Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton Pledges Voting Rights to Puerto Rico, Too

May 25, 2008 9:32 AM

You may recall how Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, stumping for votes in Guam, promised residents of that territory full voting rights. Pressed for details, the Clinton campaign acknowledged this would require amending the Constitution.

Saturday in Puerto Rico, Clinton told citizens there, "I believe you should have a vote in picking the president, too," per ABC News' Eloise Harper.

Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but they do not pay federal income taxes and they do not vote in the presidential election. Their representative to Congress is a Delegate who votes in committee but not on the floor of the House. Giving voting rights to Puerto Ricans to vote in presidential elections would likewise require a Constitutional amendment.

Writing at the History News Network, historian Robert KC Johnson writes: "Perhaps the Constitution should be amended to allow Puerto Ricans and Guamanians to vote in presidential elections. But Clinton has been in the Senate for eight years, and she doesn’t seem to have raised the issue. There’s something off-putting about a U.S. senator first proposing constitutional amendments a few days before the targets of these amendments go to the polls…

"It appears as if the Clinton campaign is going to come up short, but perhaps Sen. Clinton can work on these amendments in the next session of Congress. Somehow, however, I doubt that she’ll be as interested in making sure that Guamanians can vote for the presidency if she’s not on the presidential ballot."

At a campaign stop in Beaverton, Oregon, earlier this month, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., claimed he had visited 57 states. (Watch HERE.) The misstatement prompted a 57-state flag lapel pin and a suggestion on the conservative Powerline blog as to where the extra states might come from (Canada, Cuba and Jamaica.)

But I'm wondering if a President Hillary Clinton would actually lead to 57 states. ... Guam, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa -- that's 55. ...

- jpt

May 25, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary | Permalink | Share | User Comments (83)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hillary said yesterday that she felt like she was the Senator from Puerto Rico...

I guess after getting Bill to pardon all those Puerto Rican FLAN terrorists in 1999-2000, she just has this affinity for them!

You go girl, promise everyone everything!

Posted by: Davis | May 26, 2008 3:51:03 PM

Yep, "Big Surprise" another pander to another audience she happens to be standing in front of...

I am still waiting for my $10,000 credit for buying a new hybrid car Hillary!

Posted by: Davis | May 26, 2008 3:47:29 PM

If Puerto Rico wants to be a state, all it has to do it vote for statehood, pass a state Constitution, and petition Congress. A majority vote of Congress would do the trick. But Puerto Rico hasn't come to agreement that it wants to be a state. Why would Puerto Rico want to have the right to vote for President without other rights granted to states?

The 600,000 citizens of the District of Columbia (distinct from those who come here to work in Congress and the White House, etc., long-term visitors...) have been disenfranchised for over 200 years. THey have appealed for full citizenship by asking for the passage of a Constitutional amendment and statehood - but political elites are not interested. Political elites and the states approved an amendment in 1961 giving DC the right to vote for President--a little bread crumb to quite them. But DC leans too far to the Democratic side for Congressional comfort, not to mention it is "too" poor and "too" black. (But we're not supposed to mention those things these days.) When Bill Clinton was President, Democrats controlled the White House and Congress--but they did not give DC equal rights. I don't expect more from Hillary, either for the District or other territories/colonies. It's not a priority. And I don't expect anything from Obama either. None of the political establishment - and few Americans - give a damn that the U.S. is the only constitutional democracy which openly disenfranchises its capital citizen residents. I've had other Americans say, "You can move." Very sad.

Posted by: DC colonyman | May 26, 2008 1:16:16 PM

Clinton will say anything, as has been seen, to keep from losing the Puerto Rico primary. She is already far behind in S. Dakota, and Montana. Puerto Rico is trending towards Obamas.

It is interesting to watch an old democratic coalition fade away as a new one is born.

Posted by: Richard | May 26, 2008 1:09:22 PM

Here a pander there a pander everywhere she goes a pander, pander........

Posted by: GunnyJ | May 26, 2008 12:56:45 PM

Hell, Hillary wants convicted felons
to vote, illegals to vote......ANY
group that she knows will benefit
her and the Democrats. Too bad none
of this will help HER this cycle. She'll
still be the junior senator from N.Y.
after the convention in August.

Posted by: hombre | May 26, 2008 12:34:08 PM

How can anyone believe anything Hillary says? Her campaign is so full of lies,
distortions and pandering, she is not a credible candidate for anything. And don't be so naive to believe she did not intend insinutions about the assisination remark. She calculates everything she says and does.
When she and Bill initiated the anything to win tactics, lost all respect for them both.
By the way, has she ever made excuses for Obama's slip of the tongue. No she jumped on everything with both barrels.
What a gal!!

Posted by: katiec | May 26, 2008 11:36:52 AM

Voting rights to people who do not want to become a state but want all the benifits of the American Goverment.

One more reason we should not vote for a Democrat.

Obama supports welfare for the whole world paid for by America

Posted by: asasd | May 26, 2008 7:19:48 AM

Panderer in Chief!

Hillary Clinton!

ps...GO AWAY!!

Posted by: sue | May 26, 2008 7:14:13 AM

correction: LBJ = JFK

Posted by: guamanian | May 26, 2008 4:02:41 AM

Hillary is not pandering, she's being an trailblazer on this issue. She is the only voting member in congress bring ing up this issue, candidate or not!

So I guess LBJ was pandering to African-Americans when he was assured by Martin Luther King that they will come out to help him get elected?

Reality check, people.... I thought the Obama campaign was about Hope and Change... not cynicism and name-calling.

Posted by: guamanian | May 26, 2008 3:57:40 AM

It's terrible that my fellow americans are politicizing this issue. You obviously do not know what it's like feeling like second-class citizens.

The fact is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only person, candidate or not, who has brought up this issue.

Posted by: guamanian | May 26, 2008 3:47:35 AM

Wow... Senator Clinton does not have teh power to 'amend the constitution' and even as president she would not have such power....
I hope she goes back to the senate and tries to fight for the things she 'says' are so important to her now... I've watched the senate and she has never done anything that impressed me and there are senators that do...
She is completely comfortable with manipulating people.

Posted by: lb | May 26, 2008 3:07:10 AM

Shut up about Hillary pandering. Obama sticks his foot in his mouth every time he does-pander that is. Today's Gallop Poll shows Hillary ahead of McCain and McCain ahead of Obama in the fall election. Whatever happened to the recount in Guam? Obama supporters-your candidate is slipping...slipping...slipping...

Posted by: RL in Illinois | May 25, 2008 11:22:16 PM

Hillary will say anything and i mean antthing to win this nomination.In as much as i want my daughters to achieve great things in life,she is definately not the kind of example i want because i want them to be fighters but most importantly truthful.

Posted by: babe | May 25, 2008 11:22:11 PM

S writes: "Why shouldn't US territories and possessions have a say in the government that controls them? What in the world is wrong with that?"

You, and the others who have made similar comments, are missing the point of the article.

The points are these:

1) Clinton has never voiced an interest in this issue until it became politically expedient for her to make false promises to the voters of Puerto Rico and Guam. This is called Pandering - something that Clinton excels at.

2) The President of the USA does not have the authority to grant such a thing - it requires a Constitutional Amendment.

Maybe when Clinton finally retires her losing campaign for the presidency, she can take up this issue as one of her causes though.

Posted by: Kasha | May 25, 2008 10:43:52 PM

let no gaffe go unblogged...

meanwhile, how many dead in iragmire?

Posted by: kravitz | May 25, 2008 10:39:38 PM

Clinton redefines the word "pander"

Not once has it ever been important to her to have Puerto Rico or Guam have full voting rights, until now, when she is trying to buy their votes with empty promises.

Clinton makes me ill. I am a 53 year old woman who falls within her "demographic" and I can promise you I will never vote for her. I am embarrassed by her behaviour and outright lies. She has done noting to further the cause for women in this country with her outlandish statments and lies while campaigning for the presidency of the USA.

She has shown that she will say and do anything in order to get elected. I wonder when and where she lost her soul.

Posted by: Kasha | May 25, 2008 10:32:08 PM

The way we know that she is pandering, beside the fact that her lips are moving, is that she has spent 8 years in the Senate and NOT once has she brought this issue up. Why? Because she is a panderer and a liar!

Posted by: Dave | May 25, 2008 7:14:16 PM

Puerto Rico can have full voting rights. They just have to approve statehood and they get members of 6 members of Congress, 2 Senators and 8 EVs. No need to amend the Constitution, just become a state!

PR has rejected that multiple times, so why give them a say in the White House? Territories have never had a say, so why offer it to them. Do you think that 3/4 of the states will approve such a ridiculous measure?

The President also has no role in Constitutional Amendments. A Senator can institute such an amendment. Why hasn't she done so in the past 8 years?

The obvious answer is that she is just pandering. She wants to build up her bogus "popular vote" argument with a primary that doesn't even want to become a state. Her cynicism is astounding, but the gullibility of her supporters is even more so.

Posted by: AxelDC | May 25, 2008 7:01:34 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS