http://www.elviscostello.com/news/it-is-after-cosiderable-contemplation/44

By Petula Dvorak
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; B01

What a beautiful place, Puerto Rico.

It has an astounding rain forest, where leaves grow bigger than a 3-year-old; turquoise waters; a plantain dish fantastically called mofongo, roadside stands selling pinchos, skewers of meat; buildings the color of Caribbean petits four, the sound of reggaeton thumping from cars; and Spanish on everyone's tongue.

It feels as if we went to another world for our delayed, spring break getaway -- and we didn't even need passports.

But what felt ridiculous was that this alluring little island is poised to have more say in Congress than anyone who lives within walking distance of America's Capitol dome.

It's a statehood debate in reverse.

And it's outrageous.

We landed in Puerto Rico last week, shortly after the latest round in the tortured struggle for D.C. voting rights came to a sad, sputtering end. I was ready to take a break from statehood talk and that painful "Taxation Without Representation" slogan on all of our cars.

For a few months, it really felt as if it was going to happen. With a supporter in the White House and a Democratic majority on the Hill, voting rights for those who live in and help run the nation's capital seemed inevitable.

This last bill would have given D.C. residents -- who pay the nation's second-highest, per-capita income tax, according to D.C. Vote -- one voting representative in Congress.

That's pretty fair, considering that Wyoming, which has two senators and one House member, has fewer residents than the District. The bill was passed by the Senate last year. And it seemed bulletproof because it guaranteed a temporary House seat to heavily-Republican Utah.

But then -- bam! -- it was marred by a last-minute amendment that would wipe out existing gun laws in the District and prevent the city from making any new ones.

No way. It felt dirty to consider such a compromise, and lawmakers yanked the bill.

Then, out of the blue, as District residents were left standing outside the prom holding our wilted corsage, we see Puerto Rico being asked to dance.

Just a few days after the huge setback, the House passed a bill inviting Puerto Rico to join the union.

WTH?

This lovely island has been a U.S. territory for 112 years. Puerto Ricans get U.S. citizenship and can serve in the military but can't vote in presidential elections. They get many U.S. services but don't pay federal income tax.

For the most part, they've been happy with the way things are. Every decade or so, we ask them if they want to become our 51st star, and they politely decline.

Things could be changing. In a poll conducted by the island's largest newspaper two years ago, Puerto Ricans said they prefer statehood over independence 77 percent to 12 percent.

Salivating at the thought of more seats in play (Puerto Rico is eligible for six House seats), the District was dropped as unceremoniously as a senator's first wife, and politicians set about wooing their Caribbean prospect.

Everywhere I went, I found Puerto Rico abuzz with the latest news.

Some said they still have no interest in statehood. "We have our Puerto Rican sports -- we love cheering for Puerto Rico. And who wants more taxes?" said the woman at a car rental agency in San Juan, fearing the end of Puerto Rican Olympic teams and the beginning of federal taxes.

"And there is our culture. People are afraid of what happened in Hawaii," a woman standing in line with me at a grocery store said, citing that island's erosion of native culture after it got statehood in 1959.

Well, I've gotta say, Mickey D's, Wendy's and Wal-Mart are already there. How much worse can it get?

Ron Robles, jumping up from his chair at a bar overlooking a harbor and thumping his chest, told me that no legislation can blanch his island.

"I am Puerto Rican on the moon. I am Puerto Rican in hell. I have a flag, and I have my blood -- that tells me I'm Puerto Rican," said Robles, a boat captain on the north coast. America is good to us, and we are used to this. So we should be a state, sure.

In every conversation, I found people incredulous that us poor schlubs who ride the Metro and cheer for our sad sports teams are no better off than our Puerto Rican brethren.

"You're in the nation's capital but you're not a state?" a cashier at a pharmacy asked me. "That doesn't make sense."

I have nothing against Puerto Rico becoming a state. If that's what the people want, it should happen.

But doing it before addressing the inequity in our nation's capital is wrong.

At a little gift shop, where I was chatting up a clerk on her statehood thoughts, I learned how this turn of events stings us more than a vacation sunburn.

The man waiting in line snapped at me: "Why don't you write about D.C.? Now there's a statehood story."

Turns out he's a lawyer in D.C. A frat brother of the mayor. The husband of a longtime District employee.

And another American who doesn't have a vote.

E-mail me at  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

___________________________________

May 18, 2010

Statehood activist Samuel Jordan's reply to Petula Dvorak:

Petula, greetings.  Your article on Puerto Rico (May 18, 2010 WP) makes an unfortunate concession that sabotages the questions of fairness you see at the heart of the argument for statehood for the District .

When you concede that one vote for the District is "pretty fair," you have instantly undercut the political morality supporting statehood for the District.  One vote for the District is not fair.  Only full Congressional representation, full local autonomy and statehood can make the residents of the District equal to all others who pay federal taxes and bear the burdens of citizenship in the US.  Equality is indivisible.  Nothing less is "pretty fair."

Why should Congress consider statehood for the District if our representatives will "accept" less than equal treatment?  If any demands are to be made, they should insist upon nothing less than complete equality.  That is political morality.  For that reason, DC Vote, Delegate Norton, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the other supporters of the one-vote scheme have not found enthusiastic support among DC residents - who in 1982 voted to ratify a constitution for the state of New Columbia.  Like so many other commentators on the matter, you don't refer to this critical decision by the voters of the District.  It has yet to be superceded by any official tally.  You too, are prepared to ignore its significance and find continued inequality as "pretty fair."  Who goes to the barricades to advance inequality?

Members of Congress are somewhat bemused by the Delegate and the one-vote-for-DC-one-vote-for- Utah samba we've danced since Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) introduced the measure in the 2005.  It seems that every one in Congress except the DC Delegate understood the functionality of the tactic - to get an additional Electoral College vote for the Republicans when another close presidential election, as in 2000 and 2004, was expected in 2008.

Utah is still one of the "reddest, whitest" states in the union.  The District on the other hand - "a hot bed of Democratic Party voters" - would not have gotten an additional Electoral College vote because the District's total is sealed in the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution which gave District voters the right to vote for president.  The one-vote strategem has outlived its usefulness; 2008 has come and gone.  Tom Davis is no longer the Chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign, a position responsible for winning elections, particulalry at no cost to the party.  

The one-vote scheme is at best symbolic.  The District will gain not one bit of additional local autonomy; Congress can still intervene at its whim - an indignity suffered in no other Congressional district in the nation; the measure can be repealed at any time while statehood cannot; and without Senators and proportionate Electoral College strength, the vote has little legislative leverage for Congressional "deal-making."  Do you understand why one-vote is not "pretty fair?"

Samuel Jordan