On November 6, the residents of Puerto Rico will have an
opportunity to vote in local island-wide general elections and a status
plebiscite. The 2012 plebiscite provides electors with a two-stage vote
on the future status of the island. The first stage asks electors to
choose between continuing the present Commonwealth or territorial status
(Yes) and changing it (No). The second stage provides electors with a
choice among three alternative status options, namely statehood,
independence, and a non-territorial relationship described as a
‘Sovereign Free Associated State’ (
http://www.ceepur.org/es-pr/Paginas/Plebiscito-2012.aspx).
Like prior status laws enacted by the Puerto Rican legislature in 1993
and 1998, this plebiscite is not authorized by Congress and is
non-binding on the Federal government.
The United States has governed Puerto Rico as an unincorporated
territory for more than a century. Between 1898 and 1901, the United
States created a new territorial status enabling the Federal government
to selectively govern Puerto Rico as a foreign country for domestic or
constitutional purposes. In 1950, Congress enabled Puerto Ricans to
draft a local constitution and subsequently submit it to an island-wide
referendum. In 1952, after a contentious parliamentary process, Puerto
Ricans voted in favor of the new constitution and the establishment of a
‘Free Associated State,’ loosely translated as a Commonwealth. While
the new constitution provided for greater local self-government and
administrative autonomy, Congress unequivocally established that the new
political arrangement did not change the territorial or constitutional
status of Puerto Rico.
After 1952, Puerto Rican electors have gone to the polls on three
occasions to vote in a status plebiscite. In 1967, Congress enacted
Federal legislation authorizing the government of Puerto Rico to hold a
plebiscite and enabled the island’s residents to choose among three
status options, namely affirming the Commonwealth status, choosing
statehood, and/or independence. A majority of electors voted to affirm
the Commonwealth status (60.4%) over the statehood (39%) and
independence (0.6%) options.
[i]
Puerto Rican lawmakers subsequently enacted legislation providing for
two additional status plebiscites in 1993 and 1998 without congressional
authorization. Although no status option garnered a clear majority of
the votes in the 1993 plebiscite, the Commonwealth (48.6%) option
received more votes than the statehood (46.3%) and the independence
(4.4%) options. Subsequently the leadership of the Puerto Rican Popular
Democratic Party (PPD) or the Commonwealth party capitalized on popular
anger at the pro-Statehood government for wasting money on a plebiscite
and organized a boycott of the 1998 plebiscite mobilizing voters to
choose the ‘None of the above’ option. A combination of the PPD’s
campaign and below average turnout enabled the “None of the above”
option to get 50.3% of the vote effectively nullifying the outcome of
the plebiscite
Simultaneously, since 1952 Federal lawmakers introduced, debated, and
in some cases voted on, 68 additional status and plebiscitary bills.
Total Puerto Rico Federal Status and Plebicitary Legislation
Source: United States Congressional Record Index, Law Library of the Library of Congress
It is important to note why the introduction of Federal status and
plebiscitary bills peaked during the 1960’s and then again in the
1990’s. The bills debated during the 1960s mostly aimed at either
affirming the 1950-1952 process or at negotiating different versions of
the 1967 plebiscite. In contrast, lawmakers debated a substantive number
of status and plebiscitary bills during the period of the late 1980’s
and the decade of the 1990’s following international pressure from the
United Nations’ Decolonization Committee to grant Puerto Rico the
opportunity to engage in a process of political Self-Determination.
Lawmakers across party and ideological lines introduced a wide array of
plebiscitary bills including the infamous Johnston and Young Bills
during this period in order to challenge status legislation pushing for
the Self-Determination and independence of Puerto Rico.
Since 1952, Federal lawmakers have introduced a wide range of bills
including: organic or territorial laws directly changing the status of
the island; referendum legislation asking local residents to affirm or
reject a status option; and plebiscites that provide electors with an
opportunity to choose among multiple status options. A fraction (3
bills) of the legislation introduced in Congress opposed either a
particular status option (Enhanced Commonwealth) or do not specify a
status outcome.
Total Federal Legislation by Status Option (%)
Source: United States Congressional Record Index, Law Library of the Library of Congress
The majority of Federal bills provided for one of three status
options, namely statehood (27.9%), independence (22.1%) or a variance of
territorial autonomy (Commonwealth) (11.8%). Statehood bills include
legislation that: would ‘incorporate’ Puerto Rico and place it on a path
to eventual statehood; enable the island to develop a state
constitution as a precondition for admission into the Union; and in most
cases simply providing for the admission of Puerto Rico as a state.
Post-1952 independence legislation encompassed two types of bills,
namely bills providing for the independence of the island and bills
enabling Puerto Ricans to exercise a right to self-determination.
Territorial autonomy bills include a wide range of statuses that affirm
variations of the Commonwealth status, ranging from the affirmation of a
‘permanent union’ with the United States to a non-territorial or
Enhanced Commonwealth option.
In contrast, almost two-thirds (38.2%) of all bills debated in
Congress provided for a plebiscite enabling voters to choose one of the
three status options (or a variant thereof). For example most of these
plebiscites contain the typical option to choose both for independence
or statehood, but included a variant of the Commonwealth status option
that emphasized different degrees of autonomy or enhanced political
powers.
The majority of the multiple option plebiscitary bills (25 out of 26)
were introduced in the late 1990’s and after. In many ways, this trend
reflects a lack of political consensus among Federal lawmakers stemming
from the polemical Johnston and Young bills debated during the late
1980’s and early to mid 1990’s. It also reflected growing divisions
between advocates of the traditional Commonwealth status and a growing
desire by others to enhance the political powers of the Puerto Rican
government while curtailing the plenary authority of Congress to
administer the relationship between the Federal government and Puerto
Rico.
In sum, while it may be difficult to predict the electoral outcome of
the 2012 Puerto Rican status plebiscite, especially when the vote is
being held along with the island-wide general elections, the legislative
history of these debates suggests two possible outcomes in Congress.
First, lawmakers are not likely to accept the outcomes of a status
plebiscite that was not authorized by Congress. Second, the growing lack
of consensus among federal lawmakers, a lack of consensus which can be
traced back to the late 1980’s, is likely to result in a failure to
support a status option other than the traditional Commonwealth.
[i] Electoral data for Puerto Rico is available at the Comisión Estatal de Elecciones, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico (
http://www.ceepur.org/es-pr/Webmaster/Paginas/Eventos-Electorales.aspx).
Charles R. Venator-Santiago, PhD is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut.
Yazmin A. Garcia Trejo is a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science at the University of Connecticut
The commentary of this article reflects the views of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the views of Latino Decisions. Latino
Decisions and Pacific Market Research, LLC make no representations about
the accuracy of the content of the article.
Source: Latino Decisions
Por Philip Wallach
El 6 de noviembre de 2012, los electores en los estados de Washington y Colorado tomaron la trascendental y casi totalmente innovadora decisión de legalizar y regular el cannabis para uso recreacional. Aunque en muchos países se ha intentado aplicar formas de descriminalización o de uso médico legalizado del cannabis, ninguno se había aventurado a legalizar la producción, distribución y consumo recreacional de la droga, menos aún a erigir un sistema regulatorio integral y dirigido por el estado para supervisar el mercado. Pese a la falta de experiencia, y no obstante el claro conflicto con la ley federal sobre drogas, sólidas mayorías de votantes en Washington y Colorado decidieron que sus estados serían los pioneros de la experimentación. (En 2013, Uruguay les seguiría los pasos). La apertura de puntos de venta de cannabis legal se hizo realidad en Colorado desde enero de este año, y en Washington desde el 8 de julio pasado.
Mientras que Colorado viene capturando titulares por su rápido (y, en muchos aspectos, impresionante) despliegue de la legalización2, se puede afirmar que Washington está emprendiendo la reforma más radical y amplia. Esta reforma busca, en efecto, cambiar no solamente la manera en que el estado regula el cannabis, sino también desarrollar herramientas mediante las cuales se evalúen las reformas, y mostrar que dichas herramientas pueden ser relevantes en medio del tumultuoso debate político partidario. Washington ha lanzado dos iniciativas. Una de ellas se refiere a políticas sobre drogas; la otra trata del conocimiento. En el mundo de las políticas sobre drogas y, de hecho, en el mundo de la administración pública de modo más general, este enfoque es sumamente novedoso.
Esta segunda reforma, aunque menos pregonada que la legalización que domina los titulares, resulta de muchas maneras tan audaz como la primera. El gobierno del estado de Washington está tomando muy en serio su papel como laboratorio de la democracia, incrementando sus herramientas y dedicando recursos para dar seguimiento a su experimento de una manera inusualmente meticulosa. Varias características innovadoras resultan particularmente dignas de mención:
- Una porción de los ingresos generados por el tributo especial a la
venta de cannabis financiará investigaciones sobre los efectos de la
reforma y sobre cómo pueden mitigarse de manera efectiva sus costos
sociales. En efecto, el estado ha desarrollado mecanismos para evaluar
sus políticas de reforma desde el primer día, con un flujo de
financiamiento dedicado a financiar la continuidad e independencia
política del mecanismo.
- Las acciones de investigación están siendo coordinadas a través de
múltiples agencias estatales, incluyendo el Departamento de Servicios
Sociales y Sanitarios, el Departamento de Salud, y la Junta para el
Control de Licores (Liquor Control Board, LCB). En lugar de depender
únicamente de un punto de vista o fuente de información, el estado viene
enfocando muchas perspectivas para tratar de crear una evaluación
multifacética del tema.
- El Instituto de Políticas Públicas del Estado de Washington
(Washington State Institute for Public Policy, WSIPP), el centro de
estudios internos del estado, realizará un análisis de costo-beneficio
que virtualmente no tiene precedentes en cuanto a su ámbito y duración.
Si este estudio es ejecutado con éxito, brindará un parámetro de los
logros de la reforma, el cual puede ayudar a enfocar y regular el debate
político.
Al combinar estas técnicas, los gestores de políticas del estado de Washington buscan no sólo armarse de recursos para regular de manera proactiva el cannabis legal sino también para informar e influenciar de manera igualmente proactiva las batallas de información que rodearán al tema del cannabis legal. Esto no es poca cosa considerando que la regulación del cannabis es un debate político en la cual abundan los defensores apasionados y, a menudo, desmedidos. Mientras las líneas de batalla en la guerra de la información entre los defensores y detractores de la legalización se endurecen, los esfuerzos del estado por desarrollar conocimientos brindan a las autoridades la oportunidad de trascender los incansables ritmos del ciclo noticioso y de poner sus miras en horizontes temporales más relevantes. Los partidarios de la reforma a lo largo del país—en cuanto a políticas sobre cannabis, así como en otros campos—harían bien en aprender de este segundo experimento, tanto como del primero.Este documento describe los experimentos paralelos que tienen lugar en Washington: el experimento sobre el cannabis y el referido al conocimiento. El documento sopesará el potencial y los obstáculos del experimento estatal referido al conocimiento. Y ofrecerá algunas reflexiones sobre cómo aprovechar al máximo las innovaciones planteadas en Washington—tanto por quienes están más interesados en las políticas sobre drogas, como por aquellos que buscan mejorar la manera de realizar reformas de políticas de cualquier tipo.
Para bajar la introducción y resumen, haga clic aquí.
Para leer el informe completo (sólo en inglés), haga clic aquí.