Political status of Puerto Rico

The English term "commonwealth" has been used for a number of different types of entities:

• In the style (formal name) for four states of the United States (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) and one other unincorporated, organized U.S. territory (the Northern Mariana Islands)
• In the style of various independent countries: the Commonwealth of Australia or the Commonwealth of The Bahamas
• For the international organizations like the Commonwealth of Nations and the Commonwealth of Independent States (formerly parts of the Soviet Union)
• In the style of the Philippines before gaining its independence from the United States in 1947 and becoming a republic, prior to which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared it was an unincorporated territory of the United States.[35]

The definition of the term "commonwealth" as per current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads: "The term 'Commonwealth' does not describe or provide for any specific political status or relationship. It has, for example, been applied to both states and territories. When used in connection with areas under U.S. sovereignty that are not states, the term broadly describes an area that is self-governing under a constitution of its adoption and whose right of self-government will not be unilaterally withdrawn by Congress."[36]

Juan R. Torruella, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (which has jurisdiction over the Federal Court for the District of Puerto Rico), states that the use of the term "commonwealth" is a label that "can deceive and obscure the true nature of things". He states that Puerto Rico is obviously not a state, and that "neither Puerto Rico's status nor its relationship with the U.S. supports any legitimate claim that a British type of 'commonwealth' exists between Puerto Rico and the United States".[37]

Then U.S. Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman, under whose Department resided responsibility of Puerto Rican affairs, clarified the new commonwealth label by stating, "The bill (to permit Puerto Rico to write its own constitution) merely authorizes the people of Puerto Rico to adopt their own constitution and to organize a local government. ... The bill under consideration would not change Puerto Rico's political, social, and economic relationship to the United States."[38]

It has been said that "any inquiry into Puerto Rico's status must begin with the Constitution of the United States, as well as various Supreme Court and lower court decisions".[39]

Almost immediately after Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States, Puerto Rico's political status was defined by a series of landmark decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court in what are collectively known as The Insular Cases. From 1901 to 1905, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution extended ex proprio vigore to the territories. However, the Court in these cases also established the doctrine of territorial incorporation. Under the same, the Constitution only applied fully in incorporated territories such as Alaska and Hawaii, whereas it only applied partially in the new unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. Although other cases followed, strictly speaking the Insular Cases are the original six opinions issued concerning acquired territories as a result of the Treaty of Paris (1898). The six cases were:[40]

Other authorities, such as José Trías Monge, state that the list also includes these additional two cases:[42]

• Dooley v. United States, 183 U.S. 151 (1901)
• Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183 U.S. 176 (1901)

The Supreme Court later made other rulings. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 305 (1922), explained the distinction between an incorporated and a non-incorporated territory. Juan R. Torruella restated it this way, "an unincorporated territory is a territory as to which, when acquired by the United States, no clear intention was expressed that it would eventually be incorporated into the Union as a State".[45]

Since the Insular Cases had established that only those rights in the U.S. Bill of Rights that are determined to be "fundamental" are applicable in unincorporated territories, the implications of Balzac v. Porto Rico have been enormous. For example:

• The Court held that the right to trial by jury is not a fundamental right, and thus need not be given to criminal defendants in Puerto Rico.[37] (see Dorr v. United States.[46] See also Balzac v. Porto Rico[47][48]
• The Court relied on Downes and Balzac to justify the outright denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to United States citizens who had relocated to Puerto Rico from the States. This ruling allowed Congress to deny Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments to the aged and benefits to children and the poor who reside in Puerto Rico, even in the case of an insured who had worked all his life as a resident of the States proper but then moved to live in Puerto Rico.[49][50] (see Califano v. Torres, 435 U.S. 1 (1978) (per curiam))

In a brief concurrence in the United States Supreme Court judgment of Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979), Supreme Court Justice Brennan, argued that any implicit limits from the Insular Cases on the basic rights granted by the Constitution (including especially the Bill of Rights) were anachronistic in the 1970s.[51]

In general, three main alternatives were presented to Puerto Rican voters in status plebiscites: full independence, maintenance or enhancement of the current commonwealth status, and U.S. statehood. The exact expectations for each of these status formulas are a matter of debate by a given position's adherents and detractors. Puerto Ricans have proposed positions that modify the alternatives above: indemnified independence with phased-out U.S. subsidy, expanded political but not fiscal autonomy, statehood with a gradual phasing out of industrial federal tax incentives.

In 1967 and 1993, Commonwealth (the name listed for current territorial status) won. In another plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, 54% of respondents voted to reject the current status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution.[54] In a second question, 61% favored statehood as the preferred alternative; however, when blank ballots were counted, statehood support dropped to 45%.[55] Another referendum was held on June 11, 2017, in which voters had three options: "Statehood", "Free Association/Independence" or "Current Territorial Status". While 97% of voters chose "Statehood", turnout was only 23% (the lowest in history) due to a boycott from pro-Independence and pro-Commonwealth supporters. The latest referendum was held on November 3, 2020, during the general election. The voters were asked, “Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as State?”. The “Yes” option received 52.52% of the vote. The “No” option received 47.48% and turnout was at 54.72%.[56]

The following table summarizes the results of Puerto Rico's plebiscites so far.

In the 2012 Puerto Rican status referendum,[65] 54.00% of voters indicated "No" to maintaining the current political status. A full 61.11% of voters chose statehood, 33.34% chose free association, and 5.55% chose independence.[66][67] Because there were almost 500,000 blank ballots, creating confusion as to the voters' true desire, Congress decided to ignore the vote.[68][69] The 2014 budget bill included $2.5 million in funding for a future vote on Puerto Rico's political status.[70][71]

The previous plebiscites provided voters with three options: remain a Commonwealth, Statehood and Independence/Free Association. The Puerto Rican status referendum, 2017 was to offer only two options: Statehood and Independence/Free Association. If the majority favor Independence/Free Association, a second vote will be held to determine the preference: full independence as a nation or associated free state status with independence but with a "free and voluntary political association" between Puerto Rico and the United States. The specifics of the association agreement[72] would be detailed in the Compact of Free Association that would be negotiated between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. That document might cover topics such as the role of the U.S. military in Puerto Rico, the use of the U.S. currency, free trade between the two entities, and whether Puerto Ricans would be U.S. citizens.[73]

Former governor Ricardo Rosselló was strongly in favor of statehood to help develop the economy and help to "solve our 500-year-old colonial dilemma ... Colonialism is not an option .... It’s a civil rights issue ... 3.5 million citizens seeking an absolute democracy," he told the news media.[74][75]

Statehood might be useful as a means of dealing with the financial crisis, since it would allow for bankruptcy and the relevant protection. According to the Government Development Bank, this might be the only solution to the debt crisis. Congress has the power to vote to allow Chapter 9 protection without the need for statehood, but in late 2015 there was very little support in the House for this concept. Other benefits to statehood include increased disability benefits and Medicaid funding, the right to vote in presidential elections and the higher (federal) minimum wage.[76]

At approximately the same time as the referendum, Puerto Rico's legislators are also expected to vote on a bill that would allow the Governor to draft a state constitution and hold elections to choose senators and representatives to the federal Congress. Regardless of the outcome of the votes, Congress will be the body to make the final decision on the status of Puerto Rico.[75]

Various U.S. presidents have signed executive orders to help define, study, and generate activity regarding the political status of Puerto Rico. Three major orders were the 2005, 2007, and 2011 executive orders to establish the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status.

The Territories Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2) allows for Congress to "dispose of" Puerto Rico and allow it to become independent of the U.S. (in the same way as the Philippines did in 1945) or, under the authority of the Admissions Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 1) for it to be admitted as a state of the United States (with a vote of Congress in the same way that Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1958 and 1959 respectively).

It has been asserted that, since Congress must approve of any political status change for Puerto Rico, congressional agreement to the options [on a ballot], prior to a plebiscite would save the people of Puerto Rico the grief of an emotionally draining and politically divisive vote that might result in a status not acceptable to Congress.[77] Former Resident Commissioner and Former Governor Carlos Romero Barceló echoed this sentiment when he recalled, at a 1997 congressional hearing, that both "[Representatives] Young and Miller were clear in stating [in their March 3, 1997, letter to the presidents of the three political parties in Puerto Rico] that there was no purpose in presenting the people of Puerto Rico a status definition which does not represent an option that the Congress will be willing to ratify should it be approved in a plebiscite."[78]

A catalyst for the legislative activity taking place in Congress was the release in December 2005 of the presidential task force's report.[79] Per United States v. Sanchez, 992 F.2d 1143, 1152–53 (11th Cir. 1993), "Congress continues to be the ultimate source of power [over Puerto Rico] pursuant to the Territory Clause of the Constitution". (quoting United States v. Andino, 831 F.2d 1164, 1176 (1st Cir. 1987) (Torruella, J., concurring), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1034 (1988)), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 11 10 (1994).9[80] An Act of Congress is therefore ultimately required to modify the current political status of Puerto Rico.

On June 9, 2016, a 6–2 majority of the United States Supreme Court determined in the case of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, that Puerto Rico is a territory and lacks sovereignty. The opinion of the court stated: "Back of the Puerto Rican people and their Constitution, the 'ultimate' source of prosecutorial power remains the U. S. Congress, just as back of a city’s charter lies a state government."[81]

During its 8th session, the United Nations General Assembly recognized Puerto Rico's self-government on November 27, 1953, with Resolution 748 (VIII).[83] (UN Resolution "748 (VIII)", adopted on November 27, 1953, during its 459th Plenary Meeting.) This removed Puerto Rico's classification as a non-self-governing territory (under article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations). The resolution passed, garnering a favorable vote from some 40% of the General Assembly, with over 60% abstaining or voting against it (20 to 16, plus 18 abstentions). Today, however, the UN "still debates whether Puerto Rico is a colony" or not.[84]

However, Puerto Rico's political status is still debated in many international forums, possibly in part because of the circumstances surrounding the vote: "Under United States pressure, General Assembly Resolution 748 passed—though only narrowly and with many countries abstaining. The debate over Resolution 748 prompted the United Nations to agree on governing arrangements that would provide full self-government to non-self-governing territories: in United States terms, these arrangements were statehood, independence, and free association. Yet, under international law, a freely associated state is a sovereign nation in a joint governing arrangement with another nation that either nation can unilaterally end."[85] Though the subject continues to be debated in many forums it is clear that (1) the current territorial status has not satisfied Puerto Rican political leaders,[85] and (2) that despite the divergent views that Puerto Ricans have with respect to their preferred political status, 'all factions agree on the need to end the present undemocratic arrangement whereby Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of Congress but cannot vote in it.'[85]

The list of factors for determining when a colony has achieved a full measure of self-government appears in Resolution 1541 (XV) of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 15 UN GAOR Supplement (No. 16) at 29, UN Document A/4684 (1960).[86][87]

The General Assembly did not apply its full list of criteria to Puerto Rico[87][88] for determining whether or not self-governing status had been achieved. The UN's Committee on Non-Self-Governing States recently unanimously agreed to ask the General Assembly to take up the issue of Puerto Rico.[89] In June 2007, the Puerto Rico Senate approved a Concurrent Resolution urging the UN General Assembly to discuss Puerto Rico's case.

Starting in 1971, "Cuba introduced annual resolutions on the issue in the UN's Decolonization Committee but the United States has blocked General Assembly action and stopped cooperating with the Decolonization Committee. On August 23, 1973, the United States vigorously opposed that members of Puerto Rico's independence movement be allowed to speak at the UN.[90] The U.S. position has not been that Puerto Rico is not a territory; rather, the U.S. position of record, based on General Assembly Resolution 748, is that the Decolonization Committee lacks jurisdiction, that the matter is one for the United States and Puerto Rico to resolve, and that Puerto Rico has not sought a new status."[85]

In 1972, the UN set a precedent when, after approving Puerto Rico's association with the United States in 1953[91] as sufficient evidence to remove PR from the list of Colonized Countries, the United Nations reopened the matter in 1972 and it is still under review.[92][93][94] "Failure [of the United States] to include independence as an option and harassment of [Puerto Rican] pro-independence organizations were reasons for the United Nations' recent reconsideration of the status of Puerto Rico".[94]

Since 1972, the Decolonization Committee has called for Puerto Rico's decolonization and for the United States to recognize the island's right to self-determination and independence. Most recently, the Decolonization Committee called for the General Assembly to review the political status of Puerto Rico, a power reserved by the 1953 resolution.[95][96]

In 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1950 and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice.[97] In a 1996 report on a Puerto Rico status political bill, the U.S. House Committee on Resources stated, "Puerto Rico's current status does not meet the criteria for any of the options for full self-government under Resolution 1541" (the three established forms of full self-government being stated in the report as (1) national independence, (2) free association based on separate sovereignty, or (3) full integration with another nation on the basis of equality). The report concluded that Puerto Rico "remains an unincorporated territory and does not have the status of 'free association' with the United States as that status is defined under United States law or international practice", and that the establishment of local self-government with the consent of the people can be unilaterally revoked by the U.S. Congress.[98][99] The application of the U.S. Constitution applies partially to Puerto Rico by the Insular Cases.

Since 1953, the UN has been considering the political status of Puerto Rico and how to assist it in achieving "independence" or "decolonization". In 1978, the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization determined that a "colonial relationship" existed between the U.S. and Puerto Rico.[100]

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has often referred to Puerto Rico as a nation in its reports, because, internationally, the people of Puerto Rico are often considered to be a Caribbean nation with their own national identity.[23][22] In a June 2016 report, the Special Committee called for the United States to expedite the process to allow self-determination in Puerto Rico. The group called on the United States to expedite a process that would allow the people of Puerto Rico to exercise fully their right to self-determination and independence. ... [and] allow the Puerto Rican people to take decisions in a sovereign manner and to address their urgent economic and social needs, including unemployment, marginalization, insolvency and poverty".[27]

Though politically associated with the United States, Puerto Rico is considered by many other nations to have its own distinct national identity.[22] Internationally, it has been reported that "the Fourteenth Ministerial Conference of the Movement of Non-aligned Nations...reaffirms that Puerto Rican people constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation."[23]

Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States classified as a commonwealth, many Puerto Ricans consider it to be a country in and of itself.[101][102][103][104] In their book on American expansionism titled The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion, 1803–1898, Sanford Levinson and Bartholomew H. Sparrow also determined that "Most Puerto Ricans consider themselves a distinct national group."[105] They also observed that both Americans and Puerto Ricans see themselves as separate cultures—"even separate nationalities".[106]

At the local level, it has been observed that Puerto Ricans "consider themselves a territorially distinct national unit, a nation defined by its cultural distinctiveness".[107] In recent plebiscites Puerto Ricans have not expressed themselves in favor of a political status with the intention of becoming a sovereign state, but the idea that Puerto Rico is a separate social, political and cultural entity from the United States has been repeatedly expressed.

Controversy exists surrounding the "real" political status of Puerto Rico, with some calling it a colony and others disagreeing.[109] Some (especially independentistas and statehooders) claim Puerto Rico is still a colony despite the UN's removing Puerto Rico from its list of non self-governing countries in 1953. Others (notably those who vote for the current commonwealth status option) argue that Puerto Rico is not a colony because the UN has not revoked its resolution after 55 years.

Some authors have called Puerto Rico "the world's oldest colony". (2001)[110] Former chief justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court José Trías Monge wrote a book that referred to it as the "oldest colony in the world".[111] Those who argue that Puerto Rico is still a colony insist that despite the UN resolution, Puerto Rico remains what some call a "post-colonial colony".[112] Defenders of this point of view argue that Puerto Rico has less self-determination than before the U.S. invasion—it no longer has its own Puerto Rican citizenship,[113] free maritime control,[114] nor congressional representation as it did in the Spanish Cortes. Trías Monge argues that just prior to the U.S. invasion, Puerto Rico enjoyed greater freedom and rights in certain areas:

• The insular parliament could legislate in matters of monetary policy, banking, import/export duties, and public credit
• Puerto Rico could negotiate its own commercial treaties
• Puerto Ricans were Spanish citizens, equal in all respects to mainland Spanish citizens
• The Spanish Constitution applied in Puerto Rico in the same manner as it applied in Spain proper
• The Autonomic Charter of 1897, which governed Puerto Rico's relation with Spain, could not be changed except with Puerto Rico's consent

Those who claim Puerto Rico is not a colony will say that in its 8th session, the United Nations General Assembly recognized Puerto Rico's self-government on November 27, 1953, with Resolution 748.[83] This side points out that such recognition removed Puerto Rico's classification as a non-self-governing territory (under article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations). They add that the Resolution has not been revoked even though Puerto Rico's political status is still debated in many international forums.[115]

Those who claim Puerto Rico is still a colony argue that Puerto Rico was vested with the commonwealth status by the U.S. Congress to give the appearance of self-government but that genuine decolonization never occurred.[116] These supporters claim that the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1947 allowed the U.S. to continue its colonial policy of Puerto Rico in a post-colonial world.[117] They see the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1950 (P.L. 600[118]) as a gimmick to maintain the colonial status of PR "The U.S. Congress, however, carefully preserved its exclusive right to [unilaterally] alter the political status of Puerto Rico. Some saw the commonwealth as at best as temporary arrangement or at worst as a relic of the old colonial past."[119] They also point to the fact that no change in the political status of Puerto Rico is possible unless authorized by the U.S. Congress as proof of the real current status.[119] Rivera Ramos argues that the "deepest question pertains to the source of rights and the source of authority to govern...In the case of [unincorporated] territories, the rights deemed to apply to their people, as well as those denied them, have their source in a constitution they have not approved nor have the power to amend".[120]

Luis Muñoz Marín and other leaders of the Puerto Rican Popular Democratic Party heve asserted that Puerto Rico is no longer a colony, contending that the advent of the Commonwealth brought about a new, quasi-autonomous structure within the U.S. federal system, putting an end to its territorial status.[121]

Those claiming it is still a colony point to Congress legislating for Puerto Rico, and to bills where text such as those authorizing plebiscites in Puerto Rico (example "to conduct a second plebiscite between the options of (1) independence, (2) national sovereignty in association with the United States, and (3) U.S. statehood. The three options in the plebiscite also correspond to the options that the United Nations has identified as the options for decolonizing a territory." (HR 2499, section 2(c) ) clearly include content to satisfy the United Nations demand for decolonizing a territory. In addition to judicial decisions like the 1993 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decision, which stated that Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice.[97]

Some claim that granting of U.S. citizenship on Puerto Ricans on March 2, 1917 was devised by the United States in order to further reiterate its hold of Puerto Rico as a possession while others claim that it was a serious attempt to pave the way for statehood.^{[citation needed]}

Former chief of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court José Trías Monge insists that statehood was never intended for the island and that, unlike Alaska and Hawaii, which Congress deemed incorporated territories and slated for annexation to the Union from the start, Puerto Rico was kept "unincorporated" specifically to avoid offering it statehood.[122] And Myriam Marquez has stated that Puerto Ricans "fear that statehood would strip the people of their national identity, of their distinct culture and language".[123] Ayala and Bernabe add that the "purpose of the inclusion of U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans in the Jones Act of 1917 was an attempt by Congress to block independence and perpetuate Puerto Rico in its colonial status".[124] Proponents of the citizenship clause in the Jones Act argue that "the extension of citizenship did not constitute a promise of statehood but rather an attempt to exclude any consideration of independence".[125]

The preamble of the Commonwealth constitution approved by the people of Puerto Rico in 1952 in part reads: "We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges;

For the island's pro-statehood movement, the concession of U.S. citizenship has been seen, ever since, as the key that would eventually guarantee statehood for the island, as soon as the people of Puerto Rico demanded equality in citizenship.

As former Puerto Rico House of Representatives Speaker Miguel A. García Méndez subsequently declared, "For an American citizen, there cannot be another political goal other than equality with his or her fellow American citizens. To seek other solutions – to repudiate equality – is to repudiate the natural destiny of American citizenship."[126]

However, as early as 1912, President William Howard Taft had already said that there was no connection between the extension of citizenship to Puerto Ricans and the prospect of admission of Puerto Rico into the American Union. "I believe the demand for citizenship is just, and amply earned by the sustained loyalty on the part of the inhabitants of the island. But it should be remembered that the demand must be entirely dissociated from any thought of statehood".[127] President Taft's views in 1912 became a Supreme Court opinion when, in 1922, as Chief Justice, Taft wrote the opinion on Balzac, the last of the so-called Insular Cases.[128][129]

Thus, in the end, U.S. citizenship has had multiple meanings for Puerto Ricans. For some it is a welcome link to the United States, regardless of the political status of the territory. For others, it has been nothing more than an imposed identity by an imperial power. Still others regard it as a useful asset that provides access to certain rights and tangible benefits and opportunities. And there are those that cherish it as a constituent element of their self-image and identity.[130]

Statehood supporters contend that Puerto Rico cannot become a fully independent republic because there will be economic chaos due to insufficient natural resources, especially food.[131][132]

According to educational scientists Francesco Cordasco and Eugene Bucchioni, in their 1973 work The Puerto Rican Experience: a Sociological Sourcebook, the belief that Puerto Rico cannot survive on its own results from teachings since grade school. "Puerto Ricans here and in Puerto Rico are taught three things: Puerto Rico is small and the U.S. is big, Puerto Rico is poor and the U.S. is rich, Puerto Rico is weak and the U.S. is strong."[133] This theory of non-sustainability is not new; it has been held by various groups at least since the 1930s.[134]

Commonwealth partisans argue that Puerto Rico cannot afford statehood, that post-war economic growth in Puerto Rico was the result of special treatment via exemption from Federal corporate taxes. Statehooders respond that such tax exemptions primarily benefit the large industrialists and not the population as a whole since low income Puerto Ricans would not pay taxes.[135]

An example given by Angel Collado Schwarz, who believes the Island has the potential of supporting itself, is Singapore, an island nation approximately 1/14th[136] the size of Puerto Rico with a drastically higher level of population density and fewer natural resources, but has a per capita income much greater than Puerto Rico.[137]

Far-left independence activist Juan Mari Brás stated, "Only through a great unified movement looking beyond political and ideological differences, can the prevalent fears of hunger and persecution be overcome for the eventual liberation of Puerto Rico, breaking through domination by the greatest imperialist power of our age."[138]

After the invasion by the United States in 1898, the Americans made English the official language.[139][140] In 1991 under the pro-Commonwealth PPD administration of Rafael Hernández Colón Spanish was declared the only official language in the Island. Then, in 1993, under the pro-statehood PNP administration of Pedro Rosselló, the law was reversed, and English was again reinstated as an official language alongside Spanish.[141] In a 1993 survey by the Ateneo Puertorriqueño, a leading cultural institution in Puerto Rico, 93 percent of respondents indicated that they would not relinquish Spanish as their language if Puerto Rico ever became a state of the American Union, even if the United States required English as the only official language of the Island.[142][143]

In a First Circuit Court of Appeals case Igartúa v. United States, two of three members of the three-judge panel that dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds suggested in separate opinions that, in an en banc reconsideration, the United States could be required to extend full voting representation to the United States citizens in Puerto Rico if (1) the en banc Court determines that, contrary to current Circuit precedent, the Constitution does not prohibit extending such rights "under another source of law", (2) that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, at Article 25, states that "[e]very citizen shall have the right and the opportunity...[t]o vote and to be elected at genuine and periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage", is self-executing.[144][145]

• 2011-06-20. Special Committee on Decolonization Calls on United States, in Consensus Text, to Speed up Process Allowing Puerto Rico to Exercise Self-Determination: Nearly 25 Petitioners Underscore Gravity of Situation on Island, Buckling Under Economic Strain; Vigorous Opposition to Death Penalty Also Expressed.(June 20, 2011) Retrieved April 22, 2012.
• 2010-06-21. Special Committee on Decolonization Passes Text Urging General Assembly to Consider Formally Situation Concerning Puerto Rico: Draft Resolution Calls on United States to Expedite Island's Self-Determination. (June 21, 2010) Retrieved July 11, 2010.
• 2009-06-15. Special Committee on Decolonization Approves Text Calling on United States to Expedite Self-determination Process for Puerto Rico. Members Hear Petitioners Speak up for Independence, Statehood, Free Association. (June 15, 2009) Retrieved Sept 3, 2010.
• 2006-06-13. Special Committee on Decolonization Approves Text Calling on United States to Expedite Puerto Rican Self-determination Process. Draft Resolution Urges Probe of Pro-Independence Leader's Killing, Human Rights Abuses; Calls for Clean-up, Decontamination of Vieques. (June 13, 2006) Retrieved Dec 3, 2009.

• 1996-03-23. HR-3024, U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. San Juan, PR. (March 23, 1996) Retrieved December 3, 2009.
• 1997-03-19. 1997 Puerto Rico Status Hearing before the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives. 105th Congress. First Session on H.R. 856, "A Bill to Provide a Process Leading to Full Self-government for Puerto Rico". (March 19, 1997) — Washington, D.C. (Serial No. 105–16)
• 2007-02-07. Text of H.R. 900: Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007. Union Calendar No. 370. 110th CONGRESS, 2d Session. H.R. 900. Report No. 110-597. To provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. In the House of Representatives. (February 7, 2007)

• Will Puerto Rico Finally Become Our 51st State?
• Portal de la Comisión Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto Rico (In Spanish)
• Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration
• An Introduction to Puerto Rico's Status Debate at the Wayback Machine (archived August 7, 2007) (archived from the original on 2007-08-07)
• Again with the 51st State ... by Eric Lurio, The Huffington Post, August 1, 2009
• House Vote On Puerto Rico's Status Divides Hispanic Lawmakers – video report by Democracy Now!
• 1993-07-13. Puerto Rico Self-Determination Part I. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs of the Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives. 103rd Congress, First Session. On H. Con. Res. 94: Expressing the Sense of the Congress Regarding the Expression of Self-determination by the People of Puerto Rico. Washington, D.C. (July 13, 1993) Retrieved Dec 3, 2009.
• Text of Law #283 of 2011, ordering the 2012 Political Status plebiscite, and which provides a fairly complete picture of the events related to Puerto Rico's political status that have taken place since the 1898 U.S. annexation of the island. Retrieved January 10, 2012.