Talk:Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico

Merger proposal

The main discussion is located here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Absentee residents of U.S. states

I've removed the qualifier reading "who is not an absentee resident of one of the 50 U.S. states or of Washington, D.C." from the Perceptions of disenfranchisement in Puerto Rico section, per note 15 on p. 2 of [1]. Also note that [2] (the appellate decision) says, "The panel is unanimous in agreeing that the U.S. Constitution does not give Puerto Rico residents the right to vote for members of the House of Representatives because Puerto Rico is not a state."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs) 10:11, December 18, 2010

Additional Clarification: Igartua IV, is not claiming the vote of the U.S. Citizens residing on Puerto Rico for the U.S. President and the U.S. Vice-President and representation on the electoral college to Puerto Rico like the Igartua I, II and III. It is claiming that the U.S. citizen-residents of Puerto Rico have a right to vote for a Representative to the U.S. House of Representatives from Puerto Rico and a right to have Representatives from Puerto Rico in that body.

Plaintiff Gregorio Igartúa and others have brought suit claiming they and other U.S. citizen-residents of Puerto Rico have a right to vote for a Representative to the U.S. House of Representatives from Puerto Rico and a right to have Representatives from Puerto Rico in that body.   Long ago, residents of Puerto Rico were granted U.S. citizenship by statute.   See Pub.L. No. 368, ch. 145, § 5, 39 Stat. 951 (1917).

Indeed, a bill is now pending in Congress that would treat the District of Columbia as “a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives,” and permit United States citizens residing in the capitol to vote for members of the House of Representatives.   The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, S. 160, 111th Cong. was passed by Senate on February 26, 2009.

The 1st circuit judge Lipez and Torruellas indicates that the possible viable claim to equal voting rights is under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”). Torruella Circuit Judge(Concurring in part;  Dissenting in part):

Torruellas: "Congress has in fact acted in partial compliance with its obligations under the ICCPR when, in 1961, just a few years after the United Nations first ratified the ICCPR, it amended our fundamental charter to allow the United States citizens who reside in the District of Columbia to vote for the Executive offices.   See U.S. Const. amend.   XXIII.51  Indeed, a bill is now pending in Congress that would treat the District of Columbia as “a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives,” and permit United States citizens residing in the capitol to vote for members of the House of Representatives.   See District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, S. 160, 111th Cong. (passed by Senate, February 26, 2009) (2009).52  However, the United States has not taken similar “steps” with regard to the five million United States citizens who reside in the other U.S. territories, of which close to four million are residents of Puerto Rico. This inaction is in clear violation of the United States' obligations under the ICCPR". --Seablade (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, maybe what the original editor was trying to do was account for the exceptions. For example, it is my understanding that members of the U.S. military who are U.S. citizens are not disenfranchised at the federal level while serving abroad and thus they are allowed to vote for the President, etc, as absentee citizens. Seems to me this would mean that members of the military who are U.S. citizens do vote for the President while residing in Puerto Rico (including Vieques, Culebra etc). Or maybe this is not the case, and someone might care to comment. Mercy11 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My layman's understanding of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act is that it treats military and civilian voters differently. An explanatory DOJ web page, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act explains, "The protections of UOCAVA apply to: (1) members of the uniformed services on active duty who, because of their membership in the service, are absent from their place of residence, and are otherwise qualified to vote; (2) the spouses and dependents of these uniformed services voters who are absent with them; and (3) qualified voters who are absent from the United States, whether they are civilians or in the uniformed services." Note the qualifier, "absent from their place of residence", applies to members of the military or their spouses/dependents, and that a different qualifier, "absent from the United States", applies to otherwise qualified voters who are not members of the military or their spouses/dependents. As I read this, members of the military or their spouses/dependents located in PR would be able to vote under this Act, but otherwise qualified voters who who are not members of the military or their spouses/dependents would not, since persons who are present in PR are considered to be present in the U.S. (i.e., within U.S territory). What I had in mind with my change was to describe the general case for potential voters who are located in P.R., not the case of the exceptional subclass of potential voters who are members of the military or their spouses/dependents.

Perhaps "Any U.S. citizen" should be changed to "U.S. citizens who are not members of the military or their spouses/dependents". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Problems; June 2011

I see a lot of problems with this article, some of which I describe below.

1. The article appears to flout WP:LEAD. How about rewriting the first part along the lines of the following:

Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico, and in other insular areas of the United States, are constrained by Article One of the United States Constitution, which mandates that federal legislators be elected by "the People of the several States", and by Article Two, which specifies that Electoral College members, who chose the President and Vice President, be chosen by individual U.S. States. ..."

1. In the Perceptions of disenfranchisement in Puerto Rico section, the article speaks of an "appeals court decision in 2005, on appeal of the decision in the third filing of the case" without ever explaining what the case is about or what happened in the first two filings.
2. The article then launches into a bunch of quotes from federal appeals court rulings in a legal battle which has apparently been ongoing for several years. It is not usual to expect readers of WP articles to analyze and evaluate large blocks of legalese quoted directly from court opinions — in the years during which this legal battle has been raging, haven't any secondary sources ever written about it with analysis and evaluation? Selectively quoting snippets from bits of court opinions -- possibly opinions from different decisions -- and placing the snippets in juxtaposition to one another as this article does looks a lot like it might be WP:OR -- analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.
3. There's a bit in the article beginning, "Igartua IV - GREGORIO IGARTÚA ET AL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL, November 24, 2010" which looks as if it might be intended to be a quote, but it's not in a {{quotation}} template like the other quotes. I'm not sure how it is intended to fit in.

There are other apparent problems in the article, but I'll leave it at that for now. Could someone more familiar with the background here than I am please take a whack at straightening some of this out? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree the lead could read better. No objection on the proposed change. As for the other 3 items, I would also agree in the generality if not also de specifics of what you seek to accomplish. Seems it will improve the article quite well. Regards, My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

En banc review of Igartua IV

On August 4, 2011, 3 vote in favor to 3 vehemently dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit decline to accept the en banc review of Igartua IV.

IGARTÚA v. U.S. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. August 4, 2011.

Reference:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In FCO 20110804081.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7

Wikipedia does not recognized the web address completly because the space between the =In and the FCO.

--Seablade (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

All Headline News (AHN) - Puerto Rico edges closer to U.S. voting rights

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90056986?Puerto%20Rico%20edges%20closer%20to%20U.S.%20voting%20rights

--Seablade (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead paragraph edit distinguishing legislative branch elections from executive branch elections

I just edited the lead paragraph, which previously wasn't clear in distinguishing legislative branch elections (done by the people) from executive branch elections (done by electors chosen by the States -- not necessarily via a vote of the people -- see here). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor v. Happersett, the Constitution, and voting rights

I just stumbled across a mention elsewhere of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). I see that it says, "Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, ...". It looks to me as if this might be relevant to the Perceptions of disenfranchisement in Puerto Rico section of this article. Perhaps it should be mentioned there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality issues?

Both the Disenfranchisement in Puerto Rico and Igartúa sections pull extensively from the minority opinions in their respective cases (or dissenting parts of concurring opinions, etc.), devoting much more length to them. This seems like it might be a potential neutrality issue. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is a consensus against the proposed target. "Federal elections in Puerto Rico" was also suggested during the discussion, but did not gain a clear consensus either. So the verdict is not moved. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico → Federal voting rights of Puerto Rico – Change "in" in title to "of" to distinguish between U.S. Citizens of Puerto Rico, and U.S. Citizens of a state (e.g. Florida) who travel to Puerto Rico, or anywhere else in the world, but have not changed their residency nor status from said state (i.e. absentee voters). — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

While not especially controversial and could be moved without discussion, I thought using the RM template would be a good idea, in case there is a technicality about the reasoning that I'm not aware of. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: That sounds like the right of Puerto Rico to vote as an entity (e.g., in the election of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives). How about Federal voting rights of Puerto Ricans? — BarrelProof (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I had considered that, but to my mind that suggests people of Puerto Rican descent who were born and reside within the U.S. states (represented by said state in a Presidential and Congressional election). — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I previously retracted a comment so I could reword it. The article presently includes "Federal" in its title, which I believe defines the difference between general voting rights, and voting rights for specific elections / offices. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Federal voting rights of residents of Puerto Rico? — BarrelProof (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A bit long, but good. Just to make sure I'm on the same page... Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner to the House of Representatives, and shadow congresspersons, but otherwise Puerto Rico does not have the authority for final legislation vote, nor electoral votes for the office of President. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the title needs to be longer, such as Collection of information related to the lack of federal voting rights for residents of Puerto Rico, because the resident commisioner / shadow congresspersons themselves have no federal voting rights (except at the personal level if they are non-residents). If the title is Federal voting rights of residents of Puerto Rico, my understanding is that the whole article doesn't need to be much longer than the title – it could just be one sentence long: "Residents of Puerto Rico do not have federal voting rights." Or it could be a redirect to Null set. A more pleasant topic is Federal taxation in Puerto Rico. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not much different from your suggestion, but what about Federal voting rights of citizens of Puerto Rico? The original point was minimal change to the title (in → of), while defining the specific context as given in the RM reason. Is it still possible for the definition to be adequately clarified with a minimal amount of change? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Since Puerto Rico is not a country, I don't think there is a concept of being a "citizen of Puerto Rico". I've never heard of someone being a "citizen of Indiana", for example. Citizenship does not change when moving from Cincinnati to Boston or Bayamón. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• oppose it's not about Puerto Rico as an entities voting rights—blindlynx (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I probably missed something BarrelProof was trying to convey; please elaborate. How do you define an entity's voting rights within the scope of "federal"? Please provide an alternate suggestion for the title if you have one. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

For example, Speaker of the House is an elected position at the federal level in the United States. The representatives of the states vote in that election, so in some sense that is a voting right of the state at the federal level. Another example could be a vote in the United Nations. Each country gets one vote. It is a voting right "of" that country (as an entity). This is not about the voting rights of Puerto Rico; it is about the voting rights of the individual people of Puerto Rico. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that the ordinary passage of a federal law also involves a voting process at the federal level, and there is no representation of the residents of Puerto Rico in that voting process. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Hi. Would something like Federal Elections in Puerto Rico work? Residents do vote in the primary (federal) elections just not in the general. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I like that—brief, to the point, and doesn't allure to U.S. state absentee voters, nor people of Puerto Rico descent as U.S. state citizens. BarrelProof, Blindlynx, your opinions? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good—blindlynx (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Primary elections are not federal elections. They are elections held within private organizations. Political parties in the United States are voluntary self-organized associations, not part of the government at any level. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential Elections in Puerto Rico? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The lack of federal voting rights for residents of Puerto Rico is not just about presidential elections. They also do not have voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. (Also please note that Wikipedia uses sentence case, not title case.) The only problem I see with Federal voting rights of residents of Puerto Rico is that they do not have any such rights (at least none that are recognized under current law). So I think a more accurate title would be Lack of federal voting rights of residents of Puerto Rico or Voting rights that are denied to residents of Puerto Rico. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The Eloquent Peasant, I'm afraid your second suggestion wouldn't work. Presidential elections are only part of the General Elections, and Puerto Rico doesn't have any electoral votes. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

BarrelProof, I wasn't going to argue The Eloquent Peasant's reasoning (though you are correct, Primaries are not federal), but what do you think of the title suggestion, Federal Elections in Puerto Rico? As for the later suggestion, I agree with you for the reasons you've stated that U.S. Presidential Elections in Puerto Rico wouldn't work, but I think your suggestions following are getting off track. Puerter Rico has federal elections: they elect a federal official to the lower chamber of the United States Congress every four years in the General Elections. I believe the point you are trying to make is that the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico elect a non-voting member of the House of Representatives (as well as lacking a Senator), and thus the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico lack full representation at the federal level. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding.
— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I have about exhausted my usefulness in this discussion, although I will again repeat my suggestion to use sentence case for the article title. Please see WP:TITLEFORMAT. (I also suggest not using {{No ping}} in such discussions – that makes it look like you are requesting people's attention when you are deliberately suppressing their notification; I've never seen that used before.) — BarrelProof (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:TITLEFORMAT: Yeah, I agree with that (Federal Elections in Puerto Rico → Federal elections in Puerto Rico). Sorry about Template:No ping, it's from a past experience. When I'm aware of an active discussion, I can find it readily enough and I get very annoyed when I'm constantly pinged from the same section (if the discussion has gone quiet for a while, then I wouldn't object to being pinged). I don't want to repeatedly ping someone without good reason; I will take note of your suggestion that I'm overusing {{No ping}}. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on the {{No ping}}. If I want to refer to someone and am afraid of pinging them excessively, I just use their username in plain text. I didn't even know about that template. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Observation: Unless someone else adds something new the this discussion, I am satisfied that the results will be to move to suggested Federal elections in Puerto Rico instead of Federal voting rights of Puerto Rico. Thank you for this discussion—I feel that I've learned a lot about this topic in the process. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Like BarrelProof, this reads to me as the voting rights of Puerto Rico as an entity. I think the current title is fine as a description of the title – I'm struggling to see what the issue is with it (I'm not sure anyone would expect it to cover absentee voters resident in Puerto Rico, and the fact that they can still vote if they haven't changed their registration elsewhere can be covered in a simple sentence if required). Number 57 10:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.