather than 39, but Montana will definitely mind getting 1 rather than 2.

[lfromnj]

Reapportionment's gonna be wild if this happens. A lot of states are going to be annoyed at losing/not gaining as many seats as they hoped for.

I mean, Texas isn't going to mind getting 38 rather than 39, but Montana will definitely mind getting 1 rather than 2.

Reapportionment should happen before PR is added. At the very least I expect Democrats to moderately expand the house size by a bit to not piss of any state/delegation.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Reapportionment's gonna be wild if this happens. A lot of states are going to be annoyed at losing/not gaining as many seats as they hoped for.

I mean, Texas isn't going to mind getting 38 rather than 39, but Montana will definitely mind getting 1 rather than 2.

Reapportionment should happen before PR is added. At the very least I expect Democrats to moderately expand the house size by a bit to not piss of any state/delegation.

Yeah, expanding it to 440 (4 for PR and 1 for DC) would be the best solution imo

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cube Root Rule Time!!!

Democrats seriously need to get on board with this.

[ibagli]

Reapportionment's gonna be wild if this happens. A lot of states are going to be annoyed at losing/not gaining as many seats as they hoped for.

I mean, Texas isn't going to mind getting 38 rather than 39, but Montana will definitely mind getting 1 rather than 2.

Reapportionment should happen before PR is added. At the very least I expect Democrats to moderately expand the house size by a bit to not piss of any state/delegation.

That's already what the current iteration of the DC admission legislation has (permanent expansion to 436 seats). The one introduced in the last Congress would have reduced it back to 435, so I assume they figured out it would ruffle some feathers if they didn't add a seat.

[lfromnj]

Cube Root Rule Time!!!

Democrats seriously need to get on board with this.

Its packing the house dude, wtf SUPPORT NORMS

/s

[Samof94]

Do you think PR would be a swing state?

[GALeftist]

I think the swinginess of PR is overrated tbqh. Puerto Ricans on the mainland are reliable Democratic votes, and I can't really envision the current GOP making a serious play for Hispanic votes in the way that they would need to to carry Puerto Rico.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cube Root Rule Time!!!

Democrats seriously need to get on board with this.

Its packing the house dude, wtf SUPPORT NORMS

/s

The founders never envisioned a stagnant House size and it was increased repeatedly until the early 20th century.

Its time to get back to the founders intent, dude!