Igartua vs. United States of America

8/10/2019 Igartua vs. United States of America

1/80

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

*GREGORIO IGARTUA, *CARLOS MNDEZ MARTNEZ, *JORGE PREZ DAZ, PEDRO MNDEZ *SOTO, IRIS DELIA GONZLEZ CAMACHO, *MARA T. NEGRN CEDEO *

Plaintiffs, * CIVIL NO. 14-1558**

v. * -COMPLAINT FOR* DECLARATORY

* JUDGMENT ANDUNITED STATES OF AMERICA * OTHER RELIEFPRESIDENT: THE HON. BARACK OBAMA *SECRETARY OF COMMERCE : THE HON. PENNY PRITZKER * - VIOLATIONS OFCLERK OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - * HUMAN RIGHTSTHE HON. KAREN L. HAAS *

Defendants * -CLAIM FOR VOTING* RIGHTS** - APPORTIONMENT FOR* REPRESENTATIVES

******************************************************

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTAND OTHER RELIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Comes now Plaintiffs, Gregorio Igarta pro-se, and other Plaintiffs by the undersigne

attorney, for themselves and for and on behalf of all persons similarly situated in Puerto Ricand respectfully allege and pray:

I. INTRODUCTION

Relief sought by plaintiffs needs expeditious action by this Honorable Court, considerin

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 80


2/80

2

that federal elections for Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives will be held

November, 2014.

a.) This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to redress the deprivation orights and privileges secured to Plaintiffs, and all other American citizens of PuertRico, to vote in Elections for Representatives to the US House of Representativesunder the Constitution of the United States of America, U.S. treaty law, U.S.legislated provisions, and under U.S. judicial interpretation. Plaintiffs question thconstitutionality of the process of apportionment of congressional districts that fails taccount for Puerto Rico and its residents, approximately 3.7 million Americancitizens residents of Puerto Rico. The Plaintiffs also allege that the denial ofcongressional representation violates their right to due process and abridges thei privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States. Finally, they contend thathe denial of their right to vote violates Article I of the Constitution, which providethat the members of the House shall be chosen by "the People of the several StatesU.S. CONST. Article I, Section 2 Paragraph 1, Other provisions of the U.S.Constitution are also invoked as legal basis to the complaint. Puerto Rico is treated bythe Courts, by Congress and by the Executive Branch as a state, and/or as anincorporated territory.

b.) Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, bring thisaction on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons, citizens, taxpayers anqualified voters in Puerto Rico who are similarly situated.

c.) Plaintiffs seek such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be proper to assure themand all others similarly situated, due process and the equal protection of the lawswhich now and for many years (since 1898) have been denied to them by Defendanand their predecessors in office to vote in elections for Representatives to the Housof Representatives.

d.) Plaintiffs, and all other American citizens residents of Puerto Rico similarly situatedare governed by a House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, which is not a bodrepresentative of the People of Puerto Rico, and such denial conflicts with the concepof government by consent of the governed, and is contrary to the prevailing philosophy of government embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the United StateConstitution, and recognized by all jurisdictions whereby the legislature has power tmake laws only because it has the power and the duty to represent the People.

e.) The rights of Plaintiffs, and the others similarly situated, can only be protected by decree of this Court declaring that the apportionment law presently in force assignincongressional districts for the election of Representatives to the US House ofRepresentatives to be unconstitutional as it excludes the population of Puerto Rico3.7 million 4th, 5th and 6th generation American citizens and enjoining Defendantsfrom performing any acts or duties in compliance with such unconstitutiona provisions with respect to the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico.



3/80

3

f.) Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy other than the judicial relief sought herein. Untisuch time as the apportionment process for electing US Representatives is not judicially enforced to be applicable to Puerto Rico, Defendant will be bound thereband is not free to exercise any discretion to eliminate deprivation suffered byPlaintiffs. Only judicial relief can remedy this condition.

g.) As particularized above, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the United States isresponsible for violations of their rights to elect five Representatives to the US Housof Representatives. Plaintiffs, unlike residents elsewhere in the United States, havno meaningful representation in the Federal House of Representatives, and aretherefore denied effective participation in the National Legislature. (The House of thPeople). These limitations are manifestly arbitrary and the United States has failed t provide any adequate justification for this discriminatory denial for over 116 years.

h.) Plaintiffs, denied the right to due process and the equal protection of the laws a

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, bring thiaction on their own behalf and on behalf of all American citizens, and qualified voterresidents of Puerto Rico for a declaration of their rights to vote in elections foRepresentatives to the House of Representatives, for the Court to order Puerto Rico population to be included in the apportionment elective process for Representatives tthe House, which fails to account for Puerto Rico and its residents so that fiverepresentatives under such process can be elected from Puerto Rico.

II. JURISDICTION

II-1.) Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked in accordance with the provisions of 28 USCA1331 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 th

Constitution of the United States: Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 and Section 8 - Necessary an

Proper Clause; Article IV, Section 2; Article VI, Amendment I, the Fourteenth Amendmen

Sections 1 and 2 - the Fifteenth Amendment.

This action alleges that Defendant has failed to apportion congressional districts for th

election of five members to the House of Representatives from Puerto Rico. Therefore, it

requested respectfully that this Honorable Court appoint a Three-Judge District Court pursua

to 28 U.S.C. 2281(et seq), which provides that "[a] district court of three judges shall b



4/80

4

convened... when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment o

congressional districts by considering that this complaint requests the inclusion of the

population of Puerto Rico (4th, 5th and 6th generation American Citizens) in the apportionment

process to elect Representatives to the US House of Representatives.

III. THE PARTIES

III-A.) PLAINTIFFS

III-A-1.) Plaintiff Gregorio Igartua de la Rosa is of legal age, was born in Aguadilla

Puerto Rico, is a resident, elector, and taxpayer of Puerto Rico, USA. His constitutional right

vote in elections for Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives is discriminatori

denied by reason of residing in Puerto Rico. He has been previously qualified to vote in su

elections and lost the right to vote in such elections by moving residence to Puerto Rico from th

State of Virginia. (Annex III A 1)

III-A-2.) Plaintiff Carlos Mendez Martinez, is of legal age, was born in Aguadilla,

Puerto Rico, is a resident, elector and taxpayer of Puerto Rico, USA. His constitutional right

vote in Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives elections is discriminatorily deni

by reason of residing in Puerto Rico. He has been previously qualified to vote in such electio

and lost the right to vote in such elections by moving residence to Puerto Rico from the State

Washington. (Annex III A 2)

III-A-3.) Plaintiff, Maria T. Negron Cedeo, is of legal age, (Annex III A-2) was born in

Puerto Rico, is a resident, elector, and taxpayer of Puerto Rico, USA. Her constitutional right vote in elections for Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives is discriminatori

denied by reason of residing in Puerto Rico. (Annex III A-3)



5/80

5

III-A-4.) Plaintiff Jorge Perez Diaz, is of legal age, was born in Cuba, completed his

naturalization citizenship requirements while residing in Puerto Rico, is a resident elector an

taxpayer of Puerto Rico, USA. His constitutional right to vote in elections for Representatives

the U.S. House of Representatives is discriminatorily denied by reason of residing in Puer

Rico. He has been previously qualified to vote in such elections, and lost the right to vote

such elections by moving residence to Puerto Rico from the State of Texas. (Annex III A-4)

III-A-5.) Plaintiff Pedro Mendez Soto, is of legal age, was born in New York, New

York, where he resided until 1968 when he moved residence to Puerto Rico. In 1989 he mov

residence to Orlando, Florida, where he resided until 1994, when he moved back to Puerto RicDuring his residence in Orlando, Florida, he voted in Elections for Representatives to the U.

House of Representatives, and lost his constitutional right to vote in such elections by movin

residence to Puerto Rico. (Annex III A-5)

III-A-6.) Plaintiff Iris Delia Gonzalez Camacho, is of legal age, was born in Mayagez

Puerto Rico, is a resident elector and taxpayer of Puerto Rico, USA. Her constitutional right

vote in elections for Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives elections i

discriminatorily denied by reason of residing in Puerto Rico. (Annex III A-6).

III- B.) DEFENDANT

III-B-1.) The Defendant in this action is the United States of America, including those public officials in charge of the apportionment process to assign representatives to the US Houof Representatives every ten years:

- The President of the U.S. - Honorable - Barack Obama- The US Secretary of Commerce - Honorable - Penny Pritzker

- The Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives - Honorable - Karen L. Haas

III-C.) MEMBERS OF THE CLASS AFFECTED

III-C-1.) This action brought by the Plaintiffs is also brought on behalf of all US citizens

residing in Puerto Rico who are qualified to vote by the local State laws and are similarl



6/80

6

situated, as their constitutional right to vote in elections for Representatives to the US House

Representatives is discriminatorily denied by excluding them from the apportionment o

congressional districts for the House of Representatives. The action is brought in accordan

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for these cases: All questions of law and fact pertine

to this action are common to Plaintiffs and all other US citizens residents of Puerto Ric

similarly situated. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are so numerous that joinder of a

members is impractical. All are aggrieved because of the acts complained of herein below an

related to the denial to vote in elections for Representatives to the US House of Representative

The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interest of all similarly situatein this claim. By reason of the nature of the relief sought in this action the disposition o

Plaintiffs cla im will have an effect on all US citizens residents of Puerto Rico similarly situated

which within a legal context together all are members of the class.

III-C-2.) The acts of the Defendant and the relief requested in this action have affected

or will affect Plaintiffs and all others US citizens residents of Puerto Rico, similarly situated, th

is, will affect all the members of the class similarly situated.

IV. PERTINENT HISTORICAL AND LEGAL EVIDENCE

1) Puerto Rico - Gradual Incorporation of the Territory TO BE LIKE A

STATE under U.S. Constitutional Authority.

IV-1-A.) That by the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States in

1898 (Art.II Treaty of Paris- 30 Stat. 1754). Considering the dispositions of U.S. Const. Art Irelated to the territory clause, the Treaty granted Congress full powers over Puerto Rico. Artic

IX of the Treaty specifically provided: The civil rights and political status of the native

inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by



7/80

7

Congress.

Within this original legal source of authority, Congress started a local process of gradua

incorporation, and has gradually over the years adopted legislation to organize the governme

of Puerto Rico to be compatible with its federalist structure, like states are to the federa

government. In fact, in 2014 Puerto Rico has been legally incorporated to the United States to

like a state to the same (or even more) extent as any other territory before becoming a state, or

as the territories were incorporated as states under the Northwest Ordinance. Consequently, th

minimum legal requirements to enfranchise the American citizens residents of territories to b

granted the right vote for Representatives to the U.S. House were the same, or less, as thos

already implemented in Puerto Rico presently, and as will be shown below implemented und

the veil of US constitutional provisions. It is respectfully requested from this Honorable Court

consider within this context and as pertinent to this claim the following historical and leg

evidence:

IV-1-B.) Organizing a Republican form of Government for Puerto Rico (See U.S.

Const. Art. IV Section 4)

That shortly after the Treaty of Paris was ratified, the Foraker Act, being the Act of Apr

12, 1900, (31 Stat. 77), became law. This legislation established a civil government for Puer

Rico, including provisions for courts, and it extended the statutory laws of the United States n

locally inapplicable. The President was authorized to appoint, with the consent of the Senate, t

Governor of Puerto Rico, and its chief executive officers, the justices of the Supreme Court Puerto Rico and the judges of the local United States District Court. Congress required that a

laws enacted by the Puerto Rico legislative assembly be reported to Congress, which reserve

the power and authority to annul the same.



8/80

8

IV-1-C.) In 1917 Congress adopted the Organic Act, also known as the Jones Act. Thi

legislation: accorded the federal District Court jurisdiction over all cases cognizable in th

district courts of the United States; generally granted Puerto Rico citizens United State

citizenship, and codified a bill of rights which remained in effect until 1952 with nearly all of th

personal guarantees found in the United States Constitution. The provision was continue

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 legislate

after 1917 as follows: All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and befor

January 13, 1941 in the jurisdiction of the United States, who were subject to the jurisdiction

the United States, who resided on January 13, 1941 in Puerto Rico or other territory over whic

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

the jurisdiction of the United States, becomecitizens of the United States at birth. (UDCS

1402).

The American residents of Puerto Rico cannot be deprived by Congress of thei

citizenship, nor can their citizenship rights be altered (See Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US. 253, at 26

(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 the residents of Puerto Rico, these became part of the national federalist cooperative affair

which the citizens became part of the country. (Id. Afroyim)

Today the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated are 4th, 5th and 6th generation American



9/80

9

Citizens.

IV-1-D.) In 1947, Congress granted the qualified voters of Puerto Rico the right to elec

their own governor by popular suffrage. (Act of Aug. 5, 1947, c 490, 61 Stat. 770).

IV-1- E.) COMITY CLAUSE-U.S. CONSTITUTION ART. IV, SECTION 2

In 1947, Congress made extensive to Puerto Rico the Privileges and Im munities

Clause of the US Constitution.(Art. IV- Sec. 2)

"The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall berespected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of theUnion and subject to the provisions of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of theConstitution of the United States. (48 USCA 737)"

IV-1-F.) INCORPORATION OF P.R. HAS BEEN DEMOCRATIC

In 1952 Congress enacted the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act, (64 Stat. 319). (Als

referred to as Law 600). One important disposition of theLaw was that, within the

jurisdictional territorial boundaries, the People of Puerto Rico were authorized to adopt their ow

constitution. Like those of the different states of the Union, it provided for a republican form

of government, (US Const. Art. IV Section 4) and was adopted with the consent of the people

Puerto Rico subject to the approval of the US Congress, which it did subject to the condition th

any amendment or revision be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Constitution of t

United States. (66 Stat. 327). It was stated in Congress that ... as regards local matters, the

sphere of action and the methods of governmentbear a resemblance to that of any State of the

Union .. (S Rep. No. 1270, 82 nd Cong, 2d Sess, 6 1952). (Compare with, Art. IV - Section 4 -

US Constitution). (Appendix Sess, 6 1952). Specifically, Law 600 provided in pertinent part

follows:

48 USCA 731 (b)



10/80

10

Organization of government pursuant to constitution Fully recognizing the principle of government by consent, sections 731 (b) to 731(e) of this title are now adopted.... so that the people of Puerto Rico may organizea government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption.

48 USCA 731 (c)Submission of sections 731 (b) to 731 (e) of this title to people ofPuerto Rico for referendum; convening of constitutional convention;requisites of constitution

Sections 731 (b) to 731 (e) of this title shall be submitted to the qualified voters ofPuerto Rico for acceptance or rejection through an island-wide referendum to beheld in accordance with the laws of Puerto Rico. Upon the approval of saidsections, by a majority of the voters participating in such referendum, theLegislature of Puerto Rico is authorized to call a constitutional convention to drafta constitution for the said island of Puerto Rico. The said constitution shall provide a republican form of government and shall include a bill of rights.

48 USCA 731 (d)Ratification of constitution by Congress

Upon adoption of the constitution by the People of Puerto Rico, the President ofthe United States is authorized to transmit such constitution to the Congress of theUnited States if he finds that such constitution conforms with the applicable provisions of sections 731(b) to 731 (e) of this title and the Constitution of theUnited States. Upon approval by the Congress the constitution shall becomeeffective in accordance with its terms.

Following the procedure adopted by Congress, as similarly adopted for territoriesmoving to statehood, the People of Puerto Rico adopted a constitution in 1952,which states in its Preamble:

".We, the People of Puerto Rico, in order to organize ourselves politically on afully democratic basis, to promote the general welfare, and to secure for ourselvesand our posterity the complete enjoyment of human rights, placing our trust inAlmighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealthwhich, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union withthe United States of America

We understand that the democratic system of government is one in which thewill of the people is the source of public power, the political order is subordinateto the rights of man, and the free participation of the citizen in collective decisionsis assured.

It is also pertinent to be considered by this Court, how the process of incorporation ha

been legally interpreted. Of particular interest:



11/80

11

....the procedure provided in Law 600" was carried out.As to substance Law 600does not differ at all from the enabling acts passed in the procedure for admission intthe Union of new states... (Rafael Hernandez Colon, The Commonwealth of PuertoRico: Territory or State, P.R. Bar Journal 207, at 239 (1959). (Honorable RafaeHernandez Colon is a former Governor of Puerto Rico)

As a result of the procedure of Law 600" the Puerto Rico government was presentlyand permanently restricted by federal law and federal principles. (Hernandez Agostv. Romero Barcel 594 FS 1390) Evidently this includes democratic and humanrights principles, principles of government by consent (Id. 48 USCA 731 (b)). (Sealso, 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 gove rnment of Puerto Rico in many respects resemblesthat 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 oCongress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree oautonomy 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] tohave 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 on

national central government. Under this political organization, the Federal Government, with

republican form of government, exercises its power over Puerto Ricoas - if Puerto Rico were a

State . The political branches of the Federal government have full powers over Puerto Rico a

over the States, and when these act in Puerto Rico they are exercising their authority under th

veil of the U.S. Constitution, as in states. Within this context consider how defendant applies

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. ConstitutionThat the Federal Executive Branch in Puerto Rico has full powers over Puerto Ricoexcept that contrary to American citizens residing in the States, the powers areexercised without the consent, by democratic vote, of the people of Puerto Rico, wh



12/80

12

are not allowed to vote in Federal elections, in Congressional elections.

Federal Judicial Branch In Puerto Rico Art. III U.S. ConstitutionThat with respect to the Federal Judicial Branch in Puerto Rico, the Federal DistricCourt of Puerto Rico is included as a judicial district of the United States; and inmatters of jurisdiction, powers, and procedures, it is in all respects equal to otheUnited States District Courts. Rules of Federal criminal and civil procedure areapplicable. Diversity jurisdiction of American citizens residents in states and of thosresiding in Puerto Rico in the Federal District Court of Puerto Rico apply as in states(Compare with Art. III US Const). Law 600 states:

42 United States District Court-Relationship to US District Court of Puerto Rico.

The laws of the United States relating to appeals, certiorari, removal of causesand other matters or proceedings as between the courts of the United States andthe courts of the several States shall govern in such matters and proceedings as between the United States District Court as for the District of Puerto Rico and thcourts of Puerto Rico. (P.R. is fully treated as a state in this Branch)

Federal Legislative Branch In Puerto Rico Art. I U.S. ConstitutionThat with respect to the political representation in the US Congress, Puerto Rico ha been granted non voting accessibility by having the right to name one ResidenCommissioner, elected every four years, unlike Representatives in states who arelected every two years. (Hon. Pedro Pierluisi is the current Resident Commissioneof Puerto Rico in the U.S. House of Representatives) Puerto Rico's population isexcluded from the apportionment process that assigns congressional districts to elecrepresentatives to the House. (3.7 million American citizens are discriminatorilyexcluded).

The statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable have the same forceand effect in Puerto Rico as in the United States. The applicability in Puerto Rico oFederal laws is almost the same as in the other states. Notwithstanding, contrary toAmerican citizens residing in the states the laws are made applicable without theconsent, by democratic vote of the People of Puerto Rico, who are not allowed to votfor representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives in Federal elections, (48USCA 891). Limited Federal aids are granted to Puerto Rico and channeled subjecto Federal rules and procedures. Even most Federal internal revenue laws areapplicable within the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico as if Puerto Rico were a state (to thextent that more taxes are paid to the Federal Treasury than from some States). (SeIRS 2014 Highlights ) The American citizens of Puerto Rico paid in 2013 more thathree billion dollars to the Federal Treasury. The Internal Revenue Service operateseveral offices in different regions within Puerto Rico, and the US Customs servicalso operates in Puerto Rico. Such revenues collected, as the revenues collected fromFederal and state taxes from other American citizens residents of the different statesconstitute an active ingredient of the national economy, as they interact inside the jurisdictional US boundary within the same forces of supply and demand under on



13/80

13

national free market system regulated by the same monetary policies (Art. I USConst. applies fully in practice to Puerto Rico as it does in states).

IV-1-H.) That the United States as sovereign is parents patriae that is, guardian and

trustee of its citizens, including of Plaintiffs and of all the other American citizens residing

Puerto Rico. In this respect, all of the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico, as all oth

American citizens, owe an absolute and permanent allegiance to the Federal Governmen

wherever these may reside. In this context, the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico hav

been loyal and have defended their American citizenship.

Through the local electoral process (over 97% of voters since the 1960 elections havfavored permanent union with the United States).

By participating actively in the military campaigns of the United States. ManyAmerican citizens residents of Puerto Rico have died in military conflicts in whichthe Nation has been involved since 1917. (Including participation in the most recenwars in Afghanistan & Iraq).

More than four million American citizens from Puerto Rico have moved theiresidence to the 50 States where they enjoy full citizenship rights and privileges.

By legislation on December 3, 1962, the Puerto Rico Legislature approved JoinResolution number one which stated:

Proposition to Congress to establish the ultimate final pol itical status forthe people of Puerto Rico. Whereas,.... those who favor Commonwealthand those who favor Federated statehood are against separation fromUnited States... Whereas those who favor the maximum development ofcommonwealth in permanent union with the United States of America doso within the following principle...

2.) The guaranty of the permanency and irrevocability of the union between the United States and Puerto Ricoover the basis ofcitizenship....

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 quadrennia

conventions of the Democratic and the Republican parties; voting in National (U.S.) president



14/80

14

primaries in Puerto Rico; raising funds in Puerto Rico for candidates from many states who a

running for political office at the state and national level.

IV-1-J.) Federal electoral laws apply to Puerto Rico

The Federal Election Commission legislation is applicable to Puerto Rico, both, for locand 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.) The American citizens residents of Puerto Rico voted by a margin in excess of

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 Puer

Rico, and it is requested that it consider that in this case by this Honorable Court a

pertinent within the context of the relief requested. Moreover, it is respectfully requeste

from this Honorable Court that it consider that part of this historical evidence wa

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 2 nd 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 Northwes

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 i

2014, that it has become discriminatory, arbitrary, and/or capricious to deny it in cases o

controversies related to Puerto Rico. Moreover, recently the U.S. Department of Justic



15/80

15

and the Administration of Hon. Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla reached a historic

agreement in the case ofU.S. v P.R. Police Department , in which by mutual consent

both parties accepted the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to the American citizen

and to aliens residents of Puerto Rico. (See:US v PR Police Dept. 922 F Supp 2 nd 185 ;

Id., Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan 593 F Supp 2 nd 386). If there was any

doubt as to whether the U.S. Constitution applied to Puerto Rico this case dissipated i

Puerto Rico is a de jure incorporated territory of the United States. (SeeU.S. v Puerto

Rico Police Dept., id . Amicus Curiae Legal Brief, by G. Igartua. Not Opposed by

Defendant, neither by Motion nor in oral argument in hearing before the Court. Thi

mutual agreement reaffirmed the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico b

the adoption of the Puerto Rico Constitution in 1952, adopted also by mutual agreemen

(Plead IV -1-F).

Notwithstanding, the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico are exposed to

discriminatory treatment by Defendant with the consequences it involves, in this case the deni

of voting rights in elections for five Representatives to the US House of Representatives, to t

House of the People. Plaintiffs and all American citizens residents of Puerto Rico will contin

to live in a brick wall scenario, in this case continuing with the servitude of government witho

consent, if this Court does not follow the opinion inConsejo de Salud Playa de Ponce (Id.)

qualifying Puerto Rico as an incorporated territory and as supported by the PR Police Dept. ca

(Id.) and grants the relief requested in this Complaint based on what Plaintiffs are, Americacitizens by birth, not on what these might be. Plaintiffs are not pro-American, they ar

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).



16/80

16

V) WHAT IS AT STAKE IN ELECTIONS FOR REPRESENTATIVES TO THE

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE AMERICAN CITIZENS OF

PUERTO RICO?

That Plaintiffs, as US citizens residents of Puerto Rico, have an interest in voting in

Congressional Elections for Representatives to the House to the same extent as that of other U

citizens in the Nation, sincethey 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 politicalequality... ) In this

respect, Plaintiffs are substantially interested in having the population of Puerto Rico counted

the apportionment process to vote for Representatives to Congress.

The United Stated Constitution provides in pertinent part as follows with respect to th

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 Congressof the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House ofRepresentatives.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and otherofficers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House ofRepresentatives.

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 generalwelfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniformthroughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, andwith the Indian tribes;



17/80

17

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix thestandard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin ofthe United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited timesto authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings anddiscoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, andoffenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerningcaptures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall befor a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppressinsurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governingsuch part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and theauthority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed byCongress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (notexceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and theacceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States,and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of thelegislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts,magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And



18/80

18

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into executionthe foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in thegovernment of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof..."

These legislative powers of the Representatives are f ully applied in Puerto Rico as in the

States of the Nation . Thus Plaintiffs are denied the right to participate in the selection of such

important Federal officials in the Nation of which they are citizens, and are discriminated again

by a denial of political equality required by the Courts, by Federal legislation, and by trea

obligations, to all who as Plaintiffs have a large stake in the election of Representatives.

This Honorable Court should consider that under present Federal judicial interpretation

Federal voting rights legislation, and U.S. treaty obligations, which establish that Federal votin

rights are derived from American citizenship, the requested relief must be granted. This Cou

must determine that the apportionment process can be implemented in Puerto Rico to provi

for voting rights in Congressional elections to Plaintiffs, and to all other qualified voter

similarly situated in Puerto Rico (over two million American citizens), who have so much at

stake in such elections, inc luding that of those Plaintiffs who had previously qualified to vote in

such Federal elections.

VI ) THE APPORTIONMENT PROCESS TO ELECT USREPRESENTATIVES AS APPLICABLE TO PUERTO RICO

That the number of Representatives to the US House of Representatives assigned t

states is determined by a process based on their population. This process is designated

apportionment and it is used to assign congressional districts to elect Representatives to th

House of Representatives. It is pertinent for this Court to consider that Puerto Rico is the on

U.S. Territory (of 4) that meets the minimum population required to elect representatives. (I

fact it qualifies for five Representatives under the apportionment formula).



19/80

19

The law establishes that the tabulation of total population by States (calculated by th

U.S. Census Bureau every ten years) as required for the apportionment of Representatives

Congress among the several States shall be ... reported by the [Commerce] Secretary to th

President of the United States. 13 U.S.C. 141(b)

The Constitution provides as follows:

- 1.) "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen everysecond Year by the People of the several States."

- 2.) "The Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electorof the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature..."

The Procedure of Apportionment is as follows:

Article I of the original Constitution specifies that Representatives ... shallStep 1: be apportioned among the several States according to an actualEnumeration of persons mad e every ten years. U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 2,Clause 3. The Fourteenth Amendment has superseded in part, but notsubstantively altered, this requirement. Amend. XIV, 2. ( Puerto Rico's population is composed of American citizens, and Puerto Rico has aLegislature with a Senate and a House of Representatives elected by these (P.R. Constitution Article III Section 1).

Section 141(b) of Title 13 of the United States Codemakes the Secretary ofStep 2:Commerce responsible for conducting the enumeration and providing thePresident with a tabulation of total popu lation by States ... as required forthe apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the severalStates.13 U.S.C. 141(b). (Annex C)

The statute directs the President to transmit to the Congress a statementStep 3:showing the whole number of persons in each State ... as ascertained under... each ... decennial census, and the number of Representatives to whicheach would be entitled. 2 U.S.C. 2a(a).

The Clerk of the House is responsible for sending the executive of eachStep 4:State a certificate of the number of Representatives to which each isentitled. 2 U.S.C. 2a(b).

Under the method of apportionment used by Defendant to assign Representatives, Puert

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=13USCAS141&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS2CL3&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS2CL3&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=13USCAS141&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=13USCAS141&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=2USCAS2A&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=2USCAS2A&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=2USCAS2A&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=2USCAS2A&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=2USCAS2A&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=2USCAS2A&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=13USCAS141&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=13USCAS141&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS2CL3&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS2CL3&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=13USCAS141&FindType=L


20/80

20

Rico has a right to elect a total of five Representatives in Congressional Elections. The formu

used for determining total Representatives for Puerto Rico, following the one used fo

determining states Representatives is as follows:

- EQUATION FOR DETERMINING US REPRESENTATIVES FOR PUERTORICO

Number of Representatives Puerto Rico would be entitled to if Puerto Rico wer

included in the apportionment formula:

(2010 Census Interactive Population Search)

Population of Puerto Rico _______________________ =Ratio of Apportionment Population to Representatives

3,725,789 =710,767

5.24 = Five Representatives should be elected by the American citizensresidents of Puerto Rico under the apportionment formula.

Within this context this Court should consider that in 2012 the Secretary of Commerc

sent to President Barack Obamaa statement showing the apportionment populatio n for each

State as of April 1, 2012, tabulated from the 2010 Decennial Census. The statement included a

determination of the number of Representatives t o which each State is entitled". The statement

allocated to every State at least one Representative. The statement did not report the populati

of Puerto Rico in the total population used for apportionment purposes, nor did it allocat

Representatives to Puerto Rico. There being no allocation of Representatives, no transmittal b

the President to the Clerk of the House, and no certificate by the Clerk to the District, th

discriminatory practice of the Secretary prevents the inhabitants of Puerto Rico from exercisin

their constitutional right to vote for voting representation in the House of Representative

Meanwhile, the Secretary includes his apportionment of persons and allocates representatives



21/80

21

residents of Federal enclaves, and Congress permits voting, even where there may be n

apportionment, by persons residing overseas who formerly resided in a State.

Plaintiffs assert that the Secretary of Commerce, by not including Puerto Rico in th

apportionment process, that is, by not assigning congressional districts to Puerto Rico

discriminatorily impeding 3.7 million American citizens - the inhabitants of Puerto Rico - fro

their exercise of this precious right, to have government by consent, and seek vindication of

that right. The Secretary of Commerce as applying 13USC i14 (b) is obstructing their enjoyme

of that right by excluding them from the apportionment process.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, made also applicable by th

Fifth Amendment, provides a strong additional ground for a declaration that the inhabitants

Puerto Rico have a constitutional right to vote for voting representation in the House o

Representatives, and that the failure of the Secretary of Commerce to include its inhabitants

the apportionment process violates equal protection principles. Basic equal protection principl

require the Federal Government to treat similarly situated persons equally, particularly wit

respect to constitutionally-based rights and privileges.See, e.g., Cleburne v. Cleburne Living

Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439, (1985); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-217,(1982) . The Equal

Protection Clause entitles them to such representation because the United States has no intere

compelling or otherwise, in denial of it. (See US v PR Police Dept. 922 F Supp 2 nd 185 ).

- The Plaintiffs includes as Defendants the following Public Officials: The President of the United States Hon. Barack Obama The US Secretary of Commerce Honorable Penny Pritzker The Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives - Honorable Karen L. Haas And, all other public officials related to implementing the apportionment

process to Puerto Rico

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985133474http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985133474http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1982126797http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1982126797http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1982126797http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1982126797http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985133474http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985133474http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985133474


22/80

22

VII. DEFENDANTS DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES OF DENIAL OF THE

RIGHT TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES TO THE US CONGRESS

TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS RESIDENTS OF PUERTO RICO.

The political structure of the United States has been developed so as to provide for bot

State and Federal levels of government, each with exclusive areas of jurisdiction under th

Constitution, and each organized as a republican form of government. Consistent with this, t

U.S. Congress, as the legislative branch of the Federal republican government, has been afford

extensive powers to consider and enact legislation in areas established in U.S. Constitution Art

Section 8. These powers and legislative measures are binding upon, or otherwise affect, residen

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 Congres

exercises over the Plaintiffs and other residents of Puerto Rico, these have no effective right

vote upon those legislative measures, directly or through freely chosen representatives, an

Congress is responsible to the Plaintiffs for those measures. In this manner, Congress exercis

extensive authority over the Plaintiffs, and yet it is in no way effectively accountable to th

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 adoptio

process of legislation applicable to Puerto Rico. This has deprived the Plaintiffs of the ver

essence of representative government, namely that title to government rests with the peopgoverned. (See, P. Rosello, The Unfinished Business of American Democracy, October 27,

2005).

Notwithstanding the American citizenship of Plaintiffs since the acquisition of Puert



23/80


24/80

24

electoral practices set forth below:

VII -1 A) DISCRIMINATORY ELECTORAL PRACTICES BY DEFENDANT

NUMBER ONEDefendant has not complied with its democratic commitments to the Americancitizens residents of Puerto Rico since 1898 and continues to deny them theirright to vote in elections for Representatives.

a) Arrival of American Troops in Puerto Rico

....On July 28, 1898, three days after the landing of American troops at Gunica, P uertoRico, General Nelson A. Miles, who commanded the expeditionary force, proclaimed:

- In the prosecution of war against the kingdom of Spain by the peopleof the United States, in the cause of liberty, justice and humanity, itsmilitary forces have come to occupy the island of Puerto Rico. Theycome bearing the banner of freedom, inspired by noble purposes, . . . .

- They bring you the fostering arms of a free people, whose greatest power is justice and humanity to all living within their fold. . . .

- They have come not to make war on the people of the country, who forcenturies have been oppressed; but, on the contrary, to bring protection, not only to yourselves, but to your property, promote your prosperity and bestow the immunities and blessings of ourenlightenment and liberal institutions and government. . . .

(Annual Report of the Major General Commanding the Army, Nelson A. Miles, Nov. 51898, Messages, 1898-1899, at 31-32.)

One hundred and sixteen years later, the American citizens residents of Puerto Ric

have not been bestowed the immunities and blessings of the liberal institut ions of

government., as promised to them, as these have not been granted the right to vote

in elections for Representatives, nor have been qualified by population to vote for fiv

Representatives. In this respect, General Miles Proclamation has proven to be a fals

representation because Defendant has not complied with his promises 116 years later



25/80

25

(b) The 1952 Constitution of Puerto Rico

As stated before (Pleading IV) the American citizens of Puerto Rico adopted in 1952 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 theUnited States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich ourdemocratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rightsand 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 applicabl

provisions of the Constitution of the United States, particularly with its Preamble; and, the fr

and voluntary ratification by direct vote of the members of the Congress, and by the Presiden

was a democratic process carried under the veil of US Constitutional requirements. Within th

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, Defenda

assumed an obligation to providerights and privileges of democratic enjoyment to the

residents of Puerto Rico as American citizens. The democraticrights and privileges of

American citizenship includes voting rights in Federal elections, rights that all other America

citizens enjoy by voting in Federal elections.

The legal implications of the referred democracy must be considered by this Honorabl

Court within the context of US Executive, Legislative, and Judicial democratic constitution

interpretation, (national and international) as that applied to all American citizens residing i



26/80

26

states, and to absentee voters, because the Puerto Rico Constitution meets all the requirements

state constitutions. (U.S. Const. Art. IV. Section 4). It was a democratic commitment assumed

by the Defendant to the People of Puerto Rico, and the legal basis to this complaint has to b

considered as supported by that commitment.

It is time for Defendant to comply with the Proclamation of General Miles and with th

democratic Commitment it assumed in 1952 by approving the language ofPuerto Ricos

Constitution. The credibility of Defendants democratic p romises to the American citizens

residents of Puerto Rico is in question (See by analogy first paragraph, C. Romero Barcel,

They speak with forqued tongues, Caribbean Business, July 3, 2014). The American citizens o

Puerto Rico are entitled to the privileges and immunities that were bestowed upon them as a

consequence of the process of gradual incorporation, which includes the applicability of the U

Constitution. (See: Pleading VII;US v PR Police Dept. 922 F Supp 2 nd 185). If relief requested

in this complaint is not granted the discriminatory denial of voting rights in elections fo

Representatives (Five Representatives) to Plaintiffs will continue, with its legal, politica

economic, and social consequences.

VII 1-B) DISCRIMINATORY ELECTORAL PRACTICES BY DEFENDANT

NUMBER TWO

All federal voting rights laws are adopted by the U.S. Congress forapplicability to American Citizens, that is with citizenship as the basis of the right,but these are denied discriminatorily to the 4 th , 5 th and 6 th generation American

citizens residents of the incorporated Territory of Puerto Rico.

US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS RELATED TO VOTING RIGHTSARE ALL BASED ON PROTECTING AMERICAN CITIZENS VOTINGRIGHTS (NATIONAL AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP)

That Plaintiffs are all American citizens, as are all the other American citizens residen



27/80

27

of Puerto Rico similarly situated. Consider as pertinent to this claim that the US Constitution

Amendments related to voting rights are all based on the protection of American citizens voting

rights. Voting is such a fundamental right to an American citizen that the U.S. Constitution ha

been amended several times to extend and guarantee that right:

apportionment on basis of Population Amendment XIV- Section 2. 1868;

citizens voting rights for Senators Amendment XVII. 1913;

voting rights to people of all races, Amendment XV. 1870.

Voting rights of citizens based on sex, Amendment XIX. 1920.

to the residents of the District of Columbia, Amendment XXIII. 1961.

payment of taxes by citizens not a prerequisite for voting in Federal elections

Amendment XXIV. 1964.

Voting rights to American citizens 18 years and older, Amendment XXVI. 1971.

US CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION ON VOTING RIGHTSESTABLISHES NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AS THE BASIS OFRIGHT TO VOTE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS

Consider as pertinent to this claim the following legislation:

a.) The Voting Rights Act is applicable to Puerto Rico for electoral purposes. (42 USCA

1971 et.seq.) It contains dispositions protecting the right to vote of American citizens

b.) National Voter Registration Act.

Congress adopted in 1995 the National Voter Registration Act (PL 103-31), a

piece of legislation related to voting rights in Federal elections in the UnitedStates, applicable since January, 1995. This Honorable Court should consider

the importance of this legislation in that it clearly establishes that the basis of the

right to vote in Federal elections is American citizenship, (National American



28/80

28

citizenship) and establishes the amplitude and extent of the authority of Congres

in its duty and obligation to protect the exercise of the right. In pertinent part i

reads as follows:

42 USCA 1973 gg 1 and 2

1) ... the right of citizens of the United States to vote i s a fundamental right.2) it is the duty of the Federal Government to promote the exercise of thatright....

c.) In 2002 Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act of 2002 - Public Law 107-252 -

It specifically mentions Puerto Rico several times, has established a number of elabora

electoral mechanisms and commissions, and has provisions for monetary support, t

ensure that every American citizen who is otherwise eligible to vote will not be

encumbered in any way whatever when voting in Federal elections.

The legislation cited above supports Plaintiffs request for relief in this complaint, as

was adopted to protect voting rights of American citizens. The provisions cited above howev

are evidence that Defendant discriminates against Plaintiffs by disregarding their America

citizenship voting rights with the evident consequence of denying them their right to vote f

Representatives in Federal elections. It is not recognizing the right of Plaintiffs to vote a

demanded in this complaint, as a fundamental right these have as American citizens. It show

Defendant is not complying with its duty as required by law to promote the exercise of the rig

to vote in Federal Elections to the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico, in this case voti

for five Representatives.

SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATIONS RECOGNIZE NATIONALAMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AS THE BASIS OF RIGHT TO VOTE INFEDERAL ELECTIONS

....The Constitution speaks, not simply to the states in their organized capacities, butto all peoples, whether of states or territories, who are subject to the authority of the



29/80

29

United States.... .

The American citizenship of the Plaintiffs and of the 3.7 million American citizen

residents of Puerto Rico is an important legal basis supporting this claim. Of particula

supportive evidence this Court should consider that in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court determine

that the basis of the right to vote in Federal elections is National citizenship. Of particula

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 JusticKennedy give us some light in the direction of the meaning of the usage of the term " states " the qualifying clauses of the Constitution as separate from the meaning of the voting rights of tcitizens. Particularly consider the excerpts below:)

...Justice Stevens-. . . . Thus the Framers, in perhaps their most importantcontribution, conceived of a Federal Government directly responsible to the people, possessed of direct power over the people, and chosen directly, not byStates, 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 exerciseddirectly on them, and for their benefit. " Mc Cullogh v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., at404-405. Oursis a government of the people, for the people." { A. LincolnGettysburg Address (1863).}

...Justice Kennedy -In my view, however, it is well settled that the whole peopleof the United States asserted their political identity and unity of purpose whenthey created the federal system...

...Federalism was our Nation's own discovery. The Framers split the atom ofsovereignty. It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one Federal, each protected from incursion bythe other. The resulting Constitution created a legal system unprecedented in formand design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own directrelationship, 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 theseorigins, which instruct us as to the nature of the two different governments createdand confirmed by the Constitution.



30/80

30

A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, isthat it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it. It must beremembered that the National Government too is republican in essence and intheory. John Jay insisted on this point early in The Federalist Papers, in hiscomments of the government that preceded the one formed by the Constitution.

To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individualcitizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection.A strong sense of the value and blessing of union induced the people, at a veryearly period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. Theyformed it almost as soon as they had a political existence... The Federalist No. 2, pp. 38-39 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961)

In one sense it is true that the people of each State retained their separate

political identities, for the Constitution takes care both to preserve the States andto make use of their identities and structures at various points in organizing thefederal union. It does not at all follow from this that the sole political identity ofan American is with the State of his or her residence. It denies the dual characterof the Federal Government which is its very foundation to assert that the people ofthe United States do not have a political identity as well, one independent of,though consistent with, their identity as citizens of the State of their residence.(Emphasis supplied)

It must be recognized that [ if] or all the great purposes for which the FederalGovernment was formed, we are one people, with one common country.Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618, 630 (1969) (quoting Passenger Cases, 7How. 283, 492 (1849) (Taney CJ dissenting); people of these United Statesconstitute one nation" and "have a government in which all of them are deeplyinterested ").It might be objected that because the States ratified the Constitution, the peoplecan delegate power only through the States or by acting in their capacities ascitizens of particular States. But in McCullogh v. Maryland, the Court set forth itsauthoritative rejection of this idea:

"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the Statelegislatures. But the instrument.... was submitted to the people.... It is true, theyassembled in their several States and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines whichseparates the States, and of compounding the American people into one commonmass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measuresthey adopt do not, on that,- account, cease to be the measures of the peoplethemselves, or become the measures of the State governments. " 4 Wheat., at 403.



31/80

31

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute that, though limited as to itsobjects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people withoutcollateral interference by the States. McCullogh affirmed this proposition as well,when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. " This was not intended by the American people. They did not design tomake their government dependent of the States. " Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere....

Nothing in the Constitution or The Federalist Papers, however, supports the ideaof state interference with the most numerous branches basic relation between the National Government and its citizens, the selection of legislative representatives,or of the selection of President. Addressing this principle in Ex Parte Yarbrough,the Court stated as follows: "The right to vote for a member of Congress" is an"office ... created by that Constitution and by that alone. . . . It is not true,therefore, that electors for members of Congress owe their rights to vote to theState law in any sense which makes the exercise of the right to depend exclusivelyon the law of the State. " 110 U.S., at 663-664. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 16Wall. 36, 78-80 (1873), the Court was careful to hold that federal citizenship inand of itself suffices for the assertion of rights under the Constitution, rights thatstem from sources other than the States. Though the Slaughter-House Casesinterpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,its view of the origins of federal citizenship was not confined to that source.Referring to these rights of national dimension and origin the Court observed: "But lest it should be said that no such privileges and immunities are to be found ifthose we have been considering are excluded, we venture to suggest some whichowe their existence to the Federal Government, its national character, itsConstitution, or its laws. " Id., at 79. Later cases only reinforced the idea thatthere are such incidents of national citizenship. See Ex parte Yarbrough, supra;Terral v. Burke Constr. Co., 257 U.S. 529 (1922); United States V. Classicsupra; United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 ( 1966 ); Shapiro v Thompson 394U.S. 618 (1969). Federal privileges and immunities may seem limited in theirformulation by comparison with the expansive definition given to the privilegesand immunities attributed to state citizenship, see Slaughter-House Cases, supra,at 78; Hague, supra, at 520 ( opinion of Stone, J. ),but that federal rights flowto the people of the United States by virtue of national citizenship is beyonddispute... (Emphasis supplied)

(See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton , 514 US 779, 793, 817-18, 115 S. Ct.1842, 1850,1862, 131 L.Ed. 2d 881 (1995) (quoting Powell v. McCormack , 395US. 486, 547, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 1977, 23 L.Ed. 2d 491 (1969). Followed later in

Bates v. Jones Cite as 958 F. Supp. 1446 (N.D. Cal. 1997 )

The opinion of the Court in Thornton cannot be viewed as restricted to candidacy, but i



32/80

32

its real perspective of citizenship, of national citizenship, as the source of the right to vote

Federal elections, as cited above from the opinion.Schiavone v. Destefano , No. 44418, Feb. 1,

2001, the Superior Court, New Haven Judicial District, stated:

....The Court has recently held, in an exceedingly well known case, that voting is afundamental right. Bush v. Gore , 121 S.Ct. 525, 529 (2000)....

This logic underliesU.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton , 514 U.S. 779 (1995).Thornton , as is well known, invalidated a state constitutional provision prohibitingcandidates for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if they had alreadserved three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. Althougthe formal constitutional argument in that case was fought on the battleground of thQualifications Clauses, see U.S. Const. art. I, 2 & 3, the Madisonian view ofdemocracy 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 tthe people. Id. at 820-21. This idea, memorably articulated in Lincolns GettysburgAddress, 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 countingof ballots. History, the Bush Court tells us, hasnow 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, fro

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,



33/80

33

393 U.S. 23, 29; Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621, 626; Dunn v

Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 334; McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 379.

(Moreso, see Galagher v. Indiana State Election Bd, 598 NE 2d 510 (Ind 1992).

The cases cited above are clear evidence that the Supreme Court has established nation

"American citizenship" as the legal source of the right to vote in Federal elections. The Cou

should consider the weight given by Congress and the US Supreme Court to national citizensh

as the basis of the right to vote in federal elections and that Defendants denial of the right to

vote in Federal Elections for Representatives to the Americans citizens of Puerto Rico

evidently discriminatory. Moreover, Hon. President Barack Obama has gone as far as to sta

that the right to vote is a God given right, our most fundamental right, which must be

protected at Home . Citizenship means standing up for everyones right to vote.

(State of the Union Address, February 12, 2013) It should be the power of our vote that

drives our democracy . (State of The Union Address January 28, 2014).

The Presidents statement is applicable to all American citizens, with the discriminatory

exception that it is not applied for those residing in Puerto Rico as Plaintiffs. The only way t

end this practice of discriminatory denial of democracy, denial of voting for Representatives,

by granting relief as requested in this complaint. If it is not granted, the Court will allow th

discriminatory practice to continue with its legal, political, social, and economic consequenc

to Plaintiffs.

VII -1 C.) DISCRIMINATORY ELECTORAL PRACTICES BY DEFENDANT

NUMBER THREE

Defendant finds support in the applicability of US constitutionalprovisions for the implementation of federal policies, or for judicialdispositions related to Puerto Rico, and discriminatorily denies and/or



34/80

34

opposes their applicability to Plaintiffs of the same U.S. constitutionalprovisions to grant these their right to vote in elections for the U. S. Houseof Representatives.

Defendant finds support for constitutional applicability in cases or controversies relate

to Puerto Rico and opposes applicability in others. In Igartua v. U.S ., PR District Court 08-1174

JAG, the Defendant opposed constitutional applicability because Article I Section 2 refers t

voting rights for Representatives from states. In contradiction, as recently as 2012 the U.S

Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division filed a complaint against Puerto Rico (US v

Puerto Rico Police Dept. 922 F Supp 2 nd 185) to secure US Constitutional applicability for the

security of the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico, particularly the First, Fourth an

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 thatPuerto 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 t

need for a constitutional amendment. (By Congressional enactments, or by judicia

interpretations). For an example of constitutional applicability to Puerto Rico by legislation s

Pl. IV 1- E. Judicial support for constitutional applicability is found in theUS 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 an

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

legally implement the apportionment process to Puerto Rico, (See, also, Binns v. United States,



35/80

35

194 US 486 ) as relief requested is not unprecedented. It can also find support in the Necessar

and Proper Clause. (U.S. Const. Article I, Section 8).

Moreover, Puerto Rico has been incorporated to such a degree that it is discriminator

unreasonable and/or arbitrary not to apply the U.S. Constitution to cases and controversies befo

the Federal Courts. Plaintiffs have the constitutional right that their voting rights claim b

considered and be judicially disposed by this Court as any other American citizens claim on

voting rights have been disposed of. Similarly, the Court should determine that all the law

adopted by Congress (including voting rights laws) are adopted under the veil of constitutional

authority and are made applicable to Puerto Rico, like to states, without constitutiona

amendment, or without the political requirement that Puerto Rico becomes a state.

What Plaintiffs are proposing to this Honorable Court is that in Puerto Rico the U.S

Constitution has been applied as if Puerto Rico were a state without the need for constitution

amendments, so that in this year 2014, considering the expansive legal interpretation of the rig

to vote, none is necessary for granting the right to vote for Representatives to the House

Representatives to the American citizens of Puerto Rico. As previously stated, constitution

provisions have been applied to Puerto Rico since 1898 by all Branches of the Federa

Government (Defendant) without constitutional amendments.

Besides Congressional action, the Federal Courts have applied constitutional provision

to Puerto Rico, that refer only to states, or that the Constitution limits exclusively to state

Torres v. Puerto Rico , 442 U.S. 465, 469-470; Examining Board v. Flores de Otero , 426 U.S.572, 599-601;Calero - Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co ., 416 U.S. 663; Mora v. Mejias , 115

F. Supp. 610 (PR 1953);Cordova & Simonpietri Ins. Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank ,

649 F. 2d 36, 39-42 (CA1 1981);Califano v. Torres , 435 U.S. 3 (1978); Posadas de P.R.



36/80

36

Associate v. Tourism Co. of P.R ., 478 US 328;Sea Land Services v. Municipality of San Juan,

505 F. Supp. 533 (1980);Trailer Marine Transport v. Rivera Vsquez , 977 F.2d 1;Walgreens

Co. v. Rullan , USCA 1 - Opinion 03-2542; In re Corporacin de Servicios Medicos de Fajardo

v. Izquierdo Mora , 805 F.2d 440 (1986);Terry Teviol Torres v. Commonwealth of PR , 442 U.S.

465, (1979); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services Inc ., No. 04-70,US Supreme Court ,

6/23/2005; Pan American Computer Corp. v. Data General Corp ., 562 F.2d 693, 1983; and

Rivera Carbana v. Cruz , 588 FS 80 (1984). Most recently;US v Laboy 553 F3d 715 ; US v PR

Police Dept. 922 F Supp 2 nd 185.

Plaintiffs are not requesting the application of something unprecedented. .The

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 formal

admitted as a state until 1953 when it was discovered that it had been not formally admitted

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 whic

refer to states to Puerto Rico, for purposes of granting the relief requested . The First Circuit

Court in the case ofTrailer 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 t

Court held as follows:

...Turning to the question whether Puerto Rico is covered by the dormantCommerce Clause doctrine, the framework is furnished by Puerto Ricosconstitutional history, a skein of statutes and precedents as tangled as any in ourhistory. Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States from Spain in 1898 by theTreaty of Paris and became subject to Congress plenary authority under theTerritorial Clause of the Constitution. US Const. Art. IV, 3, cl.2 ( The



37/80

37

Congress shall have Power to make all needful Rules and Regulations respectingthe Territory... belonging to the United States....)

...Then, over a half century, Puerto Ricos autonomy increased in sta ges, itsrelationship with the Federal government being governed successively by the

original Foraker Act 31, Stat. 77 (1900), then by the Organic Act of 1917, alsoknown as the Jones Act, 39 Stat, 951 (1917) and finally by Federal statues in 1950and 1952 that established Puerto Ricos present status in accordance with thelegislation, a referendum and ultimately a Puerto Rican Constitution approved bythe people of Puerto Rico and by the Congress. SeeCordova & Simonpietri Ins.Co. V. Chase Manhattan . , N.A. 649 F 2d 36, 38-39 (1st Cir. 1981), Puerto RicanFederal Relations Act, 48 USC 731 et seq... (Pleading IV)

....Today, the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in many respectsresembles that of a state. It has an elected governor and legislature, and itslegislature has powers akin to those exercised by the states. See 48 USC 821.Puerto Rico has immunity to suit in common with state governments. AlcoaSteamship Co. v. Perez 424 F. 2d 433, 435 (1

st Cir 1970). Except for various taxcode provisions and certain other exceptions, Federal statutes apply in Puerto

Rico, as they do in any state, unless otherwise provided. 48 USC 734. Citizensof Puerto Rico, like citizens of the States, are citizens of the United States(8USCA 1402). The United States guarantees Puerto Rico a republican form ofgovernment and Puerto Rico is bound to respect the rights, privileges andimmunities of all citizens. 48 USC 731, 737. Compare US Const. Art IV, 4,amend. XIV, 1.

The central rationale of the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, as the SupremeCourt has explained, is the dominant purpose of the Commerce Clause to fostereconomic integration and prevent local interference with the flow of the nationscommerce. DuMond ,336US at 537-38, 69 S. Ct. At 664-65. This rationale applieswith equal force to official actions of Puerto Rico. Full economic integration is asimportant to Puerto Rico as to any state in the Union. In a different context, theSupreme Court has flatly rejected the notion that Puerto Rico may erect anintermediate boundary separating it from the rest of t he country. Torres v.

Puerto Rico , 442 US 465, 472, 99 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 61 L. Ed. 2d. 1 (1979)...

If the government of Puerto Rico were nothing other than the alter ego orimmediate servant of the Federal government, then the dormant CommerceClause doctrine would have no pertinence, for a doctrine designed to safeguardFederal authority against usurpation has no role when the Federal governmentitself is effectively the actor.... Whatever the ultimate source of its authority or itsexact constitutional status, Puerto Rico today certainly has sufficient actualautonomy to justify treating it as a public entity district from Congress Clausedoctrine. In the Supreme Courts words, the purpose of Congress in 1950 and1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy andindependence normally associated with States of the Union... (Examining Boardv. Flores de Otero , 426 US 572, 594).



38/80

38

We are reinforced in this conclusion by precedents in other circuits applying thedormant Commerce Clause doctrine to the then territorial government of Alaska.

Anderson v. Mullaney, 191 F 2d 123, 127 (9th cir. 1951) affd, 342 US 415, 72 SCt., 428, 96, L Ed. 458 (1952), and to the present territorial government of theVirgin Islands, 824 F 2d 256, 259-60 (3rd Cir. 1987),vacated on other grounds ,

484 US 999, 108 S Ct. 687, 687, 98 L Ed. 2d 640 (1988),dismissed on remand ,852 F. 2d 66 (3rd Cir).

Against this background, we conclude that Puerto Rico is subject to theconstraints of the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine in the same fashion as thestates... (1992) (Compare to Pleading IV in this Complaint) (Compare withConsejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan 593 F Supp 2 nd 386).

With such suppor

Documents

Igartua vs. United States of America