PO Box 669


Gurabo, PR 00778




Friday, January 4, 2013






Washington, D.C.


Via Internet


Honorable Members Of Congress:


As you are probably aware, the US Citizens of Puerto Rico held a plebiscite in the recent


elections of November 6, 2012, in which they made two important decisions: First, they


expressed their wish not to continue under the actual territorial relationship. Second, they


expressed their wish to resolve their political status problem by means of full statehood.


I am writing to you asking for assistance in implementing the results of that two-phased


plebiscite and in which the US Citizens of Puerto Rico have expressed their desire to put a halt to


our territorial condition and become the 51st State of the United States of America.


In previous plebiscites, the People of Puerto Rico, natural born US Citizens, were led to


believe that it was possible to live in “the best of two worlds” under the American Flag.



The United States Citizens of Puerto Rico have finally realized that there is no such thing


as a “special form of statehood” for Puerto Rico, wrongly called “enhanced commonwealth.”


Many of them have further learned that our real political status is not “Estado Libre Asociado,”


separate from the United States, but with US Citizenship. Thus, they have voted for full


statehood in this plebiscite.


Contrary to previous plebiscites, in this instance the People were exposed to a true free


determination process with clear questions that would produce non-confusing results. Such a


process should have been held a long time ago in order to allow the US Citizens in Puerto Rico


full democratic participation in their national government and the end of what has been called a


colonial status which has been the shame of the United States.


Further, such a valuable process would have allowed the US Citizens in Puerto Rico to


spare a lagging economy which drags 50% of its population into the nightmare of poverty. The


promise of a “special form of statehood” which could not be, disallowed the full integration of


the economy of Puerto Rico into the economy of the United States. Such stalemate has been


detrimental to the quality of life of the US Citizens in Puerto Rico for too long.


I can recognize that the US Citizens of Puerto Rico have been responsible for their


precarious situation by voting the way they have in the previous plebiscites. So an important


question is why they voted that way. And the answer is: They were misled to believe in a fantasy


called “Estado Libre Asociado” as our political status, which is detached from the United States,


and can be improved to produce “the best of two worlds.”


Congress is not at fault; Congress could only follow the wish of the People by allowing


the territorial status to continue its course. And in that same spirit, Congress should now


respond, without delay, to the results of this plebiscite which has produced uncontested results:


The People of Puerto Rico, Natural Born US Citizens, have voted to give birth to the 51st State


of the United States Of America in a true free determination process.




The People of Puerto Rico went a step further in this plebiscite: They expressed their


dissatisfaction with the actual territorial status and asked not to continue in that status. It was a


historical decision which Congress must attend promptly.


An excellent process of free determination has been implemented in Puerto Rico and


the results are there for Congress to act upon.


The word from Congress has been that the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico is


problematic because there is no consensus on the Island on the issue. And Congress has been


correct, given the confusing information it has received from Puerto Rico. After all, when you


include as options political status formulas that offer pies in the sky, and the people believe in


those offers, the only result can be confusion. (See Appendix A).


But the structure of this plebiscite has cleared the way to solve the problem by Congress.


The Task Force provided the decisive tool through the two phased plebiscite that answered


fundamental questions of free determination: If and How to solve the issue. And Congress now


has a perfect “compact” upon which it can act to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st State.


The huge participation of over 95% of signed-up voters for the elections in the first


question of the plebiscite clearly shows the desire of the People of Puerto Rico to solve the


political status issue with permanent status options. 54% of participants in the first question


expressed their wish not to continue under the territorial condition.


The second question was answered by 56.13% of registered voters and 72.36% of signedup


voters. 61.11% of participants in this question expressed their desire for full statehood for


Puerto Rico. As a comparison, in the plebiscite held during the elections of 1952, in which


Congressional amendments to the local constitution were finally ratified, 54.19% of registered


voters took part and 71.97% of the signed-up voters participated. The final Constitution was


completed with that vote.


The process suggested by the Task Force provided the necessary tools to lead to a solid


solution of Puerto Rico’s political status problem by providing a basis for a real discussion of the


issues. It was a perfect decisive process with clear results.


Which is why I am asking from the Members of Congress to ponder over an opinion from


the Congressional Research Service in their report “Analysis of HR 856” on the status process of


Rep. Don Young in 1996:


The only way to secure Constitutionally-protected citizenship is to complete the


process of Constitutional integration so that people born in Puerto Rico also will be born


in a State of the Union for purposes of the 14th Amendment.


Why does the CRS refer to a process “ to complete the Constitutional integration?’’


Puerto Rico started the “process of Constitutional integration” a long time ago.


Principally and specifically since 1947 when the US Constitution was extended to the


People of Puerto Rico by means of US Public Law 362 of 1947. As a result of that action, Puerto


Rico became an incorporated territory of the United States.


With this plebiscite, the People have expressed the firm intention to complete the process


of full integration, as suggested by the CRS, with the help from Congress. The path has been


cleared in this plebiscite and Congress has a clear mandate to act accordingly.


The admission process of Puerto Rico as the 51st State has been started. Now it is in


the hands of Congress. And Congress has the obligation to “complete the process.”


A typical admission process goes as follows as found in the history of the United States:








Washington, D.C.


“Historically, Congress has applied the following general procedure when


granting territories statehood:


* The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people’s desire for or against




* Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress


for statehood.


* The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of


government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.


* The U.S. Congress – both House and Senate – pass, by a simple majority vote, a


joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.


* The President of the United States signs the joint resolution and the territory is


acknowledged as a U.S. State.” Quote from the Internet.


We have already implemented the initial steps:


* The territory held a referendum in which 61% of the voters expressed their desire


for statehood.


* The Legislature of Puerto Rico has submitted a Concurrent Resolution to Congress


requesting admission of Puerto Rico as the next State of the Union.


* Both our form of government and constitution are in full compliance with the US


Constitution. After all, our actual Constitution is a Law of Congress.


However, we respectfully ask Congress to examine our present Constitution to determine


if any cosmetic changes are required to be made in recognition of the sovereignty of the State and


the full intergation of Puerto Rico into the constitutional system; also, Congress should make the


necessary amendments for that purpose, produce the necessary Enabling Act and submit both


documents for final approval by the US Citizens of Puerto Rico.


Should there be a need to negotiate with the People of Puerto Rico anything related to its


final admission as the next State of the Union, a Special Status Commission should be created for


that purpose and elected by the direct vote of the People. Our elected officials do not have such


authorization from the People; neither were they elected for that purpose.


In this plebiscite we even went beyond the above process by explicitly voting against


maintaining the territorial condition as our political status. The “consent of the governed”


principle applied to the territorial status has been formally rejected by a majority of the US


Citizens in Puerto Rico. Such a rejection, of such an important principle in our constitutional


system, imposes upon Congress the responsibility to act immediately according to the will of the


US Citizens in Puerto Rico.


Thus, I urgently request from you, Members of Congress, through your Resources


Committees, to take the necessary steps to admit Puerto Rico as the next State of the Union. The


process was started a long time ago by Congress and what remains to be done is very simple:


Amend the local Constitution and prepare an Enabling Act for whatever is needed, have both


documents approved by the People of Puerto Rico and admit the new State.


Please welcome Puerto Rico as the New State of the United States of America. We


should have done this a long time ago.


Sincerely yours,


Mario E. Porrata


Alliance For Full Statehood For Puerto Rico






Washington, D.C.








The structure of this plebiscite was suggested in the President’s Task Force Report of


2005 with the objective to produce a clear and unbiased result on the solution of the political


status problem of the People of Puerto Rico.


The structure of this plebiscite was first suggested in the President’s Task Force Report on


the Political Status of Puerto Rico of 2005. :


The Task Force recognizes that the authority under the U.S. Constitution to establish a


permanent non-territorial status for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico rests with


Congress. Although the current territorial status may continue so long as Congress


desires, there are only two non-territorial options recognized by the U.S. Constitution


that establish a permanent status between the people of Puerto Rico and the Government


of the United States. • One is statehood. Under this option, Puerto Rico would become the


51st State with standing equal to the other 50 States. • The other is independence. Under


this option, Puerto Rico would become a separate, independent sovereign nation. The


democratic will of the Puerto Rican people is paramount for the future status of the


territory. Ideally, the process should begin with an expression from the people of Puerto


Rico on whether to maintain current territorial status or establish a permanent nonterritorial


status with regard to the United States. The popular will of the people should


be ascertained in a way that provides clear guidance for future action by Congress.


Therefore, the following are the recommendations of the Task Force: 1. The Task


Force recommends that Congress within a year provide for a Federally sanctioned


plebiscite in which the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to state whether they wish to


remain a U.S. Territory subject to the will of Congress or to pursue a Constitutionally


viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status with the United States. Congress


should provide for this plebiscite to occur on a date certain. 2. The Task Force


recommends that if the people of Puerto Rico elect to pursue a permanent non


territorial status, Congress should provide for an additional plebiscite allowing the


people of Puerto Rico to choose between one of the two permanent non-territorial




Once the people have selected one of the two options, Congress is encouraged to

begin a process of transition toward that option. 3. If the people elect to remain as a


territory, the Task Force recommends, consistent with the 1992 memorandum of President


Bush, that a plebiscite occur periodically, as long as that status continues, to keep


Congress informed of the people’s wishes. ( My emphasis).


The Task Force realized that the results of previous plebiscites were confusing because


the option chosen by the People would be operational under the territorial condition, in which


case the status problem would not be solved. So, the Task Force devised a two phased plebiscite


which set out to determine, first and foremost, if the people really wanted to solve the problem;


if so, there had to be an explicit disapproval of the territorial condition, which was never


discussed in previous plebiscites and was the cause of the problem. Thus the question whether


the People wished to maintain its territorial political status was essential to the process.


The plebiscite just held was also structured as a two phased process, with a small


variation from that recommended by the Task Force, in which two questions were asked: In the


first question, the People were asked if they wished to maintain their actual territorial status. The


People were asked to chose between two answers: YES or NO. This question had the intention


of determining whether the People of Puerto Rico wished to solve their political status stalemate.








Washington, D.C.


The results of previous plebiscites did not answer this question, though they implied that the


answer was in the negative. The Task Force wanted an explicit response.


In the second question of this plebiscite, if the People wished to solve their political status


situation with permanent formulas, they could express their preference for either full statehood,


full independence, or independence in association with the United States.


The validity of the results of the second question depended on the results of the first


question. If the People opted to remain under the territorial condition, the second question


became merely a survey, with no legal mandate. However, if the People opted for an end to the


territorial condition, then the results of the second question became a mandate to pursue and


implement its results.


The Task Force of 2005 was well aware that the People of Puerto Rico were


manipulated to vote in such a way that the plebiscites previously held would be useless.


The results of the previous plebiscites did not produce a solution to the political status


problem of Puerto Rico, because they were structured to be useless, by offering unconstitutional


options, over which Congress could only act in an unconstitutional manner. The Task Force


Report of 2005 stated the following:


Some have proposed a “New Commonwealth” status. Under this proposal, the island


would become anautonomous, nonterritorial, non-State entity in permanent union with


the United States under a covenant that could not be altered without the“mutual consent”


of Puerto Rico and the federal Government. The U.S. Constitution, however, does not


allow for such an arrangement. For entities under the sovereignty of the United States,the


only constitutional options are to be a State or territory. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated


in 1879, “All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States not included in any


State must necessarily be governed by or under the authority of Congress” (First Nat.


Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (1879)).


The structure of this plebiscite has been attacked by the enemies of a status solution as


being pre-ordained to produce a result against, not the actual territorial status, but against the


“Estado Libre Asociado mejorado” which they called “enhanced commonwealth.” Those that so


argue, however, have proven to be anti-statehood citizens who have held the status issue on hold


until their desire for independence materializes.


There is a trick to this argument that has worked in the past and needs to be denounced.


The trick has consisted of offering an unconstitutional territorial condition under the disguise of


an “enhanced commonwealth” that cannot be, (which did not solve the status problem), against


full statehood and independence, (which did solve the status problem). The offer takes the form


of a “special form of statehood” under the territorial status that appeals to the voters and


provokes a favorable vote in plebiscites. The result is a vote for an unconstitutional political


status that only leads to confusion, voids the plebiscite and creates a stalemate. In the end, the


plebiscite is rendered useless and the territorial status remains. ( In the plebiscite of 1993, the


territorial status, under the disguise of “enhanced commonwealth,” or better – “Estado Libre


Asociado,” won with a plural majority of 49% of the vote, against statehood and independence,


where 51% of the voters opted for non-territorial options).


Another issue involved partisan politics. Previous plebiscites were conducted along


political party lines, ignoring the real issues surrounding the political status. The People voted


according to the orders given by the political parties and their leaders, without any concern for


the consequences. Such attitude explains why many people voted for an unconstitutional option


called “enhanced commonwealth.”








Washington, D.C.


The Task Force of 2005 understood these situations and decided on a more decisive and


conclusive process as explained before. So, t

he truth is that this plebiscite was the product of the


Task Force of 2005 and not of a local design. The Task Force did not have a pre-ordained result


in mind. They really wanted to know the truth: Do they want to solve the status issue by


abandoning the territorial condition? If so, how?


The structure suggested by the Task Force of 2005 was adopted by the Puerto Rico


legislature in this recent plebiscite of 2012 with little variation. Everyone had the chance to vote


in both questions; therefore, those that primarily wished to maintain the present territorial status,


could still vote for a permanent solution in the second question, just in case their territorial


preference lost in the first question. It was an all inclusive and decisive process.


The first question in this plebiscite allowed the People to discuss their real status under


the territorial condition. And a significant sector of the People finally understood their




By inserting a reference to our real political status as a territory of the United States in the


first question, the People began asking “what’s that”? The People also asked “where is our


Estado Libre Asociado”? For the first time in the history of Puerto Rican plebiscites, the People


started to discuss our real political status as a territory of the United States.


As the People of Puerto Rico have come to realize that such a “special form of statehood”


does not exist, and that Puerto Rico has never ceased to be a territory of the United States, in the


first question of the just conducted plebiscite 54% of the voters explicitly decided that, as


American citizens, they did not want to maintain the territorial condition as their political status.


This decision is an explicit mandate from the People to reverse the principle of the


“compact,” that is, a territorial status “with the consent of the People”, under the territorial clause


of the US Constitution. As citizens who cherish their US citizenship and are loyal to the Union,


they want to be treated in the same fashion as any US citizen in the several States.


In the second question, the People of Puerto Rico were asked to express their preference


for a permanent solution to the political status among permanent options: Statehood or


Independence. Statehood was presented as such. But independence was presented in two


variations: Full independence, or independence under an option of free association. This second


variation of independence was wrongly called “Estado Libre Asociado Soberano,” which


confused many people: They thought this option meant a vote for their “enhanced


commonwealth.” Had they been properly instructed that such a vote required independence first,


the 33% vote this option got would have been drastically reduced because Puerto Ricans do not


advocate independence.


Sixty one percent (61%) of the voters opted for full statehood as it applies to all the


Citizens of the several States.


In this plebiscite there were no gimmicks or promises of unconstitutional nature. An


important sector of the population did not allow itself to be dragged into oblivion by lies and


false claims like “the best of two worlds.”


In this plebiscite the People finally rejected the offer of a “super status” under the


American flag. In other words, most of the People in Puerto Rico have learned, the hard way,


that they cannot have a territory of the US with “irrevocable US Citizenship,” yet with sovereign


powers that properly belong in the Constitution of the United States and not in the Constitutions


of the several States (like the power to conduct international relations on its own, in violation of


the US Constitution).


That is how the People of Puerto Rico, natural born US Citizens, were induced to vote for








Washington, D.C.


in previous plebiscites. Such unconstitutional options, under the territorial condition, were


presented to the People of Puerto Rico during the plebiscites of 1967 and 1993. The political


status formula was called “enhanced commonwealth” and was portrayed as better than full


statehood or full independence. It was also called “the best of two worlds” (meaning the best of


independence and statehood, combined).


In those plebiscites the People were further assured that such an unconstitutional formula


could be easily obtained by convincing Congress that all that was required was “congressional


political will to grant it.” The theory was that the US Constitution applies to the States, but that


Congress has ample powers to do what it wants with the “Estado Libre Asociado,” including


decisions outside the US Constitution. Once those powers were granted, they claimed, the


territorial condition would not change and all benefits from Congress would remain intact.


And in the plebiscite of 1998, followers of the Popular Democratic Party boycotted the


process because their “enhanced commonwealth” was not included. (Many people also opposed


the plebiscite because we had just been hit by hurricane Georges. That’s why voters of all colors


opted for the None of the Above option).


It can be readily seen that “the commonwealth,” as is known in Congress, did not actually


win those plebiscites. In fact, the “commonwealth” as is known to Congress has never, ever won


a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. Rather, the option that won was a “special form of statehood” that


cannot be had because it is unconstitutional.


“If the quality of the process cannot be diminished, let’s diminish the results.” That’s


what followers of “Estado Libre Asociado” are now claiming after losing the plebiscite. So, a


new statistical parameter is born: the blank vote!


Actually, and realistically, a blank vote does not exist; a blank ballot does exist. First of


all, ballots are provided for every possible voter; and for every voter that does not sign-up to


vote, a blank ballot will result. Further, voters may sign up to vote and submit their ballots blank.


Still further, voters may invalidate their ballots by making illegal marks, in protest or by mere


acts of foolishness. To the best of my knowledge, such ballots have never been counted in Puerto


Rico to determine the winners/losers of a particular electoral event, be it an election or a


plebiscite. The only votes that have ever been unconditionally counted have been those explicitly


marked, irrespective of their quantities.


In this plebiscite the first question was answered by 1,798,987 actual voters, which


comprise 74.87% of registered voters (2,402,941). They also account for 95.74% of signed-up


voters (1,878,969). 54% of the actual voters (970,910) expressed their wish not to continue


under the territorial condition. Therefore, any future plebiscite could only include the two


options left under the Constitution of the United States for a territory: Statehood and




Such “future plebiscite” took place in the second question, which was answered by


1,363,854 actual voters, which comprise 56.76% of registered voters. They also account for


72.59% of signed-up voters. 61.16% of the actual voters (834,191) in the second question


expressed their wish to make Puerto Rico a State of the Union.


Statehood opponents have tried to dilute such an overwhelming vote in favor of statehood


by demanding that blank ballots be counted as part of the universe of the actual voters in the first


question. There were 435,133 less votes in the second question than in the first.This would


require that blank ballots be counted as votes, thus creating “ex post facto” a fourth option in the


second question because the will of those voters cannot be assigned to any of the three original


options. Such action would be clearly unconstitutional, unfair and a clear contradiction to the


principle of “one man, one vote.”








Washington, D.C.


Mario Esteban Porrata Colón


Statehood Advocate For


Puerto Rico






High School:


Colegio Ponceño de Varones – Marianists School.


Bachelor’s Degree: BBA


Catholic University of Puerto Rico


Master’s Degree: MBA


St. John’s University, Queens, NY


Computer Systems and Programming:


Digital Equipment Corporation


Boston, Massachussetts




1968-1970 Professor at Catholic University of Puerto Rico


1970-2012 Small Business Owner




1970-present Numerous letters to the editor in local media


1970-present Several articles on the political status of Puerto Rico


2001-2004 Participant in weekly radio program in WAPA Radio


2005-2012 Host in two weekly radio programs in NotiUno Radio


2001-2003 Directed the collection of 62,500 statehood petitions and delivered them to


Congress with a group of colaborators.


2002 Published first book: “Estado Libre Asociado, 50 Años de Engaños:


Nos robaron la estadidad y se la atribuyeron al ELA.”


2005 Published second book: “Puerto Rico 101: La Decisión Final.”


2010 Published third book: “El Engaño Del ELA Se Acabó.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s