For many years, Puerto Rico’s Popular Democratic Party (PDP) favored an “enhanced commonwealth” status. The party’s official statement about what that enhanced commonwealth might look like found a national platform in a bill introduced by Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA) in the House in June, 2000 (HR4751) that provided Puerto Rico with a “permanent union” with the U.S. “under an agreement which may not be unilaterally nullified or changed[.]”
The bill, presented by its sponsor as a mock proposal containing outlandish benefits for Puerto Rico, recognized Puerto Rico as a separate nation with the power to arrange commercial, tax and other agreements with foreign countries while also providing unrevocable United States citizenship for all Puerto Ricans and granting the nation of Puerto Rico a common U.S. defense, market, and currency, flexibility in its use of extensive U.S. funding, and the ability to cherry pick which U.S. laws applied within its borders and which did not.
As a mock proposal, the bill never became a law. It was sent to a committee, and there it died. The proposal contains several elements that are contrary to the Constitution, laws and policies of the United States.
Members of the PDP have since that time tried to come up with a new definition of “enhanced commonwealth,” but many statements from the various branches of the federal government, including a summation following the most recent hearing on Puerto Rico’s status, have made it clear that “enhanced commonwealth” is simply not a viable option. Even if the voters of Puerto Rico were to vote for it (and the option has been contained in past status referenda), it will not be accepted by the U.S. government and is therefore not a realistic possibility.
Some members of the PDP have now spoken in favor of becoming an Freely Associated State, like the nations of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and Federated States of Micronesia. This is a viable option under the U.S. Constitution. In many cases, though, the description of the Free Association they envision is more like “enhanced commonwealth” than it is like the actual relationships between the United States and the current freely associated states. The United States government cannot be expected to accept the same rejected idea under a new name. The notion that any agreement – including one regarding U.S. citizenship rights – could not be changed without agreement on both sides, for example, is still unconstitutional.
Because the official name of Puerto Rico in Spanish, “Estado Libre Asociado,” contains the phrase “free associated state” just as the official name in English contains the word “commonwealth,” there is plenty of potential for confusion.
A 2014 federal law was enacted with the goal of providing resources and structure for a plebiscite vote to take place in Puerto Rico with accurate, viable options that do not mislead voters. Under this law, Puerto Rico’s Elections Commission will be given $2.5 million for a plebiscite if its proposed status option or options would resolve the question of the territory’s ultimate status and are found by the U.S. Department of Justice not to conflict with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the United States.
Whos version of “Enhanced Commonwealth” because that all HINT at the same requirements for been called an “Independent Nation”