Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT AND
OTHER RELIEF
- VIOLATIONS OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
-CLAIM FOR VOTING
RIGHTS
- APPORTIONMENT FOR
REPRESENTATIVES
II. JURISDICTION
II-1.) Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked in accordance with the provisions of 28 USCA
1331 which provides that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It also arises under the
Constitution of the United States: Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 and Section 8 - Necessary and
Proper Clause; Article IV, Section 2; Article VI, Amendment I,
IV-1-C.) In 1917 Congress adopted the Organic Act, also known as the Jones Act. This
legislation: accorded the federal District Court jurisdiction over all cases cognizable in the
district courts of the United States; generally granted Puerto Rico citizens United States
citizenship, and codified a bill of rights which remained in effect until 1952 with nearly all of the
personal guarantees found in the United States Constitution. The provision was continued
concerning the applicability of the statutory laws of the United States to Puerto Rico.
In relation to American citizenship for the people of Puerto Rico Congress also legislated
after 1917 as follows: All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and before
January 13, 1941 in the jurisdiction of the United States, who were subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States, who resided on January 13, 1941 in Puerto Rico or other territory over which
the United States had jurisdiction under any other statute, were citizens of the United States as
of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, become citizens of the United States at birth. (UDCS
1402).
The American residents of Puerto Rico cannot be deprived by Congress of their
citizenship, nor can their citizenship rights be altered (See Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US. 253, at 268
(1967); Santori v. US 30 F 3rd 126; US v. Lucienne D. Hotelle de Rexach et. al. 558 Fnd 37;
and, Lozada Colon v. US Dept. of State, #97-1831, US District, DC, 4/23/1998). (See also,
Gonzalez v. Williams, 24 Sup. It. Rep. 177). Thus, by granting American citizenship by birth to
the residents of Puerto Rico, these became part of the national federalist cooperative affair in
which the citizens became part of the country. (Id. Afroyim)
Today the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated are 4th, 5th and 6th generation American
....the procedure provided in Law 600" was carried out.As to substance Law 600
does not differ at all from the enabling acts passed in the procedure for admission into
the Union of new states... (Rafael Hernandez Colon, The Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico: Territory or State, P.R. Bar Journal 207, at 239 (1959). (Honorable Rafael
Hernandez Colon is a former Governor of Puerto Rico)
As a result of the procedure of Law 600" the Puerto Rico government was presently
and permanently restricted by federal law and federal principles. (Hernandez Agosto
v. Romero Barcel 594 FS 1390) Evidently this includes democratic and human
rights principles, principles of government by consent (Id. 48 USCA 731 (b)). (See
also, Consentino V. International Longshoremen Assn, et. Als. 126 FS 420);
Examining Board v. Flores 426 US 572 (1976)).
The First Circuit stated, referring to the constitutional procedure of Law 600"
previously cited, -today, the government of Puerto Rico in many respects resembles
that of a state... (Trailer Marine v. Rivera, 977 F 2d 1 at 7). (See also, U.S. v Laboy).
Puerto Rico has been a United States Commonwealth since 1952. "[T]he purpose of
Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of
autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union."
Examining Bd. y. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 594, 96 S. Ct. 2264, 49 L. Ed. 2d 65
(1976). "[A]lthough Puerto Rico is not a State in the federal union, it ... seem[s] to
have become a State within a common and accepted meaning of [**5] the word."
Calero Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 672, 94 S. a 2080, 40 L.
Ed. 2d 452 (1974).
IV-1-G.) That Like a State, Puerto Rico has been incorporated gradually to a
federalist relation with the US Government, that is, bound together with the States under one
national central government. Under this political organization, the Federal Government, with a
republican form of government, exercises its power over Puerto Rico as - if Puerto Rico were a
State. The political branches of the Federal government have full powers over Puerto Rico as
over the States, and when these act in Puerto Rico they are exercising their authority under the
veil of the U.S. Constitution, as in states. Within this context consider how defendant applies to
Puerto Rico the US Constitution through the three branches of government on a daily basis.
Federal Executive Branch In Puerto Rico Art. II U.S. Constitution
That the Federal Executive Branch in Puerto Rico has full powers over Puerto Rico,
except that contrary to American citizens residing in the States, the powers are
exercised without the consent, by democratic vote, of the people of Puerto Rico, who
Through the local electoral process (over 97% of voters since the 1960 elections have
favored permanent union with the United States).
More than four million American citizens from Puerto Rico have moved their
residence to the 50 States where they enjoy full citizenship rights and privileges.
IV-1-I.) That the American citizens of Puerto Rico have participated actively in the
national politics of the U.S. by: electing voting delegates to the National quadrennial
conventions of the Democratic and the Republican parties; voting in National (U.S.) presidential
The Federal Election Commission legislation is applicable to Puerto Rico, both, for local
and national electoral purposes. (2 USCA 437)
The Voting Rights Act is applicable to Puerto Rico for electoral purposes.
(42 USCA et.seq. 1971, as amended).
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is applicable to P.R. for the electoral process Public Law 107-252, 107th Congress.
IV-1-M.)
61% to end the territorial status and transition to statehood in a plebiscite under local law
in November 2012 (Hon. Luis Fortuo was then Governor of Puerto Rico 2009-2012.
IV-1-N.)
Historical and legal evidence as the one previously exposed, (Pleading IV-1 A to
M) has been considered pertinent by the Courts in cases of legal issues related to Puerto
Rico, and it is requested that it consider that in this case by this Honorable Court as
pertinent within the context of the relief requested. Moreover, it is respectfully requested
from this Honorable Court that it consider that part of this historical evidence was
evaluated and interpreted by the District Court to determine Puerto Rico is an
incorporated territory of the United State. (See: Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v.
Rullan 593 F Supp 2nd 386; Trailer Marine v. Rivera, 977 F 2d 1. Also, that Puerto Rico
has met more than the requirements for territories to become states under the Northwest
Ordinance. U.S. Constitutional applicability to the American citizens of Puerto Rico
either by Executive, Congressional, and/or Judicial disposition is of such an extent in
2014, that it has become discriminatory, arbitrary, and/or capricious to deny it in cases or
controversies related to Puerto Rico. Moreover, recently the U.S. Department of Justice
might be.
American (Don Luis Muoz Marin - Former Governor of Puerto Rico 1948-1964). (G.
Igartua, Muoz El Americano, 2005). (See also, J. Garriga Pico, Identidad y Estadidad).
Congressional Elections for Representatives to the House to the same extent as that of other US
citizens in the Nation, since they have the same at stake by the exercise of such voting
right. (See, Oregon vs. Mitchell (27 L Ed. 272, 293), those who have such a large stake in
modern elections... whether in times of war or peace should have political equality... ) In this
respect, Plaintiffs are substantially interested in having the population of Puerto Rico counted in
the apportionment process to vote for Representatives to Congress.
The United Stated Constitution provides in pertinent part as follows with respect to the
powers granted to the Representatives of The US House of Representatives:
Article I
"...Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress
of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other
officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts
and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general
welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and
with the Indian tribes;
Step 2: Section 141(b) of Title 13 of the United States Code makes the Secretary of
Commerce responsible for conducting the enumeration and providing the
President with a tabulation of total population by States ... as required for
the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several
States.
13 U.S.C. 141(b). (Annex C)
Step 3: The statute directs the President to transmit to the Congress a statement
showing the whole number of persons in each State ... as ascertained under
... each ... decennial census, and the number of Representatives to which
each would be entitled. 2 U.S.C. 2a(a).
Step 4:
The Clerk of the House is responsible for sending the executive of each
State a certificate of the number of Representatives to which each is
entitled. 2 U.S.C. 2a(b).
Within this context this Court should consider that in 2012 the Secretary of Commerce
sent to President Barack Obama a statement showing the apportionment population for each
State as of April 1, 2012, tabulated from the 2010 Decennial Census. The statement included a
determination of the number of Representatives to which each State is entitled". The statement
allocated to every State at least one Representative. The statement did not report the population
of Puerto Rico in the total population used for apportionment purposes, nor did it allocate
Representatives to Puerto Rico. There being no allocation of Representatives, no transmittal by
the President to the Clerk of the House, and no certificate by the Clerk to the District, the
discriminatory practice of the Secretary prevents the inhabitants of Puerto Rico from exercising
their constitutional right to vote for voting representation in the House of Representatives.
Meanwhile, the Secretary includes his apportionment of persons and allocates representatives to
VII.
The political structure of the United States has been developed so as to provide for both
State and Federal levels of government, each with exclusive areas of jurisdiction under the
Constitution, and each organized as a republican form of government. Consistent with this, the
U.S. Congress, as the legislative branch of the Federal republican government, has been afforded
extensive powers to consider and enact legislation in areas established in U.S. Constitution Art. I
Section 8. These powers and legislative measures are binding upon, or otherwise affect, residents
of Puerto Rico as they do other citizens of the United States.(Pleading V) .
Despite the existence of this significant and direct legislative authority that Congress
exercises over the Plaintiffs and other residents of Puerto Rico, these have no effective right to
vote upon those legislative measures, directly or through freely chosen representatives, and
Congress is responsible to the Plaintiffs for those measures. In this manner, Congress exercises
extensive authority over the Plaintiffs, and yet it is in no way effectively accountable to the
Plaintiffs, or to other American citizens residing in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs have no
Representative with voting right in The House to participate in the investigative and adoption
process of legislation applicable to Puerto Rico. This has deprived the Plaintiffs of the very
essence of representative government, namely that title to government rests with the people
governed. (See, P. Rosello, The Unfinished Business of American Democracy, October 27,
2005).
Notwithstanding the American citizenship of Plaintiffs since the acquisition of Puerto
(b)
As stated before (Pleading IV) the American citizens of Puerto Rico adopted in 1952 a
Constitution, like states, with the approval by Congress and the President.
The Preamble states as follows:
We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the
United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our
democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights
and privileges; our loyalty to the principles of the Federal Constitution..."
The approval of the Constitution to organize a local government (like for states), with
the requirement that it, or any amendment or revision, be consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Constitution of the United States, particularly with its Preamble; and, the free
and voluntary ratification by direct vote of the members of the Congress, and by the President,
was a democratic process carried under the veil of US Constitutional requirements. Within the
context of American citizenship the reference to enrich our democratic enjoyment of its
rights and privileges in the language of the Puerto Rico Constitution Preamble is important
for the voting rights claimed in this complaint. By the inclusion of such language, Defendant
assumed an obligation to provide
residents of Puerto Rico as American citizens. The democratic rights and privileges of
American citizenship includes voting rights in Federal elections, rights that all other American
citizens enjoy by voting in Federal elections.
The legal implications of the referred democracy must be considered by this Honorable
Court within the context of US Executive, Legislative, and Judicial democratic constitutional
interpretation, (national and international) as that applied to all American citizens residing in
political,
NUMBER TWO
All federal voting rights laws are adopted by the U.S. Congress for
applicability to American Citizens, that is with citizenship as the basis of the right,
but these are denied discriminatorily to the 4th, 5th and 6th generation American
citizens residents of the incorporated Territory of Puerto Rico.
US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS RELATED TO VOTING RIGHTS
ARE ALL BASED ON PROTECTING AMERICAN CITIZENS VOTING
RIGHTS (NATIONAL AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP)
That Plaintiffs are all American citizens, as are all the other American citizens residents
Voting rights to American citizens 18 years and older, Amendment XXVI. 1971.
US CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION ON VOTING RIGHTS
ESTABLISHES NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AS THE BASIS OF
RIGHT TO VOTE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS
Of particular
supportive evidence this Court should consider that in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court determined
that the basis of the right to vote in Federal elections is National citizenship. Of particular
importance, the Supreme Court stated in pertinent part as follows in: US Terms Limits Inc., v.
Thornton, 115 S. Ct. 1842 (1995) (514 US 842).
(The opinion of the Court by Justice Stevens and also the concurring opinion of Justice
Kennedy give us some light in the direction of the meaning of the usage of the term " states " in
the qualifying clauses of the Constitution as separate from the meaning of the voting rights of the
citizens. Particularly consider the excerpts below: )
...Justice Stevens-. . . . Thus the Framers, in perhaps their most important
contribution, conceived of a Federal Government directly responsible to the
people, possessed of direct power over the people, and chosen directly, not by
States, but by the people....
As Chief justice John Marshall observed: "The government of the union, then .....
is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people, In form and in substance
it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised
directly on them, and for their benefit. " Mc Cullogh v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., at
404-405. Ours is a government of the people, for the people." { A. Lincoln
Gettysburg Address (1863).}
...Justice Kennedy -In my view, however, it is well settled that the whole people
of the United States asserted their political identity and unity of purpose when
they created the federal system...
...Federalism was our Nation's own discovery. The Framers split the atom of
sovereignty. It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two
political capacities, one state and one Federal, each protected from incursion by
the other. The resulting Constitution created a legal system unprecedented in form
and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct
relationship, its own privities, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the
people who sustain it and are governed by it. It is appropriate to recall these
origins, which instruct us as to the nature of the two different governments created
and confirmed by the Constitution.
....The Court has recently held, in an exceedingly well known case, that voting is a
fundamental right. Bush v. Gore, 121 S.Ct. 525, 529 (2000)....
This logic underlies U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
Thornton, as is well known, invalidated a state constitutional provision prohibiting
candidates for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if they had already
served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. Although
the formal constitutional argument in that case was fought on the battleground of the
Qualifications Clauses, see U.S. Const. art. I, 2 & 3, the Madisonian view of
democracy played a vital supporting role. There is, finally, a third idea central to this
basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to
the people. Id. at 820-21. This idea, memorably articulated in Lincolns Gettysburg
Address, is implicit in the federal constitution....
The Supreme Court revisited some important aspects of the rights of citizenship in
Bush v. Gore, supra. Bush, as is extremely well known, applies a rigorous equal
protection analysis to the counting of ballots. History, the Bush Court tells us, has
now favored the voter. Id. at 529....
Moreover, since the early years of the birth of our Nation the Supreme Court has
recognized that the U.S. Government proceeds were established directly from the People, from
its citizens, not by the states in their sovereign capacity. (See Marbury v. Madison, 2 L.ed 60, 73;
Martin v. Hunter, 4 L.ed 97, 102, 104; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 L.ed 579, 600, 601; Cohen v.
Virginia, 5 L.ed 257, 293; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244; (Justice Harlan dissenting opinion);
A. Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (1863).) For other judicial interpretation recognizing that the
legal basis of the voting right is citizenship, see generally: (Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 US 1, 17 18). (See also: Reynolds v. Sims , 377 US 569 (1964); Illinois State Board of Elections v.
Socialist Workers Party, 440 US 173; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (188); League of Women
Voters v. Diamond , 965 F597); Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528,536; Williams v. Rhodes,
NUMBER THREE
Defendant finds support in the applicability of US constitutional
provisions for the implementation of federal policies, or for judicial
dispositions related to Puerto Rico, and discriminatorily denies and/or
security of the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico, particularly the First, Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments. (See also, U.S. v Laboy, 553 F3d 715, where the U.S. Department of
Justice filed the case supported on the legal basis that Puerto Rico is like state, similarly to the
legal arguments supporting this complaint, or those in these case of Igartua v U.S., Id.).
Within this context, consider that there are provisions of the U.S. Constitution which
refer exclusively to the states and which have been deemed applicable to Puerto Rico without the
need for a constitutional amendment. (By Congressional enactments, or by judicial
interpretations). For an example of constitutional applicability to Puerto Rico by legislation see
Pl. IV 1- E. Judicial support for constitutional applicability is found in the US v Puerto Rico
Police Department case previously cited. (Id.) (See also, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v.
Rullan, 593 F. Supp 2nd 386). Moreover, the U.S. Constitution is applied daily to all cases and
controversies before the Federal District Court of Puerto Rico.
Thus Congress has broad powers over Puerto Rico under the Territorial Clause (Article 4,
Section 3, U.S. Const.), and under legislative and judicial precedents related to Puerto Rico to
legally implement the apportionment process to Puerto Rico, (See, also, Binns v. United States,
amending process is not the only way in which constitutional understanding alters with time.
(Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 US 112) Moreover, consider that the American citizens of Ohio
participated in Congressional elections since 1803 as if Ohio were a state. It was not formally
admitted as a state until 1953 when it was discovered that it had been not formally admitted in
1803 (See, J.B. Hartranft, Its Ohio Bicentennial - Or is it?, Winter 2003, Columbus Bar
Briefs.) (See Loughborough v. Blake SL Ed. 98 18 US317 (1820).
This Court should consider judicial precedents applying constitutional provisions which
refer to states to Puerto Rico, for purposes of granting the relief requested. The First Circuit
Court in the case of Trailer Marine v. Rivera, 977 F 2d 1, related to constitutional applicability
of the Commerce Clause which applies to states, applied it by analogy to Puerto Rico. There the
Court held as follows:
...Turning to the question whether Puerto Rico is covered by the dormant
Commerce Clause doctrine, the framework is furnished by Puerto Ricos
constitutional history, a skein of statutes and precedents as tangled as any in our
history. Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States from Spain in 1898 by the
Treaty of Paris and became subject to Congress plenary authority under the
Territorial Clause of the Constitution. US Const. Art. IV, 3, cl.2 ( The
P.R.P.D.). The Court should stop the discriminatory practice of Defendant to pretend to switch
on and off the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to cases and controversies related to
Puerto Rico at its convenience.
VII-1-D)
NUMBER FOUR
Defendant created a new geographical class of voters for Federal Elections
purposes, allowing all American citizens to vote from other countries
absentee, but discriminatorily excluded those American citizens moving
is discriminatory, arbitrary,
and
capricious. It abridges the inherent constitutional rights of citizens to enjoy their freedom of
movement to and from other geographical locations in the United States. Defendant is in
defiance of the legislated constitutional applicability to Puerto Rico since 1947 of Article IVSection 2 of the U.S. Const. (Pleading IV -1- E).
This Court should consider that the right to vote in elections for the House
Representatives constitutes a national right guaranteed by the principles of freedom of
association as articulated in the First Amendment to the Constitution and protected by the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses. In Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972); in
Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972), and in Carter v. Dies, 321 F. Supp. 1358, 1361 (D. Tex.
1970) the Court held that the right to vote is clearly fundamental and encompasses the rights to
associate and speech and is protected by the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses. All
these U.S. constitutional provisions apply in Puerto Rico.
Also, it has been established by judicial interpretation that the right of suffrage is a
fundamental right in a free and democratic society, since exercising it in a free unimpaired
manner is preservative of all rights. (Reynolds vs. Sims , 377 US 569 (1964). (See also, Illinois
are
not only derived from domestic legislation adopted by Congress, or by state legislatures, but also
from obligations assumed by the United States under treaty law. The United States is signatory
to various international treaties dealing with voting rights of the citizens of signatory countries.
In the case of Defendant as signatory, these include voting rights for all American citizens. The
Treaties dont have any clause specifying that the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico are
excluded from applicability. Under the dispositions of the U.S. Constitution, treaty obligations
are considered the supreme law of the land, as any other federal legislation. In this respect the
ICCPR
Defendant became signatory to the Treaty of the International Covenant of Civil and
government by consent of the citizens of the signatory countries, in pertinent part as follows:
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom
from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby
everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social
and cultural rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to
promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure
to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each
State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in
accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the
present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be
necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3.
Article 3
The States parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of
men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the
present Covenant.
Article 5
2) ...There shall be no restriction upon the derogation from any of the
fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the
present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or customs on the
pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights, or that it
recognize such rights, or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity without any of the
distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in pertinent part and for purposes of this
claim states as follows:
This Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of
achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and
every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by
teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and
effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the people of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political jurisdiction
or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs,
United States is signatory to the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which states in pertinent
part as follows:
. CONSIDERING that the Charter of the Organization of American States
recognizes that representative democracy is indispensable for the stability, peace,
the Charter within the context of the following Resolutions to which Defendant is signatory:
Support for Democracy in Venezuela (Resolution adopted at the first plenary session,
subject to review by the Style Committee), AG/RES. 1 (XXI-E/02)
Support for the Democratic Institutional Structure in Venezuela and the Facilitation
Efforts of the OAS Secretary General, CP/RES. 833 (1348/02), 16 December 2002.
Support for the Constitutional Government of the Republic of Bolivia, CP/RES. 838
(1355/03), 14 February 2003.
Plaintiffs, as American citizens of the United States and residents of Puerto Rico, aspire to
a way of living equal to that of other American citizens residing in the territorial jurisdiction of
the Nation, and to that of all citizens of the Member States of the OAS. This Honorable Court
should consider that there is no rational basis for the continuity of the present discriminatory
policy of denial of the rights and privileges to vote in these year 2014 elections for
Representatives to the House of Representatives to Plaintiffs, and to be included in the
Kosovo, Bosnia,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, other countries, and within the international organizations, to
protect the right to vote of citizens of other nations. The present democratic policies of Defendant
evidence the constitutional interpretation given by the highest Federal Officials of the Nation in
this matter of government by consent of the citizens. Within this context, and under a system
where the rule of law prevails, the exclusion of the population of Puerto Rico from the
apportionment process and the denial of the vote in elections for Representatives to the House of
Representatives to Plaintiffs is discriminatory and unconstitutional and a violation of U.S.
Constitution - Art. VI, requiring treaties to be as the Supreme Law of the land. This Court
should end this discriminatory practice and determine that simple equity demands that Plaintiffs,
and all others similarly situated (more than 3.7 million American citizens), must have a voice in
such elections.
b-4)
Representatives, as these protect voting rights of citizens of all signatory countries, including as
signatory country Defendant, the United States. (US Const. Art. VI). If Defendant is allowed by
the Hon. Court to continue with the discriminatory denial to Plaintiff of voting rights for
Representatives by not complying with the treaties herein invoked as signatory, it will not be
complying with U.S. Constitution Art. VI. Moreover, it will allow the discriminatory electoral
denial to continue in detriment to Plaintiff.
VII 1- F) DISCRIMINATORY ELECTORAL PRACTICES BY DEFENDANT.
NUMBER SIX
Defendant has the policy of annually granting American Citizenship
to nearly one million aliens (including occasionally to illegal aliens)
with full constitutional rights, including voting rights in Federal
elections, while denying such voting rights since the year 1898 to the
American citizens residents of the incorporated Territory of Puerto
Rico.
The Constitution and laws of the United States give many of the same rights to both noncitizens and U.S. citizens living in the United States. It is only U.S. citizens who may vote in
federal, state, and most local elections. However, nearly one million aliens are granted American
citizenship annually through naturalization laws with all rights to vote in Federal Elections.
Moreover, Congress is currently considering extensive reforms to U.S. immigration laws
including the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.
744) passed by the Senate in June 27, 2013 with several naturalization-related provisions that
would even grant legal status to, including the right to vote, to thousands of illegal aliens
currently residing in the United States. (Includes voting rights in Federal elections). Congress
grants American citizenship by naturalization under the same constitutional authority (US Const.
Article I- Section 8) used to grant American Citizenship to the residents of Puerto Rico in 1917.
Thus, full voting rights are granted to aliens and illegal aliens from geographical locations outside
899,162
757,434
7,257
VII-I-G
NUMBER SEVEN
SINCE 1898 DEFENDANT HAS ADOPTED TAX POLICIES OF LONGTIME
TERRITORIAL APPLICABILITY NOTWITHSTANDING THE FORESEEABLE
DISCRIMINATORY CONSEQUENCE OF DENIAL TO PLAINTIFFS OF VOTING
RIGHTS IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS
One of the discriminatory practices of Defendant has been to adopt economic
policies of longtime applicability to Puerto Rico, willfully, with malicious and with gross
negligent intent, and with knowledge of the consequence of depriving Plaintiffs
constitutional rights to vote in Federal elections, in this complaint in elections for five
representatives to the US House of Representatives. The Territory of Puerto Rico has
been used by Defendant for U.S. Corporations to avoid the payment of federal taxes.
Particularly, the adoption of Internal Revenue Code Section 936 for Puerto Rico, which
originated in 1921 and ended in 1996, was a tax policy to benefit U.S. corporations
operating in territorial possessions of Defendant.
Any aspiration by the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico to vote for
Representatives, and, or in other Federal elections, was considered by the so called 936
Corporations a threat to their tax free status, and they vigorously opposed that aspiration,
using highly paid lobbyists in Congress. The supporters of the current political status also
opposed that aspiration, not only because it was a threat to Section 936, but also because it
would mean the beginning of the end of Puerto Ricos current status, a status which many
of them wrongly believe gives Puerto Rico powers which the U.S. Constitution reserves
for the Federal Government. It supports American citizenship without federal voting
rights. In the meantime, Congress has continued to gradually incorporate Puerto Rico,
failed to adequately take corrective actions so that Plaintiffs can exercise their constitutional right
to vote in Federal elections for five Representatives. The failure on the part of Defendant to take
any action to prevent such discriminatory conduct has constituted a practice, policy, and custom
which have deprived the Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to have Federal Government by
consent. The Defendant, having the power to correct this condition, with gross negligence,
reckless disregard, willfully, and deliberately has permitted it to occur continuously since 1898.
By reason of the foregoing discriminatory practices and/or deplorable course of conduct by
Defendant, depriving Plaintiffs of their voting rights, Plaintiffs and all other American citizens
residents of Puerto Rico have suffered legal, political, economic, and social damages. Defendant
has violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights to same privileges and immunities , due process,
and Article IV, Section 2, the V and XIV Amendments, to the US Const., and is liable for
holding these and 3.7 million American citizens residents of Puerto Rico under a state of
servitude of government without consent, in gross violation of the dispositions of US Constitution
Puerto Rico is incapable of complying with Federal mandates for lack of fiscal
resources.
The legal, economic and social problems suffered as consequence in Puerto Rico by the
deficiency of democratic rights are so massive that even the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico
has recognized that Puerto Rico is incapable of complying economically with federal law. In the
case of US v PR Police Dept. (Id.) the Court stated:
As a United States Commonwealth with a republican form of government, an
Article III United States District Court, and nearly 3,726,000 residents (the vast
majority being natural-born United States citizens), the government of Puerto Rico
--- just as any state of the union must zealously guard the sacrosanct guarantees
contained in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. See Posadas de Puerto Rico v. Tourism Co., 478 U.S. 328, 336 n.1,
106 S. Ct. 2968, 92 L. Ed. 2d 266 (1986); Torres y. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465,
469, 99 S. Ct. 2425, 61 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1979). Accordingly, the Commonwealth must
act as any State of the Union. However, the Commonwealth, which has a larger
population than 22 States of the Union, and has approximately one-third the per
capita income of the United States, does not come even close to having the
economic capacity nd
of Mississippi, the poorest State in the Union. (US v PR Police
Dept. 922 F supp 2 185).
3)
The American citizens residents of Puerto Rico pay federal taxes while being
discriminatorily denied the right to vote for five Representative to Congress and while being
denied equal treatment in allocation of federal funds as citizens of states.
a)
Source: Internal Revenue Service Data Book, 2012. Table 5. Gross Collections by Type
of Tax and State. 2012. Page 12.
Column 1. Total Internal Revenue Collections. Puerto Rico = $3,067,234,000.
Column 2. Business Income Taxes. Puerto Rico = $107,880,000.
Column 4. Individual Income Taxes and FICA. Puerto Rico = $2,609,051,000. (Page 13)
Column 6. Unemployment Insurance Tax. Puerto Rico =$30,761,000.
Residents of Puerto Rico contributed more to the U.S. Treasury in the year 2012 in
individual income and FICA taxes than the residents of Vermont and Wyoming, even
though the per capita income in PR is less than half that of Mississippi, the poorest state.
Residents of Puerto Rico contributed more to the U.S. Treasury in unemployment taxes
than the residents of 13 states in the year 2012.
Residents of Puerto Rico contributed in total collections in the year 2012 to the U.S.
Treasury 86% of what the residents of Vermont did.
b.
Population
American citizens residents of Puerto Rico have moved and are moving residence to
other parts of the Nation (4 million citizens) because of the political legal, social, and
economic problems caused by Defendants discriminatory practices:
01/28/2014. - Census 2012: 46,764 people left PR in year: gap between births,
deaths
narrowing.
2010 the net population loss was 288,000. There were nearly 320,000 housing units vacant
in PR in 2012.
d.
status
(that is
government without consent) costing P.R. billions in federal funding . (R. Cortes Chico,
menos Los Fondos Federales 8 Nuevo Da 22 mayo 2014). (Cost is between $10 billion
dollars to $20 billion dollars annually.)
Cost of federal funding 03/13/2014.
Food stamp program =
Child Care and Development Mandatory and Matching Grants = as much as $44 million
per year .
Health Care Insurance Subsidy = about $ 1 billion .
e
Less Federal Funds For Security Purposes Puerto Rico receives less awards per capita
from the Dept. of Justice than all states and territories
for
security
purposes.
The
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Awards as of September 30, 2011.
(The World Almanac and Book of Facts. 2013).
STATE/OR TERRITORY
GRANT
POPULATION
Puerto Rico
Guam
American Samoa
US Virgin Islands
District of Columbia
Northern Marianas
13,620,791
3,438,819
1,890,392
2,183,043
48,169,164
1,857,474
3,690,923
154,805
54,947
105,275
617,996
51,395
3.69
22.21
34.40
20.74
77.94
36,14
Puerto Rico was awarded a smaller amount of dollars, $13,620,791, than was awarded
to 37 states in the year ending September 30, 2011.
Puerto Rico's per capita award of $3.69 was less than the per capita award to each
individual state. Indiana was the state which received the smallest per capita award:
$4.31 . Alaska received the highest per capita award: $24.09 .
Puerto Rico's per capita award of $3.69 was smaller than the per capita award to the
District of Columbia: $77.94 .
Puerto Rico's per capita award of $3.69 was smaller than the per capita award to the
other territories.
Puerto Rico's per capita award was the smallest of every single U.S. political
jurisdiction.
As shown, Puerto Rico is required by the U.S. Dept. of Justice to comply with its police
security scheme just as "if it were a state", even though Puerto Rico received the smallest per
capita awards of any U.S. Jurisdiction in 2011. Puerto Ricos crime rate is mostly international
drug related, exclusively of the jurisdiction of Defendant. (See, G. Igartua, Amicus Curiae, U.S.
v PR Police Dept, 922 FS 2nd 185). Notwithstanding,
burden for protecting the rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the U.S. to the 3.7 million
American citizens who live in Puerto Rico. In the Police Dept. case cited above, Puerto Rico
will be forced to pay more than $100 million dollars over the next ten years to guarantee U.S.
constitutional requirements for police protection of the American citizens and aliens residents
5)
Political Damages:
The 3.7 million American citizens who live in Puerto Rico cannot elect five Congressmen
to the U.S. House of Representatives. This political asymmetry, as compared to the residents of
the fifty states, impacts them adversely as follows:
Residents of Puerto Rico cannot vote for, nor against, the federal laws that they have to
obey. This is government without the consent of the governed. (See U.S. Declaration of
Independence).
Residents of Puerto Rico are taxed without representation. (See U.S. Declaration of
Independence).
The 3.7 million American citizens who live in Puerto Rico, regardless of where they were
born, cannot elect five Congressmen to the U.S. House of Representatives. This affects
their self esteem, especially when they compare themselves to residents of the fifty states,
and to the more than four million Americans who live in foreign countries and who can
vote absentee. (Compare with Brown v. Board of Education).
Transfer of Federal funds annual losses to Puerto Rico, in detriment to Plaintiffs and all
other 3.7 million American citizens of Puerto Rico, are between $10 billions dollars to $20
billion dollars (GAO Report on Puerto Rico 2014). Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla has
complained to the Federal Government against the discriminatory treatment in the allocation of
Federal funds (Obamacare) to Puerto Rico. (Alvarez, Cojo el Obamacare local, 4 El Vocero 3 de
octubre de 2013). Plaintiffs discriminatory denial of voting rights for five Representatives
allows U. S. Representatives in the House to discriminate in the transfer of federal funds to
Puerto Rico, which in many cases are a fraction of what the 50 states, receive in proportion to
their population. (R. Cortes Chico, Menos los fondos federales, 8 El Nuevo Dia, 22 de mayo
de 2014.)
Since Puerto Rico cannot elect five Representatives to Congress, efforts from Puerto
in Washington D.C.
represented by proxy in Congress and not by democratically elected Representatives, like the
50 states are. (J. Gonzlez, Gobierno busca en el Bolsillo de Tio Sam pg. 4 El Nuevo Da, PR,
21 de mayo de 2014; A Delgado, Renuevan acuerdos con Cabilderos, El Nuevo Da 5, 20 de
enero de 2014). These lobbyists are paid for by Puerto Ricos taxpayers, cost
millions
dollars annually (over $12 million dollars, Id. Renuevan Acuerdos), and are also paid for to
oppose any attempt by the residents of Puerto Rico to obtain federal voting rights. The lobbyists
work for their own monetary interests and will oppose any political change in the territorial
status of Puerto Rico. (See also, J. Gonzlez, Gobierno busca en el bolsillo del To Sam 4 el
Nuevo Da 21 de mayo de 2014).
If relief is not granted by this Court Puerto Rico stands to lose between 100 to 200
billion dollars in federal funds in the next ten years. (White House Report shows Puerto Rico
Losing Billions by Not Beeing a State, March 13, 2014). As recently as June 24, 2014, the
President of the Federal Reserve stated in a visit to Puerto Rico that the budgetary crisis
projects the local economy in risk and that the Federal Reserve will not assist in
financing the fiscal problems of Puerto Rico. (J. Gonzlez, antdoto para la crisis, 47, El Nuevo
Da 25 de junio de 2014 pg.- 47).
Judicial relief is necessary to end the legal, political, economic and social problems
suffered by Plaintiffs by the discriminatory denial of voting rights in federal elections for
Representatives. Judicial remedy as the one implemented to end racial discrimination against
African Americans in the U.S. as in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. (347 US 483,
(1954), is requested as relief from the Court in this complaint.
TO
PROCESS
PUERTO
RICO
TO
ASSIGN
FOR THE
CONGRESSIONAL
ELECTION OF
FIVE
REPRESENTATIVES
The basis of the right to vote in Federal elections is American citizenship. There is
sufficient legal basis, as stated in the pleadings, for this Honorable Court to adjudicate this
complaint and grant the relief requested to allow the American Citizens residents of Puerto Rico
to vote in Congressional Elections, without the need for a constitutional amendment.
It is clear that the same apportionment process for Congressional elections set forth in the
Constitution, as it is implemented in States, can be implemented in Puerto Rico, so Plaintiffs can
elect Representatives to the U.S. Congress by direct vote according to the population, as
determined under the U.S. Census, as for states. (See Particularly Pleading VI) Moreover, the
U.S. Supreme Court has established that the Constitution secures the right to vote in Federal
elections, and even in primaries, a process in which P.R. participates like states since 1948
(OBrien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1972); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554 (1964);
Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 380 (1963); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315 (1941)).
(See also, 42 USCA 1973 gg 1 and 2) (Pleading IV-1-K).
After more than one century (116 years) of the annexation of Puerto Rico to the United
States, with a discriminatory electoral practice of denial of voting rights in elections for US
Representatives by Defendant to Plaintiffs, this Court should determine and adjudicate this
claim with respect to the civil and voting rights of the American Citizens residents of Puerto
Rico to have government by consent, and to vote in such congressional elections, and should
equitably grant the relief herein requested by Plaintiffs. (See U. S. Const Art. IV- Section 2,
Amends I, XIV and XV).
Computer Corp. v. Data General, et. also, 562 FSG93) (1993); most recently, US v PR Police
Dept. 922 F Supp 2nd 185, Complaint of Request by Defendant for applicability of U.S.
Constitution to American and alien citizens residents of Puerto Rico).
As previously stated, Puerto Rico has been legally incorporated de facto to the United
States to the same extent, or more, as any other territory before becoming a state, or as equally,
or more, as were incorporated the territories under the Northwest Ordinance. (See, Boumediene v
Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 2008). The Insular Cases non- incorporation policy is no longer applicable
to Puerto Rico. A residual applicability partly view to ethnic discrimination on the part of same
government officials traceable to the Insular Cases, may influence some of Government officials
to the continue Defendants discriminatory electoral practices against Plaintiffs. Such practices
are illegal under US Constitution Amendments XIV and XV. The incorporation process of
Puerto Rico to be "like a state" including the grant of constitutional rights, judicially or by
legislation, vis a vis the discriminatory denial of federal voting rights to its residents, 3.7 million
4th, 5th and 6th generation American citizens, is a contradiction with no legal justification which
supports the need for judicial intervention as requested in this complaint. ( See, Consejo de Salud
Playa Ponce v. Rullan 593 F Supp 2nd 386; Id. PR Police Dept.).
Consequently, Plaintiffs, denied the right to due process and the equal protection of the
laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, (Id., US v
A.) That the Court declares that the denial by Defendant of their right to vote in elections for
Representatives to the US House to Representatives, and to all American citizens residing in
Puerto Rico similarly situated, by excluding them from the process of apportionment of
congressional districts:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
has the effect of denying to these U.S. citizens the equality of civil rights,
and due process and equal protection of the laws that are guaranteed to
them under the Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and by the
Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, particularly because of
ethnic and/or geographical discrimination.
7)
8)
9)
B.)
That this Court designate a special Three-Judge Court to hear and determine this case as
provided by 28 USC 2281 et seq., considering the request in this complaint of the applicability of
the population of Puerto Rico as determined by the US Census Bureau, to the apportionment
process assigning congressional districts to elect Representatives to the US House of
Representatives.
C.)
With respect to Plaintiff rights to vote in elections for Representatives to the US House of
Representatives.
1) That this Court declares that Plaintiffs and all U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico,
qualified to vote by the local State laws, are guaranteed the privileges and immunities, due
process and equal protection of the laws, and treaty rights, under the Constitution of the United
States with regard to the fundamental right to vote in such elections.
2.)
That this Court declares that for voting rights, as requested in this complaint, the
present
That this Court adjudicate this complaint based on what Plaintiffs are, 4th, 5th , and 6th
generation American Citizens, residents of the de facto incorporated Territory of Puerto Rico
since 1898, and not on what these might hypothetically be.
th