Co-op is about so much more than the actual co-op you’re on. Maybe that sounds obvious, maybe it doesn’t. What I mean is that its also about finding out what type of place you enjoy being at (private, public), what area of law feels right to you, and, if you’re lucky enough to be in a new location, learning about the culture and legal intricacies of your surroundings. What’s piquing my interest right now, other than the fascinating process of learning about federal criminal law, is learning about the history of Puerto Rico, and the legal, cultural, and political relationship between this fascinating island and the rest of the United States.

On the state level, the primaries were held in Puerto Rico on Sunday, so the island has been chattering away about the race for Governor. I know I’m biased (I did prisoners rights work for 2 years before coming to law school), but the most exciting point for me has been the discovery that in Puerto Rico, prisoners are allowed to vote! In case you didn’t know, this is NOT the case in the rest of the United States. In fact, in many states, even after you have served your time, you are still denied the right to participate in elections. Personally, I think this is outrageous - even if convicted of a crime, I believe it is crucial to allow prisoners to maintain their involvement in democracy. Not only do I believe it’s the right thing to do in terms of civil and human rights, but I also believe it is a crucial element in the reentry of prisoners into society and in lessening the cultural gap between prisoners and the rest of society. But that’s for another, longer, conversation.

On the federal level, I have been undertaking an attempt to understand more about the political and legal relationship between the island of Puerto Rico and the federal government of the United States. In case you are unfamiliar (as I was, and still am to a great extent), here are a few important facts: Puerto Ricans are citizens of the United States (following passage of the Jones Act in 1917), however, they do not have the right to vote in federal elections. Puerto Rico’s only representative in Congress, the Resident Commissioner, does not have the right to vote on legislation. Puerto Ricans are ineligible for certain benefits under a number of federal programs. A 1980 case, Harris v. Rosario, upheld this disparate treatment, writing that Congress “may treat Puerto Ricans differently from the States so long as there is a rational basis for its actions.”

If you are interested in learning more about the history of Puerto Rico, and specifically the development of legal rights of Puerto Ricans, a great starting place for me has been First Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Juan R. Tourruella’s recent law review article, "The Insular Cases: The Establishment of A Regime of Political Apartheid." 29 U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 283 (Winter 2007). (The Insular Cases were a series of cases at the start of the 20th century which determined that only “fundamental” constitutional rights had been extended to Puerto Rico and other “unincorporated” territories. See also Elizabeth Vicens, "Application of the Federal Death Penalty Act to Puerto Rico: A New Test for the Locally Inapplicable Standard" 80 N.Y.U. K. Rev. 350 (April 2005), another great article). Judge Tourruella is in the fascinating position of being both Puerto Rican and a member of the federal judiciary. In stark terms, what this means is that while he holds one of the most influential and prestigious positions in the United States judiciary, he is not able to vote in the elections of the United States.

The history of the United States attitude towards Puerto Rico is rife with explicit racism. As Tourruella writes, for instance, “President Taft accused Puerto Rico’s elected leaders of irresponsibility and political immaturity, and stated that too much power had been given to Puerto Ricans ‘for their own good’.” 29 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. at 322-323. Many feel that this paternalistic attitude remains an undercurrent in Puerto Rican/U.S. relations. I continue to learn more, in the hopes of understanding this complex relationship.

I have been reading and rereading the powerful argument made by Justice Harlan in his dissent to one of The Insular Cases, and am impressed, as I often am, with Harlan’s forward-thinking stances. Justice Harlan writes: “Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this Government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution . . . The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces - the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord them - is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution.”