Statehood?

When President Obama arrives in Puerto Rico on Tuesday, he will be the first president since Kennedy to visit the island for the purpose of meeting with its people, rather than simply using it a conveniently warm and sunny spot to meet with other world leaders. So reports the New York Times today.

One topic on which the president will certainly face questions is Puerto Rico's future status relative to the United States. At present, it is characterized as a "Commonwealth," as is the Northern Mariana Islands. Its residents are citizens of the United States, but are not represented in Congress (aside from a non-voting "resident commissioner"), and have no vote in presidential elections.

According to the NYT, Obama promised in 2008 to resolve the island's political status during his first term. Accordingly, a presidential commission has recommended two votes during 2012: First, to determine whether the island should become independent; and second, assuming the answer to the first is "no," the nature of its future political association with the rest of the nation. Polls suggest that approximately 50 percent of its residents favor statehood.

Suppose the result of the two elections were to unambiguously support statehood? This would put pressure on Congress, and would confront the Republicans with a difficult dilemma. The island probably would be a predictably Democratic state. Statehood would give the Democrats two more senators. The island's population is only slightly less than that of Oregon, which means that it would be entitled to approximately the same number of six representatives in the House. If the size of the House of Representatives were to remain fixed by statute at 435, those six representatives would have to come from other states. Reapportionment after each decennial census is hard enough already, especially for those states that lose House seats.

Statehood would also give Puerto Rico approximately eight electoral votes in presidential elections.

The reflexive reaction of the Republicans would be to vote against statehood. After all, statehood for Alaska and Hawaii -- especially Hawaii -- was rejected repeatedly, despite referendums supporting statehood in both territories. The two territories were noncontiguous with the rest of the country, opponents argued. Hawaii was racially different from the mainland and its inhabitants seemed "foreign," many pointed out. (And the races often intermarried in the Islands, to the horror of Southern politicians in the 1950's and earlier.)

But opposition to Puerto Rico statehood would pose its own political risks for the Republicans. The hispanic vote is becoming an enormous factor throughout the country; party line Republican opposition to statehood would further alienate hispanics. Moreover, Florida is a critical state in presidential elections. There are now more Puerto Ricans living on the mainland than on the island itself, and many of the more recent migrants have moved to Florida. The new Florida residents tend to be educated and middle class; they would be expected to constitute a swing vote in that state, not a dunk shot for the Democrats. They also strongly favor statehood for Puerto Rico.

How many more groups around the country can the Republicans -- increasingly Southern, Mid-Western, rural, and evangelical -- afford to alientate and write off? This is a question that will keep their strategists up late at night, worrying.

When Congress finally granted statehood to Hawaii, it was a status for which 93 percent of the territory had voted. If only a slight majority of Puerto Ricans favor statehood in a plebiscite, that might be a factor justifying a "wait and see" approach before making an ultimate political decision. Commonwealth status does have some advantages for Puerto Rico -- it's not as though the island were being treated as a subject colony.

In the end, I'll gladly support whatever the voters of Puerto Rico decide is best for their future. But will the Republican Party?