Articles of Confederation 2.0

[T]he more urgent question for the Senate remains why bare majorities in radically gerrymandered state legislatures should have the power to defeat free and fair elections for Congress, while Congress has no power to defend itself against those distortions unless a supermajority in the Senate agrees.

The modern filibuster has restored the supermajority rules of our first and failed constitution, the Articles of Confederation. Like those articles, it is defended by people who believe that supermajority requirements induce compromise. But the failure of the first American republic led our Framers to reject that mistaken theory. And it is high time for the Senate to answer one obvious question: 

Why do a group of senators representing a relatively minuscule number of Americans, through Senate rules, get to undo the one clearly good idea of our Framers—that legislatures be governed by legislative majorities?

From here.

Congress has a lot on its plate. 

It needs to end the filibuster. It needs to fix the flawed Electoral College Act of 1887 and thwart conservative legal day dreams that would allow state legislators to ignore the decisions of voters in their state when it comes time to cast electoral votes. It needs to pass election law reform to clamp down on anti-Democratic Republican legislation at the state level to suppress voter turnout in Democratic party leaning constituencies and allow out of control gerrymandering. It needs to expand the Supreme Court to wrest control from a manipulated 6-3 hyper-conservative majority. It needs to give the District of Columbia statehood, and give Puerto Rico a better shot at statehood as well. 

Breaking the filibuster is the most important. But Congress may very well lack the will to fix it. Democrats, due to a couple of democrats in name only (DINOs) don't seem to have the votes to make that happen.

Puerto Rico Votes For Statehood

The outcome of Puerto Rico's statehood referendum on Tuesday is sufficient for Congress to feel comfortable granting it statehood without a further referendum. The U.S. House would support this step. It would take a majority of the U.S. Senate to back the measure, which would be a stretch with Democrats currently having just 48 U.S. Senate seats and possibly picking up two more in Georgia runoff elections, with a couple of Republicans and perhaps one Democrat who may not be reliable Democratic votes on this issue.  Granting Puerto Rico statehood is clearly the right thing to do.

With 95 percent of precincts reporting in the nonbinding referendum, 52 percent of voters in Puerto Rico endorsed statehood, compared to nearly 48 percent who voted against it. The victory for the statehood movement marked a significant departure from the past, when the political parties that oppose statehood banded together for a nearly evenly split result.

Tuesday’s race was the sixth plebiscite on the matter. The statehood movement overwhelmingly won the last referendum, held in 2017, but turnout was just 23 percent. 

The question voters were asked was considered so loaded to favor statehood that critics who support the status quo or independence for Puerto Rico boycotted.

This time, there was no official boycott, but voter apathy still prevailed, said Carlos Vargas-Ramos, director of public policy at the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College. Data from the territory’s Electoral Commission shows that 51 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in Tuesday’s election, in which the election of the island’s next governor was also on the ballot.

That is a steep decline compared to past gubernatorial elections, when voter turnout rates often exceeded 70 percent. In fact, the turnout on Tuesday was the lowest in the 72 years that Puerto Rico has been electing governors, Mr. Vargas-Ramos said. Still, he said, proponents of statehood can take these latest results and boast of a “clear majority.”

From the New York Times. 

Meanwhile, the same story reports that:

In the governor’s race, Pedro Pierluisi of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party held a lead of about 1 percentage point over Carlos Delgado of the Popular Democratic Party, which supports the island’s current status. But with six candidates on the ballot, Mr. Pierluisi had less than one-third of the vote.

So, Pierluisi and Delgado will probably face off in a runoff election. 

Redrawing State Lines For Fairness And Greater Political Harmony

Some of these are possible and good ideas to implement. Some are pipe dreams and can be viewed as alternative history outcomes.

If all of these proposals were adopted, the U.S. would still have 50 states (no need to change the flag) and would have no self-governing territories that lack political representation in the federal government.

Four new states would be formed from U.S. territory outside any U.S. State. American Samoa would leave the U.S. to join the adjacent independent state of Samoa. California would be divided into two states. Ten existing states would be merged into five states. There would be six one way territory transfers from one state to another, and one territory trade between two states.

Form Four New States From Federal Territory

Each of the proposed states has already handles all of its subnational governmental affairs on its own which is the point of being a state or not. The primary change in each case would be representation in the federal government.

* Admit the District of Columbia as a state (population 0.69 million).

* Admit Puerto Rico as a state (population 3.34 million)

* Admit the U.S. Virgin Islands as a state (population 0.11 million).

* Admit Guam (population 0.17 million) and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (population 0.05 million) (which are adjacent to each other) as a single new U.S. state  with two county level governments. 

One U.S. Territory Joins Another Country

Encourage American Samoa (population 0.05 million) to merge with the independent state of Samoa (population 0.20 million) and leave the United States. There is no good reason for the two to be politically divided and for them to be ruled without representation from Washington D.C.

Divide California Into Two U.S. States

California is large in population and area to the point of being unmanageable, in addition to being grossly underrepresented in the U.S. Senate. Divide California into a northern state of Golden (18.15 million people, 51 counties) and a Southern state of California (21.37 million, 7 counties) as shown below. The Los Angeles CMSA is kept in tact.

Merge Five Pairs Of Adjacent U.S. States

Each of the proposed state mergers below merge geographically adjacent states with very compatible populations, identities, economies, politics, and needs. The first four leave states with modest populations even merged. Texas and Oklahoma merged would still have a smaller population and more homogeneity than California.

* Merge Montana and Wyoming (1.65 million people)

* Merge North Dakota and South Dakota (1.65 million people)

* Merge Nebraska and Kansas (4.85 million people)

* Merge Kentucky and West Virginia (population 6.26 million).

* Merge Oklahoma and Texas (32.96 million people)

Six Territory Transfers Between U.S. States And One Territory Trade Between U.S. States

The proposals below wouldn't change the balance of power in the federal government much, but would put more people in states better aligned with their political leanings.

Two Transfers Of Territory To Idaho (From Washington and Oregon)

Map from here.

A Transfer of Territory From Nevada To Utah

The seven counties in Northeast Nevada (population 0.12 million) would be transferred to Utah, giving Utah a new population of about 3.32 million), six are connected via I-80 to Utah, the seventh borders Utah. The ten remaining counties of Nevada would have a population of 2.59 million.

It would also be workable to break Nevada into two states, with or without this territory transfer to Utah. One state, call it Vegas, would have Nye, Clark and Lincoln counties (population 2.00 million). One state, Nevada, would have Washoe, Storey, Carson City, Lyon, Douglas, Mineral and Esmeralda counties (population 0.59 million) either without the counties transferred to Utah in the proposal above, or with them (population 0.71 million) with would end the need to involve Utah in the matter.

A Transfer Of Territory From Michigan To Wisconsin

Transfer Upper Peninsula (population 0.31 million) of Michigan (population 9.99 million including the UP) to Wisconsin (population 5.82 million).

Thus, the post-transfer population of Michigan would be 9.68 million and the post-transfer population of Wisconsin would be 6.13 million.

A Transfer Of Territory From Florida To Alabama

Transfer the twelve county part of the Panhandle of Florida which is to the south of Alabama (i.e. Escambia, Santa Rose, Okaloosa, Walton, Holmes, Washington, Bay, Jackson, Calhoun, Gulf, Liberty and Franklin counties) with population 1.04 million, from Florida (population 18.80 million) to Alabama (population 4.90). 

Thus, the post-transfer population of Alabama would be 5.94 million and the post-transfer population of Florida would be 17.76 million.

A Transfer Of Territory To Ohio

Transfer Western Pennsylvania to Ohio.

Fun fact: Westsylvania was proposed as the 14th state during the American Revolutionary War. It would have been located primarily in what is now West Virginia, southwestern Pennsylvania, and small parts of Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia.

A Territory Trade Between Illinois and Indiana

Transfer Southern Illinois to Indiana and far Northwest Indiana (e.g. Gary, Indiana) to Illinois.

2016 County Level Presidential Election Results

Puerto Rico and Maria

Puerto Rico, which was already in fiscal crisis, has been devastated by Hurricane Maria.

What should be done?

Should large numbers of Puerto Ricans, at least temporarily, relocate to the mainline during the rebuilding period as many people from New Orleans and the vicinity did after Hurricane Katrina? 

A fair number of NOLA refugees were gone for good, permanently reducing the population of the city and the state of Louisiana. Does that make sense for Puerto Rico?

If not (or in any case for those who do not leave), how can the privation existing on the island be mitigated much more quickly than it is being mitigated right now? 

Should we be taking this opportunity to rebuild in a manner that is more resistant to Hurricane damages knowing that climate change makes the hurricane risk going forward higher than it has been historically?

For example, are there ways to rebuild the electrical and communications grid more robustly? How can the water supply system be made more hurricane-proof? Are there ways to make its dams less at risk of failure? Should building codes be enforced strictly now despite the shortage of inspectors, limited resources for construction, and need for rapid rebuilding work that works at odds with dealing with the current crisis? Should roads be rebuilt more sturdily, or does it make more sense to acknowledge that some infrastructure will be regularly destroyed by weather than invent only an amount that reflects its shorter than average useful life? Do there need to be better shelters in place? 

Remarkably the death toll in Puerto Rico seems to have been pretty modest for the scale of the disaster although we may not yet know everything yet since communications are still down across the island.

Are there places in Puerto Rico that are "stupid zones" that shouldn't be rebuilt (at least not with government flood insurance, etc.)?

Also:

Worse yet, the island has about $123 billion in debt and pension obligations, compared with a gross domestic product of slightly more than $100 billion, a number that is sure to fall. In the last decade, the island has lost about 9 percent of its population, including many ambitious and talented individuals. In the past 20 years, Puerto Rico’s labor force shrank by about 20 percent, with the health-care sector being especially hard hit. The population of children under 5 has fallen 37 percent since 2000, and Puerto Rico has more of its population over 60 than any U.S. state.

Via Marginal Revolution.

Maybe migration to the mainland that was already underway will simply be sped up by Maria.

Puerto Rico May Seek Statehood

A majority of voters in the predominantly Spanish speaking Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who are U.S. citizens subject to federal law, who have considerable autonomy and don't pay most U.S. taxes on Puerto Rican source income, but have no representative in Congress and no say in the Presidential election, have voted to seek to become a U.S. State in a non-binding referendum. Puerto Rico does send a "resident commissioner" to the U.S. House of Representatives, but the commissioner does not have a floor vote.

The two-part referendum asked whether the island wanted to change its 114-year relationship with the United States. Nearly 54 percent, or 922,374 people, sought to change it, while 46 percent, or 786,749 people, favored the status quo. Ninety-six percent of 1,643 precincts were reporting as of early Wednesday.

The second question asked voters to choose from three options, with statehood by far the favorite, garnering 61 percent. Sovereign free association, which would have allowed for more autonomy, received 33 percent, while independence got 5 percent.

President Barack Obama earlier expressed support for the referendum and pledged to respect the will of the people in the event of a clear majority.

It is unclear whether U.S. Congress will debate the referendum results or if Obama will consider the results to be a clear enough majority.

Congress must approve the addition of any new state to the United States and is not required to seek or follow the input of residents of territory outside any U.S. State.  Congress could foist independence on an unwilling Puerto Rico, make it a U.S. state despite local opposition, or change the relationship between Puerto Rico and the rest of the U.S. without consulting Puerto Rican officials.

The results are somewhat ambiguous due to the structure of the referendums. About 46% of people favor the status quo of Commonwealth status, which is greater than the percentage who favored sovereign free association if there was a change in status. Independence does not enjoy much support at all. It appears that many of the people who voted for statehood would actually prefer the status quo. In a straight up or down vote on the question of whether Puerto Rico should become a U.S. state or retain the status quo, it appears that the outcome would be close to 50-50 because some of the people who don't want to status quo to continue favor independence or greater autonomy for Puerto Rico, rather than closer ties to the United States.

Given this lack of clarity, it seems likely that Congress will not act to make Puerto Rico a U.S. state and will instead retain or slightly tweak the status quo.

Implications of Statehood

The addition of Puerto Rico as a state would give it two Senators and roughly six representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as about eight electoral votes, who would very likely be reliably democratic in their partisan leanings.

Puerto Rico's residents have much lower incomes than residents of other U.S. states, potentially wrecking havoc on tax code formulas and means testing regimes designed to fit the range of personal income in U.S. states (under the current U.S. tax code without special rules for Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth might be entitled to more refunds than its residents pay in taxes).

Puerto Rico would also be the only U.S. state in which the dominant language was not English, something that goes to the identity of the United States as a whole.

Democratic and Colonial Theory Context

Almost all of the other substantial U.S. possessions, and the most populous possessions of its developed world peers left over from the colonial era either have the equivalent of statehood status or are independent nations. Many U.S. possessions, such as the Philippines, were granted independence in the last half of the 20th century. But, Puerto Rico doesn't want independence.  Presumably, the fact that it doesn't is a sign that even without democratic participation, being part of the United States has real value.

Both Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, however, pose fundamental problems of democratic fairness by denying vast numbers of mostly low income U.S. citizens, in each case more than the populations of some U.S. states, who just happen to be overwhelmingly non-white, any representatives in the federal legislative process to which they are subject, and leaving their home rule regimes subject to modifications at the whim of a distant Congress in which they have no say. D.C., which is monothically Democratic, does have a say in Presidential elections, but Puerto Rico lacks even that. Other U.S. territories have populations far less than any U.S. state and collectively have fewer people than a single Congressional district.

Given the clear partisan impact of giving either Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia real political power, it seems unlikely that either approach would be approved by a U.S. House of Representatives controlled by Republicans absent some sort of national drama.

All significantly populated U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have democratic home rule powers substantially similar to those of a U.S. state and non-voting representation in Congress, although without constitutional protections for those arrangements.

Some of the main proposals to improve the situation in the District of Columbia include:
* giving it status as a tax free zone as a consequence of its lack of representation like Puerto Rico - District of Columbia license plates already sport the motto "taxation without representation";
* forming a U.S. state out of all of the District of Columbia except the core area where the White House, capital and most federal office buildings are located (presumably the constitution would then be amended to deprive this tiny federal area of its electoral votes after the rest of the District receives statehood treatment);
* restoring the portion of the District of Columbia that could have received statehood to Maryland from which it was ceded (i.e. retrocession) - something already done wit all or most of the territory ceded by Virginia;
* amend the U.S. Constitution to give the District of Columbia representation in the House and Senate as if it were a state without giving it actual statehood status (this option could also be applied to Puerto Rico).

One In Three Texans Wants Out Of Union

One in three people in Texas, and half of Republicans in Texas think that the U.S. would be better off if it wasn't part of the United States, 134 years after the end of the U.S. Civil War fought over that issue (a war prosecuted by the very first Republican President). Texas Democrats, in contrast, overwhelmingly favor remaining in the United States.

Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America?

US: 61
Independent nation: 35

Democrats: US 82, Ind 15
Republicans: US 48, Ind 48
Independents: US 55, Ind 40

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Rick Perry's suggestion that Texas may need to leave the United States?

Approve: 37
Disapprove: 58

Democrats: Approve 16, Disapprove 80
Republicans: Approve 51, Disapprove 44
Independents: Approve 43, Disapprove 50

Source: Research 2000 Poll, taken April 20-22, 2009 (MOE +/- 4%).

By comparison, just under half of Puerto Ricans want to become a U.S. state, while only about five percent want to leave the United States.