Introduction:
The United States is a federal republic of fifty states and numerous other territories, with the federal capital in the District of Columbia. In all, they carry full voting rights to the presidency and referendum.
A heated debate has remained to this time: whether the territories are allowed to take part in these democratic processes. This paper tries to give insight into the level of territory franchise in the United States, with a view of giving very clear insight into the level of representation, interest, and involvement given by the territories for the making of national decisions.
Understanding Territories in the US
Before discussing the voting rights of the territories, it is necessary that we first define what a territory in the United States consists of. A territory is defined to be a jurisdiction not fully representing any political aspects under the sovereignty of the federal government. These territories are put into two categories: incorporated and unincorporated.
Incorporated Territories
Integrated territories are those in which the exercise of full sovereignty belongs to the United States, just as it does in any other independent state, and consequently, they form part of the country with all the officiality involved. Currently, there are no integrated territories in the US. The last two were Alaska and Hawaii, which both became states in 1959.
Incorporated territories are subject to most provisions of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws, and their residents are considered U.S. citizens. However, the path to statehood is not guaranteed, and incorporated territories can remain in this status indefinitely unless Congress decides to grant them statehood.
Unincorporated Territories
On the other side, the possessions of the United States are unincorporated territories that are not properly incorporated and have varying levels of political self-government. Five major unincorporated territories include:
- Puerto Rico
- Guam
- U.S. Virgin Islands
- Northern Mariana Islands
- American Samoa
Though under different regimes of unincorporated territories, U.S. citizens in political statuses such as Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands are U.S. nationals only in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and therefore, they very differently set up their political status and rights compared from one territory to another.
Voting Rights in Presidential Elections
The election of the president is also part of the essence of democracy in the U.S., however, still having different rights between territories and the 50 states regarding their citizens’ right to vote.
Residents of Territories Cannot Vote in Presidential Elections
The residents of the U.S. territories are denied suffrage in the presidential elections. From the Constitution, it is given that the right to vote in a presidential election is in the hands of the residents of states. Territorial residents are not part of any of the states; thus, the chance of being a part of this process is not allowed to them.
This is a centennial problem for territories that have been part of the United States for decades, if not over a hundred years. For example, Puerto Rico has been a US territory since 1898, and its people have been US citizens since 1917, but they cannot vote in presidential elections.
The Electoral College and Territories
The Electoral College system, therefore, by which each state has a representative in Congress, determines the victory of a presidential election. Territories are unprivileged to vote in the House of Representatives or the Senate. They, therefore, do not belong to the representation in the Electoral College.
In each state, the electors of the Electoral College are equaled to the total number of Senators and Representatives who represent that state in Congress. This fact effectively bars the territories from active participation in the Electoral College process, mostly due to the lack of territories’ voting members in Congress.
Exceptions and Alternatives
While not having direct vote propriety in the election of the president, there are some exceptions and alternatives:
Puerto Rico:
Residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens who can vote in party presidential primaries if they reside in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. However, they cannot vote in general presidential elections unless they establish residency in a state.
Delegates from the Territories:
Delegates from the territories serve as non-voting members of the House of Representatives. They can participate in committee proceedings but cannot vote on the House floor. These delegates can attend party conventions and engage in platform discussions, but they do not have voting rights during nominations.
Statehood Movements:
The statehood movements in many territories are currently active, notably in Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. If these territories achieve statehood, their residents will gain the right to elect their president and participate in presidential elections through the Electoral College. Although not a state, the District of Columbia has had the right to vote in presidential elections since the ratification of the 23rd Amendment in 1961. However, other territories did not benefit from this amendment.
Voting Rights in Referendums
For instance, the territories are also accorded a lesser degree of voting right compared to the states in a number of referendums, or public votes on some issues.
Federal Referendums
Federal referendums are national votes on issues concerning the entire country. Law and regulations generally restrict voting to residents of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. For instance, in cases like a proposed constitutional amendment or a federal referendum, residents of the territories are not directly entitled to vote.
Their representatives in Congress (called non-voting delegates) would be sure to have their say in discussions running up to the referendum, but they would not have a direct vote.
Territorial Referendums
Territorial referendums can address local governance and policy issues. However, these territories face significant restrictions. Their decisions do not directly impact national policies or laws.
Territorial referendums can address various issues. These include changes to the territory’s constitution, tax policies, and political status. They also cover relations with the United States. Holding these referendums lets residents make decisions directly.
Recent Examples
Recent examples of territorial referendums include:
Markedly, the statehood referendum from Puerto Rico, 2020, did exemplify a majority, where 52.3% of voters did support the territory gaining statehood. However, it was non-binding. This means Congress would still have to approve the admission of Puerto Rico to statehood.
In 2017, a political status referendum was done by Guam, apparently trying to measure the voice of the people over the future political relationship between the territory and the United States. It offers options to include statehood, free association, and independence.
But although the “free association” option won with a plurality of the votes, the referendum could force nothing, being as it was a non-binding exercise that did not make any immediate changes.
In 2022, the electorate of the U.S. Virgin Islands supported a referendum to create a constitutional convention for drafting a proposed territory constitution. This raises the question of whether the governor will initiate another referendum on the territory’s political status. This example demonstrates that territories can conduct referendums on local jurisdiction matters. However, their ability to influence national policies or change their political status remains limited without Congressional approval or statehood.
Debates and Controversies
The issue of voting rights for territories has been a subject of ongoing debate and controversy in the United States.
Arguments for Increased Voting Rights
Supporters of granting voting rights to territories argue that denying these rights is disenfranchisement. They see it as a violation of democratic principles for American citizens living in territories. They believe that residents of territories deserve a fair say in decisions that impact their lives. This includes matters related to defense, foreign policy, and federal funding.
The argument, according to many, which raises the case for the people residing in such territories, is that they are under the federal laws, pay for federal taxes, and some are also serving as military personnel in the United States.
Though lacking full political representation, the U.S. territories exercise the ability to elect the President and members to Congress, who decide on issues that affect their lives. Further, the move by the proponents would lead to increased civic responsibilities and accountabilities of those staying in the territories. This is because they would be empowered to vote for the president directly and have their say in the making of national policies.
Critics of increasing voting rights for territories argue that it would dilute the political power of states. This could lead to a power imbalance in the federal government. They also argue that territories might become dependent on federal aid. This dependency could raise the bar for achieving statehood and full voting rights.
Some opponents view the current system as a necessary check on the influence of territories. They believe could wield disproportionate power in national elections and policymaking if granted voting rights. They argue that the Founders intended for the states to have primacy in the federal system. And extending voting rights to territories could undermine this principle.
Ongoing Efforts and Proposed Solutions
Statehood:
Granting statehood to territories like Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia would grant their residents full voting rights and representation in Congress. However, the process of achieving statehood is complex and requires approval from Congress and the President.
Puerto Rico has held several non-binding referendums on statehood, with the most recent one in 2020 showing a majority of voters supporting statehood. However, Congress has yet to take action on admitting Puerto Rico as a state. The statehood movement in Puerto Rico remains active, with advocates arguing that it would resolve the issue of political disenfranchisement.
Similarly, the District of Columbia has long sought statehood to gain voting representation in Congress. The D.C. Congress has introduced the Admission Act multiple times, which would make D.C. the 51st state. But it has faced opposition from Republicans who argue that it would give Democrats an unfair advantage in the Senate.
Constitutional Amendments:
Amending the U.S. Constitution to grant voting rights to territories has been proposed, but such amendments require a significant political consensus and a lengthy ratification process.
Proposed constitutional amendments aim to give territories voting rights in presidential elections and representation in the Electoral College. They also seek to grant territories voting members in Congress. However, these efforts have struggled to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority in both Congressional chambers. They also require ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Territorial Voting Rights Act:
Proposed legislation, such as the Territorial Voting Rights Act, aims to grant voting rights to territories in presidential elections and referendums without the need for statehood or a constitutional amendment.
Congress has introduced the Territorial Voting Rights Act multiple times. It would treat territories like states during presidential elections. This act would give territories voting rights in the Electoral College. It also grants them the right to vote in referendums on constitutional amendments.
Supporters say this legislation would solve political disenfranchisement. It avoids the complexity of statehood or amending the Constitution. However, opponents believe it needs a broad interpretation of the Constitution. They argue it could face legal challenges regarding voting rights.
Increased Autonomy and Self-Governance: Some proposals advocate for granting territories greater autonomy and self-governance. Without necessarily granting them full voting rights in presidential elections or referendums.
These proposals could expand the powers of territorial governments. They might allow territories to negotiate trade agreements. They could also manage certain federal programs within their jurisdictions. Proponents believe this approach respects the unique status of territories. It also provides them with greater self-determination.
However, critics argue that increased autonomy without voting rights still falls short of true political equality and representation.
Public Awareness and Advocacy:
Various organizations and advocacy groups have been working to raise public awareness about the issue of voting rights for territories and advocate for changes to the current system.
These efforts include lobbying Congress, filing lawsuits challenging the disenfranchisement of territorial residents. And engaging in public education campaigns to highlight the lack of political representation for millions of American citizens living in territories.
Despite the ongoing debates and proposed solutions, the issue of voting rights for territories remains a complex and contentious topic in American politics, with no clear consensus on the best path forward.
