CalExit Will Never Happen

CalExit.JPG

After the election of Donald Trump, many people got irrational, particularly Governor Jerry Brown, and the people of California (who ironically opened an embassy in Moscow in protest). Since then, many people, both in California and across the country, have pushed for the Golden State’s secession. Last Tuesday, California’s Attorney General decided to humor the #CalExit organizers.

Last Tuesday, California Attorney General  Xavier Becerra apparently finished his scotch, said “what the hell,” and gave his stamp of approval for a group of people to begin gathering the more than 585,000 signatures needed to allow a ballot initiative that would allow a ballot initiative calling for secession to be put on the 2018 ballot. If the ballot measure were to somehow pass, a commission would form to explore how the state could secede from the United States, unfortunately, this will never happen. calexit dos.jpg

Secession isn’t a new idea, outside the Civil War, the idea pops up every couple of years, normally in Texas, and at that time realists endlessly mock these attempts, and for good reason, the fact remains that there is no way to secede from the Union written in the Constitution.  Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution deals with how to admit a new state into the country, but the reverse is never discussed, and has been dismissed outright by plenty of respectable legal scholars.

In 2006, former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was asked by screenwriter Dan Turkewitz if a group of people suing the government for the right to secede would be a good plot point. Scalia responded saying that state’s do not have the right to secede. In his letter back to Turkewitz, Scalia said that such an issue would never even reach the Supreme Court:

“To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. … Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.”

Scalia.jpgWhat Justice Scalia pointed out in that first line is something most people don’t realize.  In the eyes of the United States government, there no such thing as the “Confederate States of America.” The southern states, in their mind, were just occupied by hostile citizens. This line of thinking was pointed out in the 1869 Supreme Court case Texas v. White.  This case argued that Texas’s Confederate state legislature had illegally sold bonds that were owned by Texas, and issued by the United States government as part of the compromise of 1850. While ruling on this case, the justices wrote;

“The Constitution, in all its provisions… looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”

So while Jefferson Davis and his friends may have seen themselves as an independent country, the United States hadn’t given them the go-ahead to secede, so they had no sovereignty. The Civil War was a war for independence, much like the American Revolution was a war for independence. We had to defeat the British before getting the go-ahead to secede; if we had lost, we’d have socialized medicine and a government that doesn’t respect individual rights, and do we really want that?

While it amuses us to think that a state that disagrees with our own core ideologies could soon be gone, it is unlikely to happen. So unfortunately it looks as though referring to San Francisco as a “foreign country” will remain hyperbole.

calexit dos.jpg

Advertisements

2018: A Make It or Break It Midterm for Libertarians

Libertarian_Party_Porcupine_(USA).svg

 

Logging onto Facebook this morning I was met with a pleasant surprise – a message reminding me that it had been a year since I had signed on to the Gary Johnson campaign.  The public declaration that I was done with the Grand Ole Party meant absolutely nothing to the people on my friends list, let’s be honest most people don’t give a damn about your political leanings unless you’re constantly flaunting your beliefs.  The announcement did, however, mean a lot to me.

Prior to last July I was a Republican who had gradually lost faith in the Republican Party.  I was sick of the hypocrisy, the blatant violation of our civil liberties, the lack of fiscal conservatism, and the message of the Republican nominee for President. I felt, at the time, that Gary Johnson could legitimately carry a state in the general election.  My optimism turned out to be wrong; Johnson/Weld did not carry a state, nor did they receive an electoral vote.  Despite that, the ticket received nearly 4.5 million votes, carrying 3.27% of the vote, while appearing on the ballot in all 50 states and Washington DC. Disappointing according to my own expectations? Yes. But the election was monumental for the Libertarian Party.

For the longest time the biggest hurdle facing the growth of third parties in this country has been ballot access.  A lack of ballot access ties up a third party’s limited resources, forcing them to focus on things other than campaigning.  Heading into the 2018 midterm elections, the Libertarian Party will have ballot access in 37 states.

What’s more important than ballot access, however, is that the Libertarian Party has incumbents that need to win re-election; Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke, along with New Hampshire State Representatives Brandon Phinney, Caleb Dyer, and Joseph Stallcop all ditched their former parties, and registered as Libertarians in the last year. Now they all face re-election bids without the backing of the powerful two party duopoly. 

phinney.jpg

Brandon Phinney is one of 3 libertarians in New Hampshire’s House of Representatives 

All the aforementioned candidates had their own reasons for ditching their former parties. Joseph Stallcop, who serves in New Hampshire’s House of Representatives representing Cheshire 4, was elected as a Democrat. His decision to switch to the Libertarian Party, he told Authentic Liberty, was based in part because of the disrespect his ideas and views were generating among Democrats. Stallcops colleague, Brandon Phinney, explained his decision to switch parties as frustration with the direction, and leadership  of Republicans, a familiar sentiment. When Authentic Liberty asked Senator Laura Ebke why she switched parties, she pointed out several moments where she realized that the Republican Party no longer represented her values. Senator Ebke told us that “the recognition that the Republicans were going to nominate Trump, and then a “call out” for not being an adequately “platform Republican” at the 2016 State GOP convention by the Governor–when he called out a number of us by name” appeared to be the last straw. Like many people, Senator Ebke realized that the GOP didn’t care about policy, but party.

While Representative Stallcop is unsure if he will be running for re-election next year (he is set to graduate from college), the state of New Hampshire presents an interesting scenario for Brandon Phinney and Caleb Dyer, his colleagues in the only libertarian caucus in the nation. New Hampshire is one of a handful of states that allows for “fusion tickets,” which allow one candidate to run under multiple parties. Both Phinney and Dyer, former Republicans, could choose to seek both the Republican and Libertarian nominations for their districts,and in a comment to Authentic Liberty, Phinney stated that this is his intention; in doing so they would eliminate potential rivals while having their names appear multiple times on the ballot.  That scenario could be interesting, and increase their odds of reelection, but could also make them beholden to the whims of two different parties. A victory on a fusion ticket would also minimize the importance of the Libertarian Party; if, in this hypothetical situation, both candidates win both the Republican and Libertarian nominations, then win the election, outsiders could say that they only won because of the Republican Party, marginalizing the importance of libertarians.

Senator Ebke’s situation in Nebraska is also interesting. She serves in the only unicameral state legislature in the nation, and in Nebraska, all state elections are

Laura Ebke.jpg

Senator Laura Ebke is up for re-election in 2018

nonpartisan, when voters step into the ballot box in 2018 they will see a list of names with no party affiliation. Senator Ebke believes the nonpartisan nature of Nebraska’s state elections probably helps her, as she explained to Authentic Liberty “while many people will know the affiliation, the fact that it isn’t listed on the ballot, nor do we organize by party in the legislature–probably helps me some.” Senator Ebke says that the biggest difference she has noticed during her re-election bid is her ability to effectively raise money; “Libertarians–as a whole–seem to be far less likely to part with their money–whether $25 of $100. Republican (and probably Democrat) activists are used to being asked for cash, and attending fundraisers.”  With that said, she has had some success raising money for her re-election, and she will continue to need our support, if you’ve got $10, you can make a donation here.

Winning re-election to these offices should be the focus of the Libertarian Party. As we move forward we cannot simply be content with the occasional officeholder quitting their party out of protest, and registering as a libertarian.  Libertarians need to learn how to win elections; we need an effective, proven blueprint, and we need to show the Republicans and Democrats that we can do more than just steal a few votes. The best way to do that is by continuing to seek support from the party at both the state and national level. If we cannot support our candidates and win elections as libertarians, then party members really need to question if there is any advantage to running for office as a libertarian.

Hey, Libertarian Party, Go Big or Go Home!

Libertarian_Party_Porcupine_(USA).svg

 

Politics is a game of numbers.

Top political strategists work tirelessly to find out what percent of this group and that group is needed in order to achieve victory. This is most evident in presidential elections and the quest for 270 electoral votes. Focus must be given to the right demographics in order to secure certain states which are normally up for grabs. Unfortunately, the current state of politics in this country makes the electoral map game only a Democrat and Republican thing.

That doesn’t mean third parties shouldn’t focus on large races, though.

Races for national office and governor races receive the most press. Local races are winnable, and should certainly be a focus for third parties and independent candidates, but those races fail to move the needle on the larger scale.

What third parties need to compete, is raw numbers.  Every four years, the presidential election is going to be a minor party’s best opportunity at free press and opportunities to spread their message. To qualify for federal assistance, a party must secure at least 5% of the national vote. To achieve this, there must be a strategy.

Although the Libertarian Party did well in places like North Dakota and Montana in 2016, those are not populous areas. Gary Johnson received his best raw vote total in California, where 3.4% of the vote, netted him over 400,000 votes. 5% of the vote would have gary.jpggarnered roughly 600,000 votes in California, where as 6.3% of the vote in North Dakota only gave Johnson a little over 21,000. Even doubling that number, does very little to move the national vote total for the Libertarian Party. In Texas, 3.2% of the vote gave the ticket of Johnson and Weld over 280,00 votes. Therefore, like it or not, the biggest names in the Libertarian Party must run for the highest office available to them, especially when they live in a state with a large population.

For third parties, the goal needs to be consistent, and quantifiable, growth. Nationally, these numbers can be seen through congressional, senate, gubernatorial, and presidential races. There is no denying that local and county races must be won, too, but real marketing must be done in higher races. In these races, candidates are gaining inclusion in debates, and social media allows for a message to traverse through various circles with greater ease and less spin. Since these races have the widest audiences, they have the greatest opportunity to gain attention from those who are either unfamiliar, or improperly informed, of a different message. Within these opportunities, exists the greatest chance for party growth and a dedicated voting population. If the Libertarian, and other minor parties, can keep up their momentum, and continue raising the floor of expected votes, more people will join and there will be exponential growth until state and federal offices have representation for those who don’t identify as Republican or Democrat.

2018 could prove to be a boom for the Libertarian Party, should former vice-presidential candidate Larry Sharpe’s run for governor of New York gain any traction. With only 2.3% of the vote for president in 2016, the Libertarian Party could use dedicated growth in the Empire State moving forward. Should Sharpe’s polished and friendly message exceed that total, New York could give the Libertarian Party the extra boost needed to cross the 5% national threshold in 2020.

larry.jpg

Larry Sharpe, Libertarian candidate for Governor of New York

 

 

Libertarians Need To Start Running For Offices They Can Win

Libertarian Party.jpg

 

After the controversial 2000 presidential election Gary North, writing for lewrockwell.com, argued that third parties need to stop focusing on national elections, and instead focus on winning state and local elections. In his essay, “The Dogcatcher Strategy” he writes;

Why do libertarians think they have to field a candidate for President when they have not yet put anyone into the office of dogcatcher? Why does anyone believe that he should send money to a political party that has never won anything locally? I think it’s a way for people to tell their friends, “I’m fed up.” Fine; but don’t take politics seriously. “I’m fed up” is not a campaign platform or a way to effect political change. Don’t imagine that it matters who wins a no-win party’s nomination. Don’t give any post-election thought to the question, “How could we have won 2% of the vote instead of less than 1%” It doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t.

There are 3,144 counties in this country, and over 100,000 offices a person can get elected to, so why do we focus on elections that, at this point in time, we cannot possibly win?

As I write this former Libertarian Vice Presidential hopeful Larry Sharpe is announcing that he will run for Governor of New York in 2018. Last week Arvin Vohra, Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee, announced he will run for Senate in the state of Maryland. Another strong Libertarian candidate, Alicia Dearn, has also announced that she will run for Senate in the state of Missouri. But honestly, why bother?

I don’t believe any Libertarian candidate running for Governor, United States Senate, or the House of Representatives truly believes that they can win public office at that level. Many of these candidates justify their run as a way to raise awareness, and spread the ideas of liberty, to grow the party for the future. That idea is laughable. The party that has championed a less centralized government in favor of valuing local communities since its inception in the December of 1971 has been employing this “lets raise awareness” strategy for its entire existence, to no avail. 

Gary North points out why this line of thinking is laughable;

“Why does anyone believe that he should send money to a political party that has never won anything locally? I think it’s a way for people to tell their friends, “I’m fed up.” Fine; but don’t take politics seriously. “I’m fed up” is not a campaign platform or a way to effect political change. “

If the Libertarian Party really cared about empowering local communities, our best candidates would be running for city council, state house, or mayor. The best way to show people the way to liberty is to lead by example, not celebrating receiving 4% of the national vote in a presidential election. We need more people like Steve McCluskey, the Libertarian who just beat out a Republican and a Democrat to become the Mayor of  

Steve McCluskey.jpg

Steve McCluskey, the Libertarian Mayor of McLain Mississippi

McLain Mississippi. As Mayor, McCluskey will be able to implement actual change in his community, and if things go well, maybe he can run for Mississippi’s state legislature, where he will actually be able to run not only on Libertarian ideas, but on his record as well.  

Libertarian candidates, it seems, are only interested in running for office to say that they ran for office. Maybe if Larry Sharpe showed as much enthusiasm about running for New York State Assembly as he did in his announcing his run for Governor, a talented, smart, charismatic Libertarian could get elected legitimizing the entire party future, larger campaigns.

Third Parties Could Have a Future, If New Bill Passes

politics.jpg

 

It’s no secret that the two party duopoly in this country has done everything in their power to suppress political freedom in this country. From filing lawsuits to deny minor parties ballot access, to refusing to let non Republican and Democrats debate, many people feel as though they have no choice but to vote for the “lesser of two evils” or else risk “wasting” their vote. Well, legislation introduced late last month is designed to change all of that.  

In late June, Democratic Virginia Congressman Don Beyer, along with his Democratic colleagues Ro Khanna (CA), and Jamie Raskin (MD) introduced legislation that would radically alter the way we elect our representatives. Nader vote

As it currently stands, individual state legislatures are in charge of drawing up congressional districts.  What generally tends to happen, in this scenario, is that the governing party draws up districts in a manner that is most beneficial to said party. This gerrymandering means that a Republican controlled legislature in Wisconsin, or a Democrat controlled legislature in Connecticut can use their power to ensure that their opposition will have a tough time winning an election.  This gerrymandering means that 97% of congressmen get re-elected.

Under the “Fair Representation Act,” that would change. According to Rob Richie, Executive Director of the advocacy group “FairVote,” this legislation creates an

“ impartial, national standard that gets at the core of FairVote’s mission: Giving voters greater choice, a stronger voice, and a representative democracy that works for all Americans.”

The bill has three major components. RCV_Easy_Ballot_Ranked_3.jpg

First; it would ensure that an independent board, not state legislatures are drawing congressional districts. By having an independent board handle redistricting, it eliminates one political party from drawing up districts that specifically help that party.

Second; the bill would establish “multi-member” districts. This means that if you’re living in Michigan’s third district, instead of having one person represent that entire district, you may have 3 people representing that district. That way there is a chance for every group to receive equal representation.

Finally, and most importantly, this bill would change our voting system from a “winner take all” system, to a “ranked choice voting” system.  As it currently stands, if a candidate wins 40% of the vote, and their opponent receives 39% of the vote, the person who received 40% of the vote wins the election, even though 60% of voters voted against them.  

In a “ranked choice voting” system, voters would be allowed to rank their candidates based on preference.  So if you’re a Libertarian, who wants to vote for the Libertarian candidate  but also doesn’t want to help elect a progressive socialist, you won’t have to compromise on your values and vote Republican. Instead, what you would do, is vote for the libertarian candidate, ranking them as your first choice, then you could vote for the Republican as your second choice. Because in a “ranked choice voting” system, candidates need a majority of votes to win the election.  

So let’s say you vote for a Libertarian as your first choice and a Republican as your second choice.  If the Libertarian only receives 10% of the vote, and the Republican receives 45% of the vote, while the Democrat receives 40% of the vote, there would be no official winner.  In that scenario, the election committee would then look at voter’s second preference, so if that 10% who voted Libertarian all had the Republican candidate as their second choice, the Republican would win with 55% of the vote.  

While ranked choice voting seems like it wouldn’t make much of a difference, especially if the two major parties continue to win elections, it would erase the “wasted vote” stigma, and over time third party candidates would have a legitimate shot at winning more elections.

Austin Petersen Announces Senate Run

 

Yesterday, as American’s complained about the Fourth falling on a Tuesday, former Libertarian Presidential candidate Austin Petersen, in front of a crowd of several hundred supporters, announced his intention to seek Missouri’s Republican nomination for US Senate.  

Petersen stands with his father before his announcement.

The announcement that Petersen would be running for Senate came as no surprise – for months the 37 year old has dropped some not-so-subtle hints that he planned to challenge Senator Claire McCaskill in 2018. What was somewhat of a surprise, however, was that Petersen was deciding to switch parties.

The decision to run as a Republican wasn’t easy for Petersen, and in his farewell letter to the Libertarian Party, Petersen describes what led to him making such a decision;

For the last eight weeks, I’ve spent six hours a day calling my supporters to ask them their thoughts on how I might best advance liberty. I took the time to listen to every single persons’ opinion about a potential opportunity to seek a seat in the U.S. Senate here in my home state of Missouri.

Of the thousands of people I spoke to, all encouraged a run, hundreds donated, and the vast majority offered their opinion regarding which party I should align with. Over 98% of them, including registered Libertarians, independents, Republicans, and even Democrats, said to run GOP.

Those who think that running as a Republican would show Petersen’s “true colors” were right. During his 30 minute speech to the crowd, Petersen passionately discussed the issues that matter most to him; repealing and not replacing Obamacare, reducing regulation, auditing the Pentagon to find bureaucratic waste, criminal justice reform, lowering taxes, treating drug addiction as a public health problem instead of a criminal issue, etc. If his platform sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the exact same set of values he ran on while seeking the Libertarian nomination for president last summer.  

Petersen’s announcement came one day after establishment favorite, Representative Ann Wagner, announced she will not challenge Claire McCaskill in 2018. In her statement on said decision, Wagner rationalized her decision;

“While I am grateful for the incredible support and encouragement I have received from across Missouri to run for United States Senate, I am announcing today my intention to run for re-election to the United States House of Representatives in 2018. The 2nd District is my home. It’s where I grew up, went to school, have worked and volunteered, raised my kids, and attend church every week — there is no greater honor than representing a place and people that I love.”

The former US Ambassador to Luxembourg has several reasons not to run for Senate, as the “Washington Examiner” reported;

“Republicans close to the congresswoman stressed that the decision had little, if anything, to do with the politics of giving up her relatively safe seat to run for Senate with an unpopular Republican in the White House and a healthcare agenda that has been rejected by a broad cross-section of Americans.”

With Wagner withdrawing her name from consideration, attention shifts to other potential Republican nominees. Reps. Blaine Luetkemeyer and Vicky Hartzler are both expected to explore their own senate runs, but it is Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley that seems to be the establishment favorite.  The 37 year old is a favorite of Mitch McConnell, and has only been on his current job for six months. Supporters have  urged him to run believing Hawley can unite all conservatives.  

While the charismatic Hawley has made waves recently for suing three pharmaceutical companies in the state (which could be seen as a political counter measure since Claire McCaskill has made opiod abuse a focus) friends of liberty should be wary of throwing their support behind a candidate supported by political insiders. After all, there are enough Senators who wax poetically about the virtue of the Constitution and civil liberties, right up until the point where they support warrant-less wiretaps.

While Hawley, if he announces his intent to run, may be the favorite heading into the Republican primary, Petersen is hoping to use Missouri’s own primary rules against them.

Missouri holds an “open primary” meaning that any registered voter, regardless of party affiliation, can vote in the Republican primary.  Petersen hopes that this will play to his advantage as he intends to seek support not only among the base, but among Libertarians and Independents as well.  If Petersen is able to successfully convey his message, he could not only win the nomination, but pose a real challenge to McCaskill as well.

Puerto Rico Wants to Be a State

 

 

On Sunday, Puerto Ricans had the opportunity to vote on a referendum that would be the next step in becoming America’s 51st state.  With only a 23% voter participation rate, the referendum passed.

The island, which has been a United States territory since 1898, has been stuck in an economic depression for the last decade , and has seen an astounding half million Puerto Ricans migrate to the mainland.  Proponents of statehood proclaim that becoming a state would help fix their economic woes, while opponents say the expensive referendum is just a politically charged distraction.

 

The referendum had 3 options; remain a territory of the United States, cut ties with the United States and become an independent nation, or try and become a state.  Statehood was supported by Governor Ricardo Rossello from the “New Progressive Party,” while the “Popular Democratic Party” and “Puerto Rican Independence Party” called for their supporters to boycott, rather than participate in, the referendum.   

Gov. Rossello, and his “New Progressive Party,” support statehood.

Supporters of statehood, like Rossello, see becoming a state as a way to help out the territories economic problems.  Rossello, and other supporters, point out that the current situation cannot continue to exist. As a territory, Puerto Rico receives less federal funding for programs like medicare and medicaid than their counterparts,  and its residents are not allowed to vote for President, despite the fact that those born in Puerto Rico have been granted US citizenship since 1917.  

 

Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez, a native of Puerto Rico, doesn’t think statehood is likely.

Opponents of the referendum said that the vote was an expensive distraction; costing the cash-strapped territory nearly $11 million dollars at a time when the island is over $70 billion in debt.  Other opponents, like Illinois Democrat Luis Gutierrez, just don’t see it happening, even though the support seems to be there;

 

“The supporters of statehood are selling a fantasy that a Latino, Caribbean nation will be admitted as a state during the era of Donald Trump (and) that states, many of which supported Trump, will accept a Spanish-speaking state”

 

Representative Gutierrez brings up a valid point: just because Puerto Ricans want to become a state, doesn’t mean it will happen.  Past referendums have ended with the people declaring that they want Puerto Rico to become a state, yet they are still a territory. This is, in part because, admitting a new state for the Union is difficult, and vague.

 

Admitting a New State

 

Admitting a new state is incredibly rare, last occurring when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in January and August of 1959.  The process for admitting a new state is laid out in Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution.

 

“New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.”

 

The process generally plays out like this: the proposed state votes on statehood, proposed state then petitions Congress for statehood, next the House and Senate (can) vote to accept the proposed state; after all of that, the President then signs off, if he wants. The process also calls for the proposed state to adopt an “acceptable” constitution, which Puerto Rico had ratified in 1952.

The path Puerto Rico would follow, would be the “Tennessee Plan” which calls for drafting a constitution, holding a referendum, and then petitioning Congress for statehood.  The plan has been used successfully six times (MI, IA, CA, OR, KS, AK).  Following the referendum, Governor Rossello would send a lobbying party to DC to lobby on behalf of Puerto Rico’s statehood.

 

Puerto Rico’s Long fight for Statehood

Puerto Rico voted for statehood in 2012, and the Democrats didn’t let the issue come to a vote.

Puerto Rico has had a long history of trying to become our nation’s 51st state.  They took the first steps towards becoming a state in 1950, when Congress gave Puerto Rico the permission to draft a constitution, their constitution was ratified by Congress in 1952.

 

Although they voted to become a state in 2012, Puerto Rico has seen nothing from Congress that suggests statehood will happen anytime soon.  In an attempt to rectify this, Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner in the U.S House of Representatives, introduced thePuerto Rico Statehood Admission Process Act” in 2015. This legislation outlines the process for Puerto Rico’s statehood admission. Pierluisi’s legislation states that if the citizens of Puerto Rico vote for statehood, than within 30 calendar days of a positive vote, the President will begin the process of adopting Puerto Rico as a state:

Despite being a congressman, Puerto Rico’s Pedro Pierluisi may not vote on legislation.

“(a) Proclamation.—Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the certified results transmitted pursuant to section 4, the President shall issue a proclamation to begin the transition process that will culminate in Puerto Rico’s admission into the Union as a State effective January 1, 2021.”

 

Despite having over a dozen co-sponsors, the bill hasn’t seen any movement since 2015.  

 

Despite Sunday’s outcome, it does seem unlikely that Puerto Rico will be admitted to the Union anytime soon. As Rep. Gutierrez pointed out; it is unlikely that the Trump administration will be itching to admit a Spanish-speaking state into the Union.

If admitted, however, Puerto Rico could become the first “state” to elect representatives from a political party outside of the big two. The “Puerto Rico Independence Party” (PIP) believes that regulation imposed by the United States government is prohibitive in nature, and that the island’s independence is the best option for the future of Puerto Rico.  While the “New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico” tends to believe that the benefits of having two Senators, full voting rights, and access to more federal funding will solve their economic woes.