There is no single path to statehood. Would-be states have varied widely in their paths in pursuing statehood, the amount of time it took to achieve statehood, and the level of public support for admission. The historical context for admission of each state is as varied as the individual states themselves.
The topic of statehood admission and territorial political status is often culturally sensitive and politically divisive, and the U.S. Constitution appears to provide only general guidance to Congress on how to admit new states. Article IV, Section 3 permits Congress to admit new states and precludes admitting states within states except as approved by the state legislatures, specifically stating that “[n]ew states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new state 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.”
Article IV also requires “republican form” state governments. For this reason, new states generally approve a state constitutions before admission.
According to a 2024 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), history points to several different paths to statehood, including:
- the union of the first 13 colonies;
- initiation of the territory to begin the statehood process before attaining congressional approval, by drafting a state constitution, creating a local government, and sending elected representatives to Washington, as in the case of the Tennessee Plan;
- annexation of an independent republic, such as Texas;
- creation of a new state from existing states, like West Virginia; and
- congressional enactment of legislation to enable statehood.
Territories and the federal government have employed aspects of each of these methods over time. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The debate over Puerto Rico statehood proposals has been the most prominent territorial status topic considered in recent Congresses. Generally, debate focuses on which processes voters on the island should use to indicate their status preference and whether Congress wishes to consider a status change.
According to CRS, history suggests that the following factors, among others, could inform future statehood debates for Puerto Rico:
- Whether the status quo provides sufficient democratic representation and inclusion and, if not, which change, if any, would offer improvement.
There is increased recognition that Puerto Rico’s status as a U.S. territory is inconsistent with the U.S. democratic ideals, and that the curtain has been pulled back on a failure of democracy in the U.S.
- Popular support for a status change within a territory and whether that support is sufficient for Congress.
There have been four referendum votes since 2012 that demonstrate that Puerto Ricans are no longer satisfied with the status quo and prefer, instead, statehood. The preservation of their U.S. citizenship is very important to the people of Puerto Rico.
- How a territory’s status options were formulated and debated.
There was a time that the concept of keeping Puerto Rico as a “commonwealth” was very much in vogue; however, a Supreme Court decision and the enactment of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), have made it clear that Puerto Rico is in fact a U.S. territory, and its only alternatives are statehood and independence.
- Whether altering political status is in the national interest and in a territory’s interest, including issues of culture, defense, economics, language, and political institutions.
Since Puerto Rico is already annexed as a U.S. territory, culture, defense, and economics are already intertwined. Spanish is also widely spoken in the fifty states as well as in Puerto Rico, as is English. New Mexico had a similar language dynamic before it became a state.
