1margd
The Second-Class Treatment of U.S. Territories Is Un-American
We deserve nothing less than the full rights of citizenship, including the right to vote.
Stacey Plaskett (Delegate of the U.S. Virgin Islands) | March 11, 2021
...More than 3.5 million Americans are denied the right to vote in presidential elections, because they live in one of five U.S. territories: Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and my home, the U.S. Virgin Islands. That number is equivalent to the population of the five smallest states combined. More than 98 percent of these territorial residents are racial or ethnic minorities like me—a fact that cannot be a mere coincidence as our continuing disenfranchisement extends well past the century mark.
...America has from its inception included U.S. territories, and the people who lived in those territories knew that the Constitution protected their rights. Those same people also believed in the promise of full political participation through eventual statehood.
That promise was broken after the United States began acquiring island territories in 1898. Bending to political pressure from President William McKinley and others who supported American imperial expansion overseas, the Supreme Court turned its back on our country’s founding ideals. In a series of highly fractured and controversial decisions known collectively as the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court invented an unprecedented new category of “unincorporated” territories, which were not on a path to statehood and whose residents could be denied even basic constitutional rights. Which territories the Court determined were “unincorporated” turned largely on the justices’ view of the people who lived there—people they labeled “half-civilized,” “savage,” “alien races,” and “ignorant and lawless.”
...The ramifications of the Insular Cases go well beyond the ability of citizens in the territories to vote. We pay billions of dollars in federal taxes, and yet residents of U.S. territories are denied access to crucial federal support. Otherwise eligible citizens in the territories are denied Supplemental Security Income, leaving our most vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities to fend for themselves. Federal programs, including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the child tax credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, are either capped or denied altogether.
...Hurricanes...further exposed the human costs of disenfranchisement...the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted once again the large health disparities between our residents and those of the states.
...The Supreme Court will soon tackle questions of federal discrimination against citizens in the territories in United States v. Vaello-Madero, a case about the arbitrary denial of SSI benefits in Puerto Rico that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unconstitutional...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/give-voting-rights-us-territor...
We deserve nothing less than the full rights of citizenship, including the right to vote.
Stacey Plaskett (Delegate of the U.S. Virgin Islands) | March 11, 2021
...More than 3.5 million Americans are denied the right to vote in presidential elections, because they live in one of five U.S. territories: Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and my home, the U.S. Virgin Islands. That number is equivalent to the population of the five smallest states combined. More than 98 percent of these territorial residents are racial or ethnic minorities like me—a fact that cannot be a mere coincidence as our continuing disenfranchisement extends well past the century mark.
...America has from its inception included U.S. territories, and the people who lived in those territories knew that the Constitution protected their rights. Those same people also believed in the promise of full political participation through eventual statehood.
That promise was broken after the United States began acquiring island territories in 1898. Bending to political pressure from President William McKinley and others who supported American imperial expansion overseas, the Supreme Court turned its back on our country’s founding ideals. In a series of highly fractured and controversial decisions known collectively as the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court invented an unprecedented new category of “unincorporated” territories, which were not on a path to statehood and whose residents could be denied even basic constitutional rights. Which territories the Court determined were “unincorporated” turned largely on the justices’ view of the people who lived there—people they labeled “half-civilized,” “savage,” “alien races,” and “ignorant and lawless.”
...The ramifications of the Insular Cases go well beyond the ability of citizens in the territories to vote. We pay billions of dollars in federal taxes, and yet residents of U.S. territories are denied access to crucial federal support. Otherwise eligible citizens in the territories are denied Supplemental Security Income, leaving our most vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities to fend for themselves. Federal programs, including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the child tax credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, are either capped or denied altogether.
...Hurricanes...further exposed the human costs of disenfranchisement...the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted once again the large health disparities between our residents and those of the states.
...The Supreme Court will soon tackle questions of federal discrimination against citizens in the territories in United States v. Vaello-Madero, a case about the arbitrary denial of SSI benefits in Puerto Rico that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unconstitutional...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/give-voting-rights-us-territor...
2lriley
We pretty much know why. Republicans don’t mind their less populated states having full voting rights. It’s how they keep things close with 40 to 46% of the vote in any given election year. If Puerto Rico or DC or any territories became states they’d be screwed. Both the Senate and House would go beyond reach. Beyond all that though the fact that these populations aren’t very white is a dilemma for them.
3margd
>1 margd: ...The Supreme Court will soon tackle questions of federal discrimination against citizens in the territories in United States v. Vaello-Madero, a case about the arbitrary denial of SSI benefits in Puerto Rico that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unconstitutional...
Wonder if Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch* will be sympathetic? i.e., does his support for mistreated minorities go beyond a close reading of Indian treaties?
* Darn spell checker substituted "Gorbachev", which must have had readers scratching heads.
Wonder if Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch* will be sympathetic? i.e., does his support for mistreated minorities go beyond a close reading of Indian treaties?
* Darn spell checker substituted "Gorbachev", which must have had readers scratching heads.
4prosfilaes
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands should probably become one state, and the Pacific islands should be annexed to Hawaii, IMO.
5davidgn
>4 prosfilaes: Statehood for DC and PR is a no-brainer at this point and should be high on the agenda.
Could be wrong, but I don't think PR has any appetite for uniting with USVI, which throws a bit of a monkey wrench into your grand solution. If we're floating the idea of annexation, then annexing USVI to Florida might make more sense culturally. I have no idea how well that idea would fly on either side, though.
The Pacific Islands might collectively be viable as a state administered from Guam (eta: Might work for Guam and CNMI, but don't think American Samoa would go for it). But that's just playing arrogant technocrat. First question is, what is the popular will?
Could be wrong, but I don't think PR has any appetite for uniting with USVI, which throws a bit of a monkey wrench into your grand solution. If we're floating the idea of annexation, then annexing USVI to Florida might make more sense culturally. I have no idea how well that idea would fly on either side, though.
The Pacific Islands might collectively be viable as a state administered from Guam (eta: Might work for Guam and CNMI, but don't think American Samoa would go for it). But that's just playing arrogant technocrat. First question is, what is the popular will?
7davidgn
>5 davidgn: Some reading. "Howard L. Hills is former counsel on territorial status affairs in the Executive Office of the President, National Security Council and U.S. State Department. He is author of the book Citizens Without A State with foreword by former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh"
https://www.samoanews.com/local-news/do-americas-territories-want-equality-or-au...
ETA: For some reason, won't let me force that touchstone. "Problem
Unknown error. Contact infoAT SIGNlibrarything.com if the problem persists."
https://www.samoanews.com/local-news/do-americas-territories-want-equality-or-au...
ETA: For some reason, won't let me force that touchstone. "Problem
Unknown error. Contact infoAT SIGNlibrarything.com if the problem persists."
8margd
If they had a vote, island territories could work with Alaska and Hawaii to throw off Jones Act (1920) restrictions on how goods reach (and leave) their shores. Even in the Great Lakes, believe it or not, only US ships can transport goods between, say, Duluth and Toledo, though foreign ships may be passing by empty! Jones Act (and similar Canadian constraints?) also interfere with efficient short sea shipping, e.g., Great Lakes to Montreal and Halifax. We all pay for 1920s era inefficieny, but especially the non-continental U.S.
US shippers like the protection from foreign competition, but Jones Act constraints on purchase of foreign-built vessels is making the situation increasingly untenable, e.g., the US laker fleet is ancient compared to Canada's. For the non-continental US dependent on the US fleet, it "has dwindled from 2,300 in 1946 to less than 100 today, and many of those ships are old and among the most expensive in the world to maintain."
Senator McCain had the Jones Act in his sights. All of us--but especially the non-continental US--would benefit from its repeal or revision, though not without a fight from a handful of powerful ship owners and certain ports will fight. Island territories need the vote in order to protect their interests.
------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the Jones Act?
Joe Kent | March 29, 2016
...A Taiwanese ship leaves Taipei for Los Angeles. On its return trip, a shipper asks if it can drop off cargo in Hawaii on the way.
The leg from Los Angeles to Hawaii is an interstate trip rather than international trip. As such, it would be subject to the Jones Act, which specifies that ships carrying cargo between two American ports must: 1) be built in the United States, 2) be 75 percent owned by U.S. citizens, 3) be 75 percent manned by a U.S. citizen crew, and 4) fly the U.S. flag.
Economists say prices for a wide variety of consumer goods could be reduced by as much as 30% on the islands if the law were repealed. Due in part to the Jones Act, Hawaii has one of the highest costs of living in the nation. Alaska, Guam and Puerto Rico also have unnecessarily high costs of living because of the Jones Act...
...Currently, the fleet of U.S. vessels that comply with the Jones Act restrictions has dwindled from 2,300 in 1946 to less than 100 today, and many of those ships are old and among the most expensive in the world to maintain. Moreover, the American shipbuilding industry has all but disappeared – apart from military ships – as 90 percent of the world’s deep draft shipbuilding has moved to China, South Korea and Japan. Japan builds the fewest of those three, but it annually produces twice as many ships per year as exist in the entire Jones Act fleet...
https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2016/03/what-is-the-jones-act/
US shippers like the protection from foreign competition, but Jones Act constraints on purchase of foreign-built vessels is making the situation increasingly untenable, e.g., the US laker fleet is ancient compared to Canada's. For the non-continental US dependent on the US fleet, it "has dwindled from 2,300 in 1946 to less than 100 today, and many of those ships are old and among the most expensive in the world to maintain."
Senator McCain had the Jones Act in his sights. All of us--but especially the non-continental US--would benefit from its repeal or revision, though not without a fight from a handful of powerful ship owners and certain ports will fight. Island territories need the vote in order to protect their interests.
------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the Jones Act?
Joe Kent | March 29, 2016
...A Taiwanese ship leaves Taipei for Los Angeles. On its return trip, a shipper asks if it can drop off cargo in Hawaii on the way.
The leg from Los Angeles to Hawaii is an interstate trip rather than international trip. As such, it would be subject to the Jones Act, which specifies that ships carrying cargo between two American ports must: 1) be built in the United States, 2) be 75 percent owned by U.S. citizens, 3) be 75 percent manned by a U.S. citizen crew, and 4) fly the U.S. flag.
Economists say prices for a wide variety of consumer goods could be reduced by as much as 30% on the islands if the law were repealed. Due in part to the Jones Act, Hawaii has one of the highest costs of living in the nation. Alaska, Guam and Puerto Rico also have unnecessarily high costs of living because of the Jones Act...
...Currently, the fleet of U.S. vessels that comply with the Jones Act restrictions has dwindled from 2,300 in 1946 to less than 100 today, and many of those ships are old and among the most expensive in the world to maintain. Moreover, the American shipbuilding industry has all but disappeared – apart from military ships – as 90 percent of the world’s deep draft shipbuilding has moved to China, South Korea and Japan. Japan builds the fewest of those three, but it annually produces twice as many ships per year as exist in the entire Jones Act fleet...
https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2016/03/what-is-the-jones-act/
9prosfilaes
>5 davidgn: A minimal population is necessary for statehood. PR and DC have that minimum, but the rest don't.
The popular will of Americans is not going to be for providing full statehood for tiny territories. If a Californian or Texan is annoyed that Wyoming and Vermont gets as much power in the House as their much larger and populated states do, why should they tolerate the much smaller Guam as a state?
The popular will of Americans is not going to be for providing full statehood for tiny territories. If a Californian or Texan is annoyed that Wyoming and Vermont gets as much power in the House as their much larger and populated states do, why should they tolerate the much smaller Guam as a state?
10davidgn
>9 prosfilaes: If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd know that I consider the question of integrating American Samoa particularly thorny. You might try reading Hills as well.
11librorumamans
>9 prosfilaes: If a Californian or Texan is annoyed that Wyoming and Vermont gets as much power in the House as their much larger and populated states do . . .
Might you mean that Wyoming and Vermont have as many votes in the Senate as California or Texas? And wasn't that the founding fathers' plan for the Senate?
Or perhaps I've missed something.
Might you mean that Wyoming and Vermont have as many votes in the Senate as California or Texas? And wasn't that the founding fathers' plan for the Senate?
Or perhaps I've missed something.
12prosfilaes
>11 librorumamans: It's questionable about whether that was the Founding Fathers' plan for the Senate; in 1790, Virginia had 747,610 people, Delaware only 59,094, with the average state population of 243,000 people. So the largest state was about 12 times the smallest and 3 times the average, and the average person living in a state 4 times the population the smallest. California has 37,253,956 people, and Wyoming 563,626 with the average state population of 6,175,000 people. So California has 66 times the smallest and 6 times the average, with the average person living in a state with ten times the population the smallest.
Not only that, surely the Founding Fathers expected their plans for the Senate to be used with wisely choosing what new states are added.
In any case, I don't worship the Founding Fathers. They designed a scheme for their day, not ours, and we have 200 years more experience with the system.
Not only that, surely the Founding Fathers expected their plans for the Senate to be used with wisely choosing what new states are added.
In any case, I don't worship the Founding Fathers. They designed a scheme for their day, not ours, and we have 200 years more experience with the system.
13margd
R&D history, leading up to and following: "In 1889, during a rare two-year period when the GOP held the House, Senate, and Presidency, the U.S. added *six* states (low population & inclined Republican). It resulted in additional GOP seats in both chambers - an advantage for 30 years."
David Frum @davidfrum | 7:51 AM · Mar 23, 2021:
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1374327854209626112
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1374327854209626112.html
15 tweets, 3 min read
This below point is being repeated a lot, but I think some who repeat it are in danger of misunderstanding its significance. A short historical thread ...The Democratic party of the 1880s offered a haven to unreconstructed neo-Confederates, in alliance with corrupt urban machines. Although it took care to nominate untainted men like Grover Cleveland at the top of the ticket, down below - very different story.
Quote tweet: In 1889, during a rare two-year period when the GOP held the House, Senate, and Presidency, the U.S. added *six* states (low population & inclined Republican). It resulted in additional GOP seats in both chambers - an advantage for 30 years.
https://twitter.com/theDanaDecker/status/1374246395155079169
Image ( https://twitter.com/theDanaDecker/status/1374246395155079169/photo/1 )
1/x
The electoral power of the 1880s Democratic party depended on violent voter suppression in the South - and flagrant voter manipulation in the cities of the North. There's also reason to believe that Democrats benefited more from female disenfranchisement ... 2/x
... because Democrats were perceived as the party more supportive of the liquor traffic. We can see for certain that as soon as women got the vote in federal elections, Republicans won a sequence of huge victories (1920, 1924, 1928) - and Prohibition became law. 3/x
Anyway, back to the 1880s. The Democratic party of those days played a crooked electoral game. Anti-black voter suppression in the South brutally depressed Republican votes in that region. Urban machines stealthily inflated Democratic votes in the North. Atop all that ... 4/x
... the then-dominant Republicans had committed to a super-deflationary monetary policy in 1873.
I'll skip the technicalities, but the plan implied cutting wages in half and doubling the burden of farm debt.
That decision devastated down-ballot GOP in elections of 1874. 5/x
The monetary policy of 1873 doomed Southern Reconstruction after 1874. Result: By the 1880s, Democrats could imagine winning unified control of the federal government for the first time since the 1850s. But that win, if won, would rest heavily on force and fraud. 6/x
So there was the context for Republicans seizing a rare opportunity in later 1880s to rig the US Senate as a redoubt against neo-Confederacy. Not exactly fair, no - but neither was it fair when GOP lost Southern House seats and Electoral Votes to intimidation of black voters 7/x
Why repeat all this dusty history?
If you read the short Twitter version of what happened in 1889, you're in danger of absorbing too-simple a moral lesson.
The GOP Senate plan of the late 1880s was restorative political justice, compensating for abuses by the other party. 8/x
Americans face an analogous problem in the 2020s. Since 2010, Republicans have waged a highly successful rollback of the voting rights revolution of the 1960s. And it's worked for them, as the attack on voting rights worked for Democrats in the 1880s. 9/x
It's probably not feasible to rewrite the whole US electoral system to make it as representative as electoral systems in other peer democracies.
Germany, France, etc. adopted their present constitutions AFTER they committed to democracy; the US, BEFORE. 10/x
But Americans in the 2020s can feasibly revise *some* elements of their voting system to compensate for defects *elsewhere.* It's not a perfect solution. Like the Senate-rigging of the 1880s, it may have unintended/undesired consequences down the road. Who can foresee? 11/x
But within the context of a voting system as radically unrepresentative as the American voting system has become - something must be done. If the ideal is unfeasible, then settle for the feasible. 12/x
The lesson of the Senate carve-up of 1889 is not "Republicans are cheaters." Despite my jokes about merging states into South Saskatchewan, the lesson isn't even really that we have too many Dakotas. The lesson is ... 13/x
... that the democratic idea always faces powerful resistance, that periodic reform is necessary to defend democracy against those who dislike it, and that sometimes the only available defenses are very, very imperfect - like the carve-up of 1889. 14/x
That was them and then. This is us and now. They made mistakes. So will we. The key thing is to keep moving toward the democratic idea, against the always so powerful currents that push societies away. 15/x
The US would have been better off if it could have avoided *both* the deflation after 1873 *and* the ensuing Senate-rigging of 1889. But that outcome surely lay beyond the possibilities of their time. Let's focus on the possibilities of ours.
END
David Frum @davidfrum | 7:51 AM · Mar 23, 2021:
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1374327854209626112
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1374327854209626112.html
15 tweets, 3 min read
This below point is being repeated a lot, but I think some who repeat it are in danger of misunderstanding its significance. A short historical thread ...The Democratic party of the 1880s offered a haven to unreconstructed neo-Confederates, in alliance with corrupt urban machines. Although it took care to nominate untainted men like Grover Cleveland at the top of the ticket, down below - very different story.
Quote tweet: In 1889, during a rare two-year period when the GOP held the House, Senate, and Presidency, the U.S. added *six* states (low population & inclined Republican). It resulted in additional GOP seats in both chambers - an advantage for 30 years.
https://twitter.com/theDanaDecker/status/1374246395155079169
Image ( https://twitter.com/theDanaDecker/status/1374246395155079169/photo/1 )
1/x
The electoral power of the 1880s Democratic party depended on violent voter suppression in the South - and flagrant voter manipulation in the cities of the North. There's also reason to believe that Democrats benefited more from female disenfranchisement ... 2/x
... because Democrats were perceived as the party more supportive of the liquor traffic. We can see for certain that as soon as women got the vote in federal elections, Republicans won a sequence of huge victories (1920, 1924, 1928) - and Prohibition became law. 3/x
Anyway, back to the 1880s. The Democratic party of those days played a crooked electoral game. Anti-black voter suppression in the South brutally depressed Republican votes in that region. Urban machines stealthily inflated Democratic votes in the North. Atop all that ... 4/x
... the then-dominant Republicans had committed to a super-deflationary monetary policy in 1873.
I'll skip the technicalities, but the plan implied cutting wages in half and doubling the burden of farm debt.
That decision devastated down-ballot GOP in elections of 1874. 5/x
The monetary policy of 1873 doomed Southern Reconstruction after 1874. Result: By the 1880s, Democrats could imagine winning unified control of the federal government for the first time since the 1850s. But that win, if won, would rest heavily on force and fraud. 6/x
So there was the context for Republicans seizing a rare opportunity in later 1880s to rig the US Senate as a redoubt against neo-Confederacy. Not exactly fair, no - but neither was it fair when GOP lost Southern House seats and Electoral Votes to intimidation of black voters 7/x
Why repeat all this dusty history?
If you read the short Twitter version of what happened in 1889, you're in danger of absorbing too-simple a moral lesson.
The GOP Senate plan of the late 1880s was restorative political justice, compensating for abuses by the other party. 8/x
Americans face an analogous problem in the 2020s. Since 2010, Republicans have waged a highly successful rollback of the voting rights revolution of the 1960s. And it's worked for them, as the attack on voting rights worked for Democrats in the 1880s. 9/x
It's probably not feasible to rewrite the whole US electoral system to make it as representative as electoral systems in other peer democracies.
Germany, France, etc. adopted their present constitutions AFTER they committed to democracy; the US, BEFORE. 10/x
But Americans in the 2020s can feasibly revise *some* elements of their voting system to compensate for defects *elsewhere.* It's not a perfect solution. Like the Senate-rigging of the 1880s, it may have unintended/undesired consequences down the road. Who can foresee? 11/x
But within the context of a voting system as radically unrepresentative as the American voting system has become - something must be done. If the ideal is unfeasible, then settle for the feasible. 12/x
The lesson of the Senate carve-up of 1889 is not "Republicans are cheaters." Despite my jokes about merging states into South Saskatchewan, the lesson isn't even really that we have too many Dakotas. The lesson is ... 13/x
... that the democratic idea always faces powerful resistance, that periodic reform is necessary to defend democracy against those who dislike it, and that sometimes the only available defenses are very, very imperfect - like the carve-up of 1889. 14/x
That was them and then. This is us and now. They made mistakes. So will we. The key thing is to keep moving toward the democratic idea, against the always so powerful currents that push societies away. 15/x
The US would have been better off if it could have avoided *both* the deflation after 1873 *and* the ensuing Senate-rigging of 1889. But that outcome surely lay beyond the possibilities of their time. Let's focus on the possibilities of ours.
END
14lriley
#13–that’s a quick but succinct rundown of US party politics. A lot of democrats at the time of LBJ’s civil rights initiatives saw that as a major betrayal. The so-called Reagan Democrats were largely southern, racist and conservative. Trying to win those people back became a project at least for some democrats but it’s always been kind of a fool’s errand. Basically Americans tend towards conservatism though. The rejection of public policies that would benefit most people in general are often parsed as socialism and attacked by the wealthy, the media and religious leaders.
15margd
ALERT: US House will vote on DC statehood bill during week of April 19
- Scott MacFarlane (NBC) @MacFarlaneNews | 2:03 PM · Apr 7, 2021
- Scott MacFarlane (NBC) @MacFarlaneNews | 2:03 PM · Apr 7, 2021
17margd
The Biden administration just announced its official support for D.C. statehood saying,
"Establishing the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth as the 51st state will make our Union stronger and more just."
It is calling on Congress to make a "swift & orderly transition."
- Yamiche Alcindor (PBS) @Yamiche | 10:37 AM · Apr 20, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------
Photo of WH statement: https://twitter.com/Robillard/status/1384516642919567367/photo/1
"Establishing the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth as the 51st state will make our Union stronger and more just."
It is calling on Congress to make a "swift & orderly transition."
- Yamiche Alcindor (PBS) @Yamiche | 10:37 AM · Apr 20, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------
Photo of WH statement: https://twitter.com/Robillard/status/1384516642919567367/photo/1
18timspalding
I'd be in favor of DC statehood*, but I don't see how it's going to happen, politically. You're not going to get 60 votes in the Senate, and I don't think you'd get 50 either. It might be worthwhile to embrace politically, although I have my doubts about that in the short term. But that's about it.
*But only if, as Eleanor Holmes Norton proposes, the District remains, but is shrunk to a little Federal area.
*But only if, as Eleanor Holmes Norton proposes, the District remains, but is shrunk to a little Federal area.
