Editing 51st state (section)

==From existing territories of the United States==

===District of Columbia===
{{Main|District of Columbia statehood movement}} {{See also|District of Columbia retrocession}}
[[File:Washington, D.C. locator map.svg|thumb|Washington, D.C. in red between Virginia and Maryland]]
The [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]] is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 of ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'', [[James Madison]] considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the [[United States Constitution]]. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes",<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm |title=The Federalist No. 43 |publisher=Constitution.org |date=October 18, 1998 |access-date=March 29, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120502012304/http://constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm |archive-date=May 2, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact.<ref>{{unfit|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20110413235705/http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/dc-statehood-not-without-a-constitutional-amendment D.C. Statehood: Not Without a Constitutional Amendment]}}, August 27, 1993, The Heritage Foundation.</ref> 
[[File:Washington, D.C. license plate, 2017.png|thumb|right|A 2017 license plate for [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
[[File:Flag of the District of Columbia.svg|thumb|Flag of Washington, D.C.]]
The District of Columbia residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use the slogan "Taxation without representation" to denote their lack of Congressional representation. The phrase is a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "[[no taxation without representation]]" omitting the initial "No", and is printed on newly issued [[Vehicle registration plates of Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia license plates]] (although a driver may choose to have the District of Columbia website address instead). President [[Bill Clinton]]'s [[Presidential state car (United States)|presidential limousine]] had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President [[George W. Bush]] had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=James |first=Randy |url=http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881791,00.html |title=A Brief History of Washington D.C |magazine=Time |date=February 26, 2009 |access-date=March 29, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120329060528/http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881791,00.html |archive-date=March 29, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> President [[Barack Obama]] had the license plates changed back to the protest style shortly before his second-term inauguration.<ref name="Craig">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/obama-to-use-dc-taxation-without-representation-license-plates/2013/01/15/f91b09ac-5f5b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html|title=Obama to use D.C. 'taxation without representation' license plates|last=Craig|first=Tim|date=January 15, 2013|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=January 16, 2013}}</ref> President [[Donald Trump]] eventually removed the license plate and signaled opposition to D.C. statehood.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://nypost.com/2019/12/28/white-house-removes-dcs-protest-license-plates-from-trumps-limo/|title=White House removes DC's protest license plates from Trump's limo|first=Jon|last=Levine|date=December 28, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/d-c-statehood-vote-make-history-house-s-about-all-n1232099|title=D.C. statehood vote to make history in the House – and that's about all|date=June 25, 2020 |publisher=NBC News}}</ref>

This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local [[Green Party of the United States|Green Party]] affiliate to form the [[D.C. Statehood Green Party]]. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the [[District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment]]. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an [[Popular initiative|initiative]] written and filed by [[J. Edward Guinan]] calling for a [[constitutional convention (political meeting)|constitutional convention]] for a new state.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Chocolate City: A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation's Capital|last=Chris Myers Asch |first=Derek Musgrove|publisher=UNC Press Books|year=2017|location=Chapel Hill NC|pages=417|isbn=9781469635873 |quote=|via=|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C2Y6DwAAQBAJ&q=chocolate+city+guinan&pg=PA417}}</ref> In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called [[District of Columbia statehood movement|New Columbia]]. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states [[ratification|ratified]] the amendment within the allowed seven-year span.

Another proposed option would be to have [[Maryland]], from which the D.C. land was ceded, [[District of Columbia retrocession|retake the District of Columbia]], as [[Virginia]] has already done for its [[Arlington County, Virginia|part]], while leaving the [[National Mall]], the [[United States Capitol]], the [[United States Supreme Court]], and the [[White House]] in a truncated District of Columbia.<ref name=richards>{{cite journal|last=Richards |first=Mark David |date=Spring–Summer 2004 |title=The Debates over the Retrocession of the District of Columbia, 1801–2004 |journal=Washington History |publisher=Historical Society of Washington, D.C. |url=http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/mdrretro062004.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090118053203/http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/mdrretro062004.pdf |archive-date=January 18, 2009 |df=mdy }}</ref> This would give residents of the District of Columbia the benefit of statehood while precluding the creation of a 51st state, but would require the consent of the [[Government of Maryland]].<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Delgadillo|first1=Natalie|last2=Kurzius|first2=Rachel|last3=Sadon|first3=Rachel|date=September 18, 2019|title=The Past, Present, And (Potential) Future Of D.C. Statehood, Explained|url=https://dcist.com/story/19/09/18/the-past-present-and-potential-future-of-d-c-statehood-explained/|access-date=June 26, 2020|website=DCist|language=en|archive-date=June 26, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200626171817/https://dcist.com/story/19/09/18/the-past-present-and-potential-future-of-d-c-statehood-explained/|url-status=live}}</ref>

====2016 statehood referendum====
{{main|2016 Washington, D.C., statehood referendum}}
{{Infobox multichoice referendum
| name = District of Columbia statehood referendum, 2016
| location = [[District of Columbia]]
| date = {{start date and age|2016|11|08}}
| width = 300px
| barwidth = 100px
| voting_system = [[majority|Simple majority]]
| part1_subject = Shall the voters of the District of Columbia advise the Council to approve or reject this proposal?
| part1_choice1 = Yes
| part1_choice1_color = green
| part1_percentage1 = 85.83
| part1_choice2 = No
| part1_choice2_color = red
| part1_percentage2 = 14.17
| results2_caption = There were 515,348 blank and invalidated ballots counted alongside the 1,363,854 ballots which indicated a choice for one of the non-territorial alternatives. Under Puerto Rico Law, these ballots are not considered cast votes and are therefore not reflected in the final tally.
}}
On April 15, 2016, District Mayor [[Muriel Bowser]] called for a citywide vote on whether the nation's capital should become the 51st state.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Austermuhle |first1=Martin |title=Mayor Wants Statehood Vote This Year By D.C. Residents |url=https://wamu.org/news/16/04/15/mayor_bowser_wants_vote_on_statehood_for_dc |publisher=WAMU 88.5 |access-date=15 April 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160418224452/http://wamu.org/news/16/04/15/mayor_bowser_wants_vote_on_statehood_for_dc |archive-date=April 18, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> This was followed by the release of a proposed State Constitution.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Giambrone |first1=Andrew |title=D.C. Statehood Commission Will Release Draft Constitution Next Friday |url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/blog/13070800/d-c-statehood-commission-will-release-draft-constitution-next-friday |newspaper=Washington City Paper |access-date=15 May 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160529070818/http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/blog/13070800/d-c-statehood-commission-will-release-draft-constitution-next-friday |archive-date=May 29, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> This Constitution would make the [[Mayor of the District of Columbia]] the Governor of the proposed state, while the members of the District Council would make up the proposed House of Delegates.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Kinney |first1=Jen |title=Welcome, New Columbia? D.C. Drafts 51st State Constitution |url=https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/welcome-new-columbia-dc-mayor-releases-draft-constitution-dc-51st-state |publisher=Next City |access-date=15 May 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160510110213/https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/welcome-new-columbia-dc-mayor-releases-draft-constitution-dc-51st-state |archive-date=May 10, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

On November 8, 2016, the voters of the District of Columbia voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood, with 86% of voters voting to advise approving the proposal.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Election-Statehood-Council-Seats-400275901.html |title=DC Voters Elect Gray to Council, Approve Statehood Measure |date=November 8, 2016 |publisher=4 NBC Washington |access-date=November 9, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161109221442/http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Election-Statehood-Council-Seats-400275901.html |archive-date=November 9, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

While the name "New Columbia" has long been associated with the movement, the [[Council of the District of Columbia|City Council]] and community members chose the proposed state name to be the State of Columbia, or the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. The [[Maryland]] [[abolitionist]] [[Frederick Douglass]] was a D.C. resident and was chosen to be the proposed state's namesake alongside [[George Washington]] of [[Virginia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://dcist.com/story/16/10/18/following-a-series-of/|title=Council Tosses 'New Columbia,' Changes Constitution To 'The State Of Washington D.C.'|access-date=July 3, 2020|archive-date=June 29, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200629141413/https://dcist.com/story/16/10/18/following-a-series-of/|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Federal enclave====

To fulfill Constitutional requirements of having a Federal District and to provide the benefits of statehood to the 700,000-plus residents of D.C., in the proposed State of Washington, D.C., boundaries would be delineated between the State of Washington, D.C., and a much smaller federal seat of government. This would ensure federal control of federal buildings. The National Mall, the White House, the national memorials, Cabinet buildings, judicial buildings, legislative buildings, and other government-related buildings, etc. would be housed within the much smaller federal seat of government. All residences in the State of Washington, D.C. would reside outside the seat of federal government, except for the White House. The proposed boundaries are based on precedents created through the 1902 [[McMillan Plan]] with a few modifications. The rest of the boundaries would remain the same.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 13, 2016 |title=TESTIMONY OF ERIC SHAW DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PLANNING BEFORE THE NEW COLUMBIA STATEHOOD COMMISSION |url=https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/Eric-Shaw-Boundary-Testimony-for-NCSC.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=October 18, 2016 |title=A RESOLUTION 21-621 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |url=https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/Constitution-of-the-State-of-Washington-DC.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=October 19, 2016 |title=Map-of-the-State-of-Washington-DC.pdf |url=https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/Map-of-the-State-of-Washington-DC.pdf}}</ref>

====Admission legislation====
On June 26, 2020, the [[United States House of Representatives]] voted 232–180 in favor of [[statehood]] for Washington, D.C.

Passage of [[DC Admission Act|this legislation]] in the Senate was unlikely while the Republican Party held a Senate majority, and President [[Donald Trump]] also promised to veto D.C. statehood.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/26/politics/dc-statehood-vote-house/index.html|title=House Democrats pass DC statehood bill Friday|author=Haley Byrd|publisher=CNN|date=June 26, 2020 }}</ref> The legislation was H.R. 51<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/51/text|title=H.R. 51: Washington, D.C. Admission Act|publisher=116th Congress|date=June 26, 2020|access-date=July 1, 2020}}</ref> in honor of D.C. potentially becoming the 51st state.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-set-vote-dc-statehood-create-washington-douglass/story?id=71461781|title=House votes to grant statehood to District of Columbia|website=ABC News}}</ref> However, after the [[2020 United States Senate elections|2020 Senate elections]], the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] had a Senate majority, meaning [[Joe Biden]]'s presidency might have opened the door for D.C. statehood.<ref>{{Cite web|title=With Democrats In Charge, Is DC Destined For Statehood?|url=https://wamu.org/story/21/01/07/dc-statehood-democrats-in-charge/|access-date=2021-01-09|publisher=WAMU|language=en}}</ref>

The vote was the first time D.C. ever had a vote for statehood pass any chamber of Congress: in 1993, D.C. statehood legislation was rejected in a US House floor vote by 153–277. Another problem is that because Maryland released the land to become D.C., it may have a claim on any land released by Congress to become a state.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/25/the-politics-and-history-of-the-d-c-statehood-vote/|title=The politics and history of the D.C. statehood vote|first=John|last=Hudak|date=June 25, 2020}}</ref>

On April 22, 2021, the United States House of Representatives voted 216–208 in favor of statehood for Washington, D.C.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dc-statehood-bill-house-vote-51st/|title=House approves bill that would admit Washington, D.C., as 51st state|publisher=[[CBS News]]|date=2021-04-22|access-date=2021-04-22}}</ref> A similar bill, S. 51, "A bill to provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union" was earlier introduced into the United States Senate.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/51|title=S.51 – 117th Congress (2021–2022): A bill to provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union.|first=Thomas R.|last=Carper|date=January 26, 2021|website=Congress.gov|archive-date=January 27, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210127224011/https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/51|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.localdvm.com/news/washington-dc/d-c-statehood-bill-reintroduced-in-congress/ |title=D.C. statehood bill reintroduced in Congress |last=Burnett |first=Rebecca |date=January 27, 2021 |publisher=WDVM |archive-date=February 3, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210203144100/https://www.localdvm.com/news/washington-dc/d-c-statehood-bill-reintroduced-in-congress/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On April 30, Democratic senator [[Joe Manchin]] came out against both bills, effectively dooming their passage.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/manchin-opposes-d-c-statehood-dealing-blow-democratic-priority-n1266039|title = Manchin opposes D.C. Statehood, dealing a blow to Democratic priority| publisher=NBC News|date=April 30, 2021|access-date=December 18, 2022|last1=Kapur|first1=Sahil|last2=Clark|first2=Dartunorro}}</ref> (See [[117th United States Congress]]) Senator Manchin said the way to make D.C. a State was by a constitutional amendment, which was the process for the voting rights with the 23 Amendment. He went further stated that the complications created by shrinking the Federal District to the National Mall with the 23rd Amendment should be addressed.<ref name="newsweek.com">{{cite web | url=https://www.newsweek.com/joe-manchin-says-dc-statehood-requires-amendment-while-his-state-took-another-path-1588008 | title=Joe Manchin Says D.C. Statehood Requires Amendment, but His State Did Not | website=[[Newsweek]] | date=April 30, 2021 }}</ref> While others disagreed, he thought that if had been approved it would end up in the Supreme Court.<ref name="newsweek.com"/>

=== Puerto Rico ===
{{main|Proposed political status for Puerto Rico}}
{{see also|Puerto Rico statehood movement|Puerto Rico political status plebiscites}}
[[File:Flag of Puerto Rico.svg|thumb|Flag of [[Puerto Rico]] ]]
[[Puerto Rico]] has been discussed as a potential 51st state of the United States. In 2019, H.R. 1965 – Puerto Rico Admission Act, 5% of the lower legislature were in support. The bill was passed on to the House Committee on Natural Resources.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1965/committees|title=Committees – H.R.1965 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Puerto Rico Admission Act|first=Darren|last=Soto|date=March 28, 2019|website=Congress.gov}}</ref>

In a [[2012 Puerto Rican status referendum|2012 status referendum]] a majority of voters, 54%, expressed dissatisfaction with the existing political relationship. In a separate question, 61% of voters supported statehood (excluding the 26% of voters who left this question blank)<!--, although 481,030 blank votes were cast in this election-->. On December 11, 2012, Puerto Rico's legislature resolved to request that the President and the U.S. Congress act on the results, end its territorial status and begin the process of admitting Puerto Rico to the Union as a state.<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20130320043957/http://www.puertoricoreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-concurrent-resolution.pdf ''The Senate and the House of Representative of Puerto Rico: Concurrent Resolution.'']}} Retrieved December 16, 2012.</ref> On January 4, 2017, Puerto Rico's new representative to Congress pushed a bill that would ratify statehood by 2025.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.newser.com/story/236427/bill-seeks-to-make-puerto-rico-51st-state-by-2025.html|title=Puerto Rico Just Made a Major Push for Statehood, With a Noted ETA|last=Gidman|first=Jenn|date=2017-01-05|work=Newser|access-date=2017-03-04|language=en-US|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170321100253/http://www.newser.com/story/236427/bill-seeks-to-make-puerto-rico-51st-state-by-2025.html|archive-date=March 21, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

On June 11, 2017, another non-binding referendum was held<ref name="Danica Coto">{{cite web | title=Puerto Rico gov approves referendum in quest for statehood | website=AP NEWS | date=3 February 2017 | url=https://apnews.com/eeec5f33ca0740198cceb511d8e64ce5 | access-date=10 May 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200424204846/https://apnews.com/eeec5f33ca0740198cceb511d8e64ce5 | archive-date=April 24, 2020 | url-status=live }}</ref> where 97.7 percent voted for the statehood option.<ref name=Robles>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/us/puerto-ricans-vote-on-the-question-of-statehood.html|title=23% of Puerto Ricans Vote in Referendum, 97% of Them for Statehood|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|author=Frances Robles|date=June 11, 2017|access-date=June 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170929232512/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/us/puerto-ricans-vote-on-the-question-of-statehood.html?_r=0|archive-date=September 29, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> The turnout for this vote was 23 percent, a historical low as voter turnout in Puerto Rico usually hovers around 80%.<ref name=Robles/> The low turnout was attributed to a boycott led by the pro-status quo [[Popular Democratic Party (Puerto Rico)|PPD]] party.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caribbeanbusiness.com/pdp-to-boycott-status-referendum/|title=PDP to boycott status referendum|date=20 April 2017|access-date=June 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170929231755/http://caribbeanbusiness.com/pdp-to-boycott-status-referendum/|archive-date=September 29, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>

On June 27, 2018, the Puerto Rico Admission Act of 2018 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6246/text H.R. 6246] was introduced in the [[U.S. House]] with the purpose of responding to, and complying with, the democratic will of the United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico as expressed in the plebiscites held on November 6, 2012, and June 11, 2017, by setting forth the terms for the admission of the territory of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6246/text|title=To enable the admission of the territory of Puerto Rico into the Union as a State, and for other purposes.|author=Congress.Gov|date=July 7, 2018|website=Congress.gov}}</ref> The admission act had 37 original cosponsors among Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6246/cosponsors?r=12|title=Cosponsors: H.R.6246 – 115th Congress (2017-2018)|author=Congress.Gov|date=July 7, 2018|website=Congress.gov}}</ref>

A subsequent [[2020 Puerto Rican status referendum|nonbinding referendum was held on November 3, 2020]], to decide whether Puerto Rico should become a state. Statehood won the vote 52.52%–47.48%.<ref>{{cite web|date=December 21, 2020|title=Plebiscite Islandwide Results|url=https://elecciones2020.ceepur.org/Escrutinio_General_93/index.html#en/default/PLEBISCITO_Resumen.xml|access-date=January 18, 2021|website=|publisher=Comisión Estatal de Elecciones}}</ref>

On December 15, 2022, H.R. 8393 (the Puerto Rico Status Act) passed the House of Representatives in a 233-191 vote with 11 absences. It would have instituted a binding referendum that would allow Puerto Ricans to vote on the future status of the island, that Congress would be required to obey. Every [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrat]] voted in favor of the bill, and was joined by 16 Republicans.<ref>{{cite web |title=Roll Call 529 {{!}} Bill Number: H. R. 8393 |url=https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022529 |website=Clerk, United States House of Representatives|date=December 15, 2022 }}</ref> The bill died in the Senate.
The [[2024 Puerto Rican status referendum]] was also a win for Statehood in the November 2024 election, which also saw a Pro-Statehood Governor of Puerto Rico elected.

On February 15, 2025, the Puerto Rico House of Representatives approved a resolution on the legal status of Puerto Rico, the resolution, requests that "the President and Congress of the United States of America respond promptly and act in accordance with the demands of the citizens of Puerto Rico."<ref>{{cite web |title=Cámara aprueba resolución sobre status que populares querían debatir en inglés {{!}} Metro Puerto Rico  |url=https://www.metro.pr/noticias/2025/02/13/camara-aprueba-resolucion-sobre-status-que-populares-querian-debatir-en-ingles/ |website=metro.pr|date=February 15, 2025 }}</ref>

====Background====

Since 1898, Puerto Rico has had limited representation in the [[United States Congress]] in the form of a [[Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico|Resident Commissioner]], a non-voting delegate. The [[110th United States Congress|110th Congress]] returned the Commissioner's power to vote in the [[Committee of the Whole (United States House of Representatives)|Committee of the Whole]], but not on matters where the vote would represent a decisive participation.<ref name="rhg">{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20100528025556/http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf Rules of the House of Representatives : One Hundred Tenth Congress]}} (archived from [http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf the original] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090309172039/http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf |date=March 9, 2009 }} on May 28, 2010).</ref> Puerto Rico has elections on the [[United States presidential primary]] or caucus of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] and the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] to select delegates to the respective parties' [[United States presidential nominating convention|national conventions]] although presidential electors are not granted on the [[Electoral College (United States)|Electoral College]]. As American citizens, Puerto Ricans can vote in U.S. presidential elections, provided they reside in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia and not in Puerto Rico itself.

Residents of Puerto Rico pay [[Taxation in the United States|U.S. federal taxes]]: import and export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, thereby contributing to the American Government. Most Puerto Rico residents do not pay [[Income tax in the United States|federal income tax]] but do pay federal [[payroll tax]]es ([[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] and [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]]). However, federal employees who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico–based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S., and others do pay federal income taxes. Puerto Ricans may enlist in the [[United States armed forces|U.S. military]]. Puerto Ricans have participated in all [[List of wars involving the United States|American wars]] since 1898; 52 Puerto Ricans had been killed in the [[Iraq War]] and [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)|War in Afghanistan]] by November 2012.<ref>[http://icasualties.org ICasualties] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160204203958/http://icasualties.org/ |date=February 4, 2016 }}. Retrieved Nov. 2012.</ref>

Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century after it was ceded to the U.S. by Spain following the end of the [[Spanish–American War]], and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. The island's ultimate status has not been determined, and its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the states, Puerto Rico has self-rule, a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people, and a [[bill of rights]].

This constitution was created when the U.S. Congress directed local government to organize a [[constitutional convention (political meeting)|constitutional convention]] to write the [[Puerto Rico Constitution]] in 1951. The acceptance of that constitution by Puerto Rico's electorate, the U.S. Congress, and the [[U.S. president]] occurred in 1952. In addition, the rights, privileges and immunities attendant to United States citizens are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union" through the express extension of the [[Privileges and Immunities Clause]] of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Congress in 1948.<ref>{{usc|48|737}}, Privileges and immunities.</ref>

Puerto Rico is designated in its constitution as the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico".<ref>The term [[Commonwealth]] is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. Historically, it has sometimes been synonymous with "republic".</ref> The [[Constitution of Puerto Rico]], which became effective in 1952, adopted the name of ''Estado Libre Asociado'' (literally translated as "Free Associated State"), officially translated into English as [[Commonwealth (United States insular area)|Commonwealth]], for its [[body politic]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.lexjuris.com/lexprcont.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111114003340/http://www.lexjuris.com/lexprcont.htm|url-status=dead|title=Constitucion del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico|archive-date=November 14, 2011|website=LexJuris}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://welcome.topuertorico.org/constitu.shtml|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111125081800/http://www.topuertorico.org/constitu.shtml|url-status=dead|title=Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico|archive-date=November 25, 2011|website=welcome.topuertorico.org}}</ref> The island is under the jurisdiction of the [[Territorial Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]], which has led to doubts about the finality of the Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico. In addition, all people born in Puerto Rico become [[Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution|citizens of the U.S. at birth]] (under provisions of the [[Jones–Shafroth Act]] in 1917), but citizens residing in Puerto Rico cannot vote for the President of the United States nor for full members of either house of Congress. Statehood would grant island residents full voting rights at the federal level and 2 state senators, like each US state has.

In 1992, President [[George H. W. Bush]] issued a Memorandum to heads of Executive Departments and Agencies establishing the administrative relationship between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all Federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a State insofar as doing so would not disrupt Federal programs or operations. President Bush's memorandum remains in effect until Federal legislation is enacted to alter the status of Puerto Rico in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of Puerto Rico.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://charma.uprm.edu/~angel/Puerto_Rico/reporte_status.pdf|title=''Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005) – President William J. Clinton.''|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070925184244/http://charma.uprm.edu/~angel/Puerto_Rico/reporte_status.pdf |archive-date=September 25, 2007 }}</ref>

On April 29, 2010, the [[United States House of Representatives]] approved the [[Puerto Rico Democracy Act]] (H.R. 2499) by 223–169,<ref>{{cite web |first=Dwyer |last=Arce |url=http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2010/04/done-us-house-passes-bill-on-puerto-rico-status-referendum.php |title=US House approves Puerto Rico status referendum bill |date=April 30, 2010 |work=Paper Chase |publisher=JURIST |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809172949/http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2010/04/done-us-house-passes-bill-on-puerto-rico-status-referendum.php |archive-date=August 9, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> but was not approved by the Senate before the end of the [[111th United States Congress|111th Congress]]. It would have provided for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. This act would provide for [[referendum]]s to be held in Puerto Rico to determine [[Political status of Puerto Rico|the island's ultimate political status]]. It had previously been introduced in 2007.<ref name="crs">{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32933.pdf |title=Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress [Report RL32933] |first1=R. Sam |last1=Garrett |first2=Bea |last2=Keith |publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]] |location=Washington, D.C. |date=June 7, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090804013720/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32933.pdf |archive-date=August 4, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

====Vote for statehood====
{{Infobox multichoice referendum
| name = Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012
| location = [[Puerto Rico]]
| date = {{start date and age|2012|11|06}}
| width = 300px
| barwidth = 100px
| voting_system = Simple [[majority]] for the first question, [[first-past-the-post]] for the second question
| part1_subject = Should Puerto Rico continue its current territorial status?
| part1_choice1 = Yes
| part1_choice1_color = silver
| part1_percentage1 = 46.00
| part1_choice2 = No
| part1_choice2_color = slategray
| part1_percentage2 = 54.00
| part2_subject = Which non-territorial option do you prefer?
| part2_choice1 = [[Puerto Rico statehood movement|Statehood]]
| part2_choice1_color =blue
| part2_percentage1 = 61.16
| part2_choice2 = [[Sovereigntism (Puerto Rico)|Free association]]
| part2_choice2_color = red
| part2_percentage2 = 33.34
| part2_choice3 = [[Independence movement in Puerto Rico|Independence]]
| part2_choice3_color = green
| part2_percentage3 = 5.49
| results2_caption = There were 515,348 blank and invalidated ballots counted alongside the 1,363,854 ballots. Under Puerto Rico Law, these ballots are not considered cast votes and are therefore not reflected in the final tally.<ref>{{cite act |title=Puerto Rico Election Code for the 21st Century |number=78 |language=en |year=2011 |article=2.003(54) |url=http://www.oslpr.org/download/en/2011/A-0078-2011.pdf |access-date=August 10, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140521105857/http://www.oslpr.org/download/en/2011/A-0078-2011.pdf |archive-date=May 21, 2014 }}</ref>
}}

In November 2012, [[2012 Puerto Rican status referendum|a referendum]] resulted in 54 percent of respondents voting to reject its status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution,<ref name="207.150.251.12">[http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/CONDICION_POLITICA_TERRITORIAL_ACTUAL_ISLA.xml ''CONDICIÓN POLÍTICA TERRITORIAL ACTUAL (English:Actual Territorial Political Condition)''.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121130085952/http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/CONDICION_POLITICA_TERRITORIAL_ACTUAL_ISLA.xml |date=November 30, 2012 }} Government of Puerto Rico. State Electoral Commission. November 16, 2012 9:59PM. Retrieved November 18, 2012.</ref> while a second question resulted in 61 percent of voters identifying statehood as the preferred alternative to its territorial status.<ref name="OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA PM">[http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml ''OPCIONES NO TERRITORIALES. (English: Non-Territorial Options).''] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121115202429/http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml |date=November 15, 2012 }} Government of Puerto Rico. State Electoral Commission. November 16, 2012. Retrieved November 18, 2012.</ref> The 2012 referendum was by far the most successful referendum for statehood advocates and support for statehood rose in each successive popular referendum.<ref name="letpuertoricodecide1">{{cite web|url=http://www.letpuertoricodecide.com/details.php?cid=4 |title=An Introduction to Puerto Rico's Status Debate |publisher=Let Puerto Rico Decide |access-date=March 29, 2012 |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216191957/http://www.letpuertoricodecide.com/details.php?cid=4 |archive-date=February 16, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html?iref=allsearch |title=Puerto Ricans favor statehood for first time |publisher=CNN |date=November 7, 2012 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103092226/http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html?iref=allsearch |archive-date=November 3, 2013 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> However, more than one in four voters abstained from answering the question on the preferred alternative status. Statehood opponents have argued that the statehood option garnered 45 percent of the votes if abstentions are included.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/puerto-rico-statehood_b_2118727.html |title=Did Puerto Rico Really Vote for Statehood? |work=HuffPost |access-date=November 14, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121117231739/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/puerto-rico-statehood_b_2118727.html |archive-date=November 17, 2012 |df=mdy-all |date=November 14, 2012 }}</ref> If abstentions are considered, the result of the referendum is much closer to 44 percent for statehood, a number that falls under the 50 percent majority mark.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/113173819/Carta-Garcia-Padilla-a-Obama-Plebiscito|title=Alejandro García Padilla letter to Barack Obama|author=García Padilla, Alejandro|date=November 9, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307032627/https://www.scribd.com/doc/113173819/Carta-Garcia-Padilla-a-Obama-Plebiscito|archive-date=March 7, 2016|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''[[The New York Times]]'' and the ''[[Boston Herald]]'' have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-good-deal-for-the-district-and-puerto-rico/2012/11/23/07a711d6-2eac-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html |title=A good deal for the District and Puerto Rico |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150218061547/http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-good-deal-for-the-district-and-puerto-rico/2012/11/23/07a711d6-2eac-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html |archive-date=February 18, 2015 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/will-puerto-rico-be-americas-51st-state.html|title=Will Puerto Rico Be America's 51st State?|author=David Royston Patterson|date=November 24, 2012|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=March 5, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160421035106/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/will-puerto-rico-be-americas-51st-state.html|archive-date=April 21, 2016|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20221125puerto_rican_statehood/ |title=Puerto Rican statehood |work=Boston Herald |date=November 25, 2012 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121128063126/http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20221125puerto_rican_statehood |archive-date=November 28, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaper ''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]'' published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/134077-congress-expected-to-ignore-puerto-ricos-vote-for-statehood/|title=Congress expected to ignore Puerto Rico's vote for statehood|work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]] |author=Kasperowicz, Pete|date=November 8, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121112060718/http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/266799-congress-expected-to-ignore-puerto-ricos-statehood-vote|archive-date=November 12, 2012|df=mdy-all}}</ref> U.S. Congressman [[Luis Gutiérrez]] and U.S. Congresswoman [[Nydia Velázquez]], both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with ''The Hill''{{'}}s statements.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.elnuevodia.com/elcongresonoharacasoalosresultadosdelplebiscito-1381852.html|title=El Congreso no hará caso a los resultados del plebiscito|work=[[El Nuevo Día]]|date=November 9, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121113065901/http://www.elnuevodia.com/elcongresonoharacasoalosresultadosdelplebiscito-1381852.html |archive-date=November 13, 2012|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Shortly after the results were published, Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman [[José Enrique Serrano]] commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20121111203416/http://www.puertoricoreport.org/serrano-plebiscite-an-earthquake-in-puerto-rican-politics/ "Serrano: Plebiscite an 'Earthquake' in Puerto Rican Politics"]}} Retrieved December 6, 2012.</ref>

Several days after the referendum, the [[Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico|Resident Commissioner]] [[Pedro Pierluisi]], Governor [[Luis Fortuño]], and Governor-elect [[Alejandro García Padilla]] wrote separate letters to the President of the United States, [[Barack Obama]], addressing the results of the voting. Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://recend.apextech.netdna-cdn.com/static/docs/editor/20121114_politica_pierluisi.pdf |title=Pedro Pierluisi letter to Barack Obama |author=Pierluisi, Pedro |date=November 13, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121119031241/http://recend.apextech.netdna-cdn.com/static/docs/editor/20121114_politica_pierluisi.pdf |archive-date=November 19, 2012 |df=mdy |author-link=Pedro Pierluisi }}</ref> Fortuño urged him to move the process forward.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0OdMdvVGyuHOC03cEVlR0xnOFU/edit?pli=1 |title=Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President – Official Results of the 2012 Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite |work=Google Docs |access-date=March 24, 2014}}</ref> García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/113173819/Carta-Garcia-Padilla-a-Obama-Plebiscito|title=Alejandro García Padilla letter to Barack Obama|author=García Padilla, Alejandro|date=November 9, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307032627/https://www.scribd.com/doc/113173819/Carta-Garcia-Padilla-a-Obama-Plebiscito|archive-date=March 7, 2016|df=mdy-all|author-link=Alejandro García Padilla}}</ref> The White House position on the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tau|first1=Byron|title=White House clarifies Puerto Rico stance|url=http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/white-house-clarifies-puerto-rico-stance-151019.html|access-date=July 16, 2015 |work=Politico|date=December 4, 2012 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140503152513/http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/white-house-clarifies-puerto-rico-stance-151019.html |archive-date=May 3, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union", asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state.<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20130927135632/http://www.puertoricoreport.org/pierluisi-introduces-historic-legislation/ "Pierluisi Introduces Historic Legislation"]}}, ''Puerto Rico Report'', May 15, 2013. Retrieved May 15, 2013.</ref> On February 12, 2014, Senator [[Martin Heinrich]] introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state.<ref>[http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/02/12/sen-martin-heinrich--presents-bill-seeking-puerto-rico-statehood/ "Sen. Martin Heinrich Presents Bill Seeking Puerto Rico Statehood"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222095534/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/02/12/sen-martin-heinrich--presents-bill-seeking-puerto-rico-statehood/ |date=February 22, 2014 }}, Fox News Latino, February 12, 2014. Retrieved February 14, 2014.</ref>

====Government funding for a fifth referendum====
On January 15, 2014, the United States House of Representatives approved $2.5 million in funding to hold a referendum. This referendum can be held at any time as there is no deadline by which the funds have to be used.<ref name="U.S. approves funds for referendum on Puerto Rico's status">{{cite web|url=http://www.laprensasa.com/309_america-in-english/2374118_u-s-approves-funds-for-referendum-on-puerto-rico-s-status.html |title=U.S. approves funds for referendum on Puerto Rico's status |date=January 16, 2014 |access-date=January 19, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140120064345/http://www.laprensasa.com/309_america-in-english/2374118_u-s-approves-funds-for-referendum-on-puerto-rico-s-status.html |archive-date=January 20, 2014 }}</ref> The United States Senate then passed the bill which was signed into law on January 17, 2014, by [[Barack Obama]], then President of the United States.<ref name="Make room for 51st star? Spending bill includes $2.5 million for vote on Puerto RIco statehood">{{cite web | url = http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/01/make_room_for_51st_star_spendi.html | title = Make room for 51st star? Spending bill includes $2.5 million for vote on Puerto RIco statehood | date = January 22, 2014 | access-date = February 22, 2017 | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170101143502/http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/01/make_room_for_51st_star_spendi.html | archive-date = January 1, 2017 | df = mdy-all }}</ref>

====2017 referendum====
{{Infobox multichoice referendum
| name = Puerto Rican status referendum, 2017
| location = [[Puerto Rico]]
| date = {{start date and age|2017|06|11}}
| width = 300px
| barwidth = 100px
| voting_system = [[plurality (voting)|Plurality]]
| part1_choice1 = [[Puerto Rico statehood movement|Statehood]]
| part1_choice1_color = green
| part1_percentage1 = 97.16
| part1_choice2 = {{nowrap|[[Independence movement in Puerto Rico|Independence]]/[[Sovereigntism (Puerto Rico)|Free Association]]}}
| part1_choice2_color = Blue
| part1_percentage2 = 1.51
| part1_choice3 = [[Status quo movement in Puerto Rico|Current Territorial Status]]
| part1_percentage3 = 1.32
| part1_choice3_color = red
}}

The previous plebiscites had provided voters with three options: statehood, free association, and independence. The [[2017 Puerto Rican status referendum|Puerto Rican status referendum of 2017]] instead originally offered two options: Statehood and Independence/Free Association. However, a third option, "current territorial status" was later added. The referendum was held on June 11, 2017, with an overwhelming majority of voters supporting statehood at 97.16%; however, with a voter turnout of 22.99%, it was a historical low. Had the majority voted for Independence/Free Association, a second vote would have been held to decide whether to have full independence as a nation, or to achieve associated free state status with independence but with a "free and voluntary political association" between Puerto Rico and the United States. The specifics of the association agreement<ref name="puertoricoreport">{{cite web |url=http://www.puertoricoreport.com/whats-free-associated-state/#.WK-D7m8rLX4 |title=What's a Free Associated State? |date=February 3, 2017 |website=Puerto Rico Report  |access-date=February 23, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170224135154/http://www.puertoricoreport.com/whats-free-associated-state/#.WK-D7m8rLX4 |archive-date=February 24, 2017  |df=mdy-all}}</ref> would've been to be detailed in the [[Compact of Free Association]] that would have had to be negotiated between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. That document could have covered topics such as the role of the U.S. military in Puerto Rico, the use of the U.S. currency, free trade between the two entities, and whether [[Puerto Ricans]] would be U.S. citizens.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Statehood,_Independence,_or_Free_Association_Referendum_(2017) |title=Puerto Rico Statehood, Independence, or Free Association Referendum (2017) |date=February 6, 2017 |website=Ballotpedia |access-date=February 24, 2017 |quote=With my vote, I make the initial request to the Federal Government to begin the process of the decolonization through: (1) Free Association: Puerto Rico should adopt a status outside of the Territory Clause of the Constitution of the United States that recognizes the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico. The Free Association would be based on a free and voluntary political association, the specific terms of which shall be agreed upon between the United States and Puerto Rico as sovereign nations. Such agreement would provide the scope of the jurisdictional powers that the People of Puerto Rico agree to confer to the United States and retain all other jurisdictional powers and authorities. Under this option the American citizenship would be subject to negotiation with the United States Government; (2) Proclamation of Independence, I demand that the United States Government, in the exercise of its power to dispose of territory, recognize the national sovereignty of Puerto Rico as a completely independent nation and that the United States Congress enact the necessary legislation to initiate the negotiation and transition to the independent nation of Puerto Rico. My vote for Independence also represents my claim to the rights, duties, powers, and prerogatives of independent and democratic republics, my support of Puerto Rican citizenship, and a "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation" between Puerto Rico and the United States after the transition process |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506190538/https://ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Statehood,_Independence,_or_Free_Association_Referendum_(2017) |archive-date=May 6, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

The governor, [[Ricardo Rosselló]] was strongly in favor of statehood to help develop the economy and help to "solve our 500-year-old colonial dilemma ... Colonialism is not an option ... It's a civil rights issue ... 3.5 million citizens seeking an absolute democracy".<ref>{{cite news |last=Wyss |first=Jim |title=Will Puerto Rico become the newest star on the American flag? |url=http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article128782174.html#storylink=cpy |newspaper=Miami Herald |location=Miami |access-date=February 24, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170225132959/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article128782174.html#storylink=cpy |archive-date=February 25, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Benefits of statehood would include an additional $10 billion per year in federal funds, the right to vote in presidential elections, higher Social Security and Medicare benefits, and the right for its government agencies and municipalities to file for bankruptcy.<ref name="wapo-2017-coto-danica" />

At approximately the same time as the referendum, Puerto Rico's legislators were expected to vote on a bill that would allow the Governor to draft a state constitution and hold elections to choose senators and representatives to the [[United States Congress]].{{Update inline|date=November 2023|reason=Did such a vote actually take place? Was a state constitution ever drafted?}} Regardless of the outcome of the referendum or the bill on drafting a constitution, action by Congress would have still been necessary to implement changes to the status of Puerto Rico under the [[Article Four of the United States Constitution#Federal property and the Territorial Clause|Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution]].<ref name="wapo-2017-coto-danica">{{cite news|last=Coto|first=Danica|date=February 3, 2017|title=Puerto Rico gov approves referendum in quest for statehood|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/puerto-rico-gov-approves-referendum-in-quest-for-statehood/2017/02/03/ddea7392-ea54-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204020835/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/puerto-rico-gov-approves-referendum-in-quest-for-statehood/2017/02/03/ddea7392-ea54-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 4, 2017|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|location=DC|access-date=February 17, 2017}}</ref>

If the majority of [[Puerto Ricans]] were to choose the Free Association option{{snd}}and 33% voted for it in 2012{{snd}}and if it were granted by the U.S. Congress, Puerto Rico would become a Free Associated State, a virtually independent nation. It would have a political and economical treaty of association with the U.S. that would stipulate all delegated agreements. This could give Puerto Rico a similar status to [[Federated States of Micronesia|Micronesia]], the [[Marshall Islands]], and [[Palau]], countries which have a [[Compact of Free Association]] with the United States.

Those Free Associated States use the American dollar, receive some financial support and the promise of military defense if they refuse military access to any other country. Their citizens are allowed to work in the U.S. and serve in its military.<ref name="puertoricoreport"/>

In total, 500,000 Puerto Ricans voted for statehood, 7,600 voted for independence, and 6,700 voted for status quo.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/puerto-rico-mulls-political-status-in-new-referendum/2017/06/11/20415f7a-4e5b-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_story.html|title=- The Washington Post|newspaper=The Washington Post|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170617080052/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/puerto-rico-mulls-political-status-in-new-referendum/2017/06/11/20415f7a-4e5b-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_story.html|archive-date=June 17, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

====2020 referendum====
{{Infobox referendum
| name        = 2020 Puerto Rican status referendum
| title       =
| location    = [[Puerto Rico]], [[Caribbean]]
| date        = {{start date and age|2020|11|03}}
| yes         =
| no          =
| total       =
| electorate  =
| map         = 
| mapdivision =
| width       = 300px
| barwidth    = 200px
| part1_subject      = "Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?"
| part1_choice1      = {{big|Yes (▲)}}
| part1_percentage1  = 52.52
| part1_color1       = 
| part1_choice2      = {{big|No (⬤)}}
| part1_percentage2  = 47.48
| part1_color2       = 
| website     = [https://elecciones2020.ceepur.org/Escrutinio_General_93/index.html#en/default/PLEBISCITO_Resumen.xml]
}}
{{main|2020 Puerto Rican status referendum}}
A referendum of the status of Puerto Rico was held on November&nbsp;3, 2020, concurrently with the [[2020 Puerto Rican general election|general election]]. This was the sixth [[referendum]] held on the [[Proposed political status for Puerto Rico|status of Puerto Rico]], with the [[2017 Puerto Rican status referendum|previous one]] having taken place in 2017. This was the first referendum with a simple {{nowrap|yes-or-no}} question, with voters having the option of voting for or against becoming a [[U.S. state]].<ref name=ballotpedia>{{cite web |url=https://news.ballotpedia.org/2020/11/11/puerto-ricans-approve-non-binding-statehood-referendum/ |title=Puerto Ricans approve non-binding statehood referendum |date=November 11, 2020 |access-date=June 4, 2024 |first=Ryan |last=Byrne |work=Ballotpedia}}</ref>

The referendum was non-binding, as [[admission to the Union|the power to grant statehood]] lies with the [[US Congress]]. The [[United States party politics and the political status of Puerto Rico#2020 Platforms|party platforms]] of both the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] have affirmed for decades Puerto Rico's right to [[self-determination]] and to be admitted as a state, at least in theory, but individual Republican legislators have been more skeptical.

According to Senate Bill 1467, which placed the referendum on the ballot, voting "No" on the referendum would mean that a seven-member commission would be appointed to negotiate with the federal government for the free association or independence of Puerto Rico.<ref name="Ballotpedia">{{cite web |url=https://www.ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Statehood_Referendum_(2020)| title=Puerto Rico Statehood Referendum(2020) |publisher=Ballotpedia |date=September 2, 2020 |access-date=September 2, 2020}}</ref><ref name="Gobierno de Puerto Rico">{{cite web |url=https://senado.pr.gov/Legislations/ps1467-20.pdf| title=Gobierno de Puerto Rico; Senado de Puerto Rico; P. de S. 1467 |publisher=Gobierno de Puerto Rico |date=January 9, 2020 |access-date=September 2, 2020}}</ref>

Statehood won the referendum 52.52%–47.48%.<ref>{{cite web|date=December 31, 2020|title=Plebiscite Islandwide Results|url=https://elecciones2020.ceepur.org/Escrutinio_General_93/index.html#en/default/PLEBISCITO_Resumen.xml|access-date=January 18, 2021|website=|publisher=Comisión Estatal de Elecciones}}</ref>
{{Infobox referendum
|country=Puerto Rico
|date={{Start date|2024|11|05}}
|map=[[File:Puerto Rico Referendum Municipalities 2024.svg|center|270px]]
'''Statehood'''
{{legend|#7D9CBB|60–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#B6C8D9|50–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#EBEEED9|40–50% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
|mapdivision=[[Municipalities of Puerto Rico|municipality]]
|choice1=Statehood
|percentage1=58.2
|choice2=Free association
|percentage2=29.54
|choice3=Independence
|percentage3=12.27
}}

====2024 referendum====
{{main|2024 Puerto Rican status referendum}}
In 2024 another referendum was conducted, with three choices: Statehood, Independence, or Independence with Free Association. Statehood won with 58% of the vote in this referendum, though it did not include an option for status quo.

=== Guam ===
[[File:Flag of Guam.svg|thumb|left|Flag of [[Guam]]]]

[[Guam]] (formally the Territory of Guam) is an [[Unincorporated territories of the United States|unincorporated and organized territory of the United States]]. Located in the western [[Pacific Ocean]], Guam is one of [[Territories of the United States#Unincorporated organized territories|five American territories]] with a civilian government.<ref name="oia">{{cite web|url=http://www.doi.gov/oia/Firstpginfo/territories.html |title=U.S. Territories |access-date=February 9, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070209094507/http://www.doi.gov/oia/Firstpginfo/territories.html |archive-date=February 9, 2007 |df=mdy }}." DOI Office of Insular Affairs. February 9, 2007.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/political_types.htm |title=DEFINITIONS OF INSULAR AREA POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS. |access-date=November 14, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721034923/http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/political_types.htm |archive-date=July 21, 2011 |df=mdy }} ''[[Office of Insular Affairs]]''. Retrieved October 31, 2008.</ref> Guam rejected unification with the [[Northern Mariana Islands]] in the past (see [[1969 Guamanian unification with the Northern Mariana Islands referendum]]); at the same time, referendums held in the Northern Marianas in [[1958 Saipan integration referendum|1958]], [[1961 Northern Mariana Islands status referendum|1961]], [[1963 Northern Mariana Islands integration referendum|1963]], and [[1969 Northern Mariana Islands status referendum|1969]] consistently demonstrated that the Northern Mariana Islanders supported unification with Guam. The Northern Marianas in later referendums chose to join the United States, which it did in 1986 as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a significant movement in favor of Guam becoming a [[commonwealth (United States insular area)|commonwealth]], which would give it a level of self-government similar to [[Puerto Rico]] and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, the federal government rejected the version of commonwealth that the government of Guam proposed, because its clauses were incompatible with the [[Territorial Clause]] (Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2) of the U.S. Constitution. Other movements advocate U.S. statehood for Guam, union with the state of Hawaii, [[Unification of the Mariana Islands|union with the Northern Mariana Islands]] as a single territory, or independence.<ref name="guampedia">{{cite web |url=http://www.guampedia.com/commission-on-decolonization |title=Commission on Decolonization 2014 |date=December 3, 2016 |website=Guampedia |access-date=February 27, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228163623/http://www.guampedia.com/commission-on-decolonization/ |archive-date=February 28, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
[[File:USA Guam satellite image location map.jpg|thumb|left|Guam from space, 2010]]
In a 1982 plebiscite, voters indicated interest in seeking commonwealth status. The island has been considering another non-binding plebiscite on decolonization since 1998. Governor [[Eddie Baza Calvo]] intended to include one during the island's November 2016 elections but it was delayed again.<ref name="Raymundo">{{cite web |url=http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/12/07/commission-launch-series-decolonization-meetings/95076830/ |title=Commission to launch series of decolonization meetings |last=Raymundo |first=Shawn |date=December 8, 2016 |website=Pacific Daily News |access-date=February 27, 2017}}</ref>

A Commission on Decolonization was established in 1997 to educate the people of Guam about the various political status options in its relationship with the U.S.: statehood, free association and independence. The group was dormant for some years. In 2013, the commission began seeking funding to start a public education campaign. There were few subsequent developments until late 2016. In early December 2016, the Commission scheduled a series of education sessions in various villages about the status of Guam's relationship with the U.S. and the self-determination options that might be considered.<ref name="Raymundo"/> The commission's executive director is Edward Alvarez and there are ten members. The group is also expected to release position papers on independence and statehood but they have not yet been completed.<ref name="guampedia"/>
[[File:Flag of the Northern Mariana Islands.svg|thumb|Flag of the [[Northern Mariana Islands]]. Guam and the Northern Marianas chose to remain separate in 20th century referendums, and both chose to be U.S. territories.]]
Guam was occupied for over 450 years by the Spanish and then the Japanese. Under the United States the people have had several referendums to determine their fate, and the current status dates to 1980s referendum which was won to continue as territory of the United States. Several late 20th referendums also determined they did not desire a unification with the Northern Marianas to the north, which joined the United States as territory in 1986.

In 2016, Governor Eddie Calvo planned a decolonization referendum solely for the indigenous [[Chamorro people]] of Guam, in which the three options would be statehood, independence, and free association. However, this referendum for the Chamorro people was struck down by a federal judge on the grounds of racial discrimination. In the wake of this ruling, Governor Calvo suggested that two ballots be held: one for the Chamorro People and one for eligible U.S. citizens who are non-indigenous residents of Guam. A reunification referendum in Guam and its neighbor, the [[Northern Mariana Islands]] (a U.S. Commonwealth) has been proposed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kuam.com/story/33785373/2016/11/Wednesday/could-the-community-decide-reunifying-the-marianas|title=Could the community decide reunifying the Marianas?|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170728230223/http://www.kuam.com/story/33785373/2016/11/Wednesday/could-the-community-decide-reunifying-the-marianas|archive-date=July 28, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/91102-guam-nmi-municipal-officials-seek-non-binding-reunification-referendum|title=Guam, NMI municipal officials seek non-binding reunification referendum|last=mvariety|website=Marianas Variety}}</ref> A 2016 poll conducted by the [[University of Guam]] showed a majority supporting statehood when respondents were asked which political status they supported.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kuam.com/story/31747261/2016/04/Sunday/uog-poll-guamanians-prefer-statehood|title=UOG poll: Guamanians prefer statehood|website=KUAM News}}</ref>

====United Nations support====
The [[United Nations]] is in favor of greater self-determination for Guam, though it has concluded its interest in the Northern Marianas which was removed from list of non self governing after it chose to join in the United States after a series of referendums in the 1960s and 1970s. The UN's [[Special Committee on Decolonization]] has agreed to endorse the governor's education plan. The commission's May 2016 report stated: "With academics from the [[University of Guam]], [the Commission] was working to create and approve educational materials. The Office of the Governor was collaborating closely with the Commission" in developing educational materials for the public.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gacol3290.doc.htm |title=Secretary-General Urges Concrete Action to Advance Decolonization Agenda as Pacific Regional Seminar Convenes |date=May 31, 2016 |publisher=United Nations |access-date=February 27, 2017 |quote="Let us seize this opportunity to identify concrete actions to advance the decolonization agenda," Mr. Ban said … according to the United Nations Charter and relevant General Assembly resolutions, a full measure of self-government could be achieved through independence, integration or free association with another State. The choice should be the result of the freely expressed will and desire of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228082817/http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gacol3290.doc.htm |archive-date=February 28, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

The United States [[Department of the Interior]] had approved a $300,000 grant for decolonization education, Edward Alvarez told the United Nations Pacific Regional Seminar in May 2016. "We are hopeful that this might indicate a shift in [United States] policy to its Non-Self-Governing Territories such as Guam, where they will be more willing to engage in discussions about our future and offer true support to help push us towards true self-governances and self-determination."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gacol3290.doc.htm |title=Secretary-General Urges Concrete Action to Advance Decolonization Agenda as Pacific Regional Seminar Convenes |date=May 31, 2016 |publisher=United Nations |access-date=February 27, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228082817/http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gacol3290.doc.htm |archive-date=February 28, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

===Other territories===
{{Infobox multichoice referendum
| name = Sequoyah constitutional referendum, 1905
| location = [[Indian Territory]]
| date = {{start date and age|1905|11|07}}
| width = 300px
| barwidth = 100px
| voting_system = [[plurality (voting)|Plurality]]
| part1_subject = Shall the voters of the Indian Territory approve or reject this proposed constitution?
| part1_choice1 = Approve
| part1_choice1_color = green
| part1_percentage1 = 86.11
| part1_choice2 = Reject
| part1_choice2_color = red
| part1_percentage2 = 13.88
| results_caption = 
}}
The [[Indian Territory]] attempted statehood in 1905, when citizens of the [[Five Civilized Tribes]] proposed creating the [[State of Sequoyah]] as a means to retain control of their lands and resources. A [[Sequoyah Constitutional Convention|constitutional convention]] was held on August 21, 1905, in [[Muskogee, Oklahoma|Muskogee]], and the proposed constitution was overwhelmingly approved by the territory's indigenous and white residents.<ref name="OHSSC">{{cite web | url=http://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=SE021 | title=Sequoyah Convention | last=Mize | first=Richard | year=2009 | access-date=May 10, 2016 | publisher=Oklahoma Historical Society}}</ref> Congress did not support statehood for Sequoyah, and the Indian Territory was annexed into [[Oklahoma]] in 1907.

The [[U.S. Virgin Islands]] explored the possibility of statehood in 1984,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/07/28/Vote-on-statehood-possible-in-US-Virgin-Islands/4460459835200/|title=Vote on statehood possible in U.S. Virgin Islands|date=28 July 1984|agency=UPI (archives)|access-date=30 January 2018}}</ref> and in a [[1993 United States Virgin Islands status referendum|1993 referendum]], while [[American Samoa]] explored the possibility of statehood in 2005<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/157117/american-samoa-to-explore-us-statehood |title=''American Samoa to explore US statehood''. Radionz.co.nz. Retrieved 30 January 2018 |publisher=Radionz.co.nz |date=2005-08-25 |access-date=2018-03-19}}</ref> and 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.samoanews.com/local-news/future-prospects-american-samoa%e2%80%99s-political-status |title=''The future prospects for American Samoa's political status.'' June 19, 2017. Fili Sagapolutele. Retrieved 30 January 2018 |publisher=Samoanews.com |date=2017-06-19 |access-date=2018-03-19}}</ref>
{{gallery|mode=nolines|whitebg=y|height=100
|File:Flag of the United States Virgin Islands.svg|Flag of the [[United States Virgin Islands]]
|File:Flag of American Samoa.svg|Flag of [[American Samoa]]
}}