Igartua vs. United States of America

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 80
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
v.
*
*
*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
*
PRESIDENT: THE HON. BARACK OBAMA
*
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE : THE HON. PENNY PRITZKER *
CLERK OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES *
THE HON. KAREN L. HAAS
*
Defendants
*
*
*
*
*
*
*****************************************************
GREGORIO IGARTUA,
CARLOS MNDEZ MARTNEZ,
JORGE PREZ DAZ, PEDRO MNDEZ
SOTO, IRIS DELIA GONZLEZ CAMACHO,
MARA T. NEGRN CEDEO
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL NO. 14-1558
-COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT AND
OTHER RELIEF
- VIOLATIONS OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
-CLAIM FOR VOTING
RIGHTS
- APPORTIONMENT FOR
REPRESENTATIVES
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

AND OTHER RELIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Comes now Plaintiffs, Gregorio Igarta pro-se, and other Plaintiffs by the undersigned
attorney, for themselves and for and on behalf of all persons similarly situated in Puerto Rico,
and respectfully allege and pray:
I. INTRODUCTION
Relief sought by plaintiffs needs expeditious action by this Honorable Court, considering

2
that federal elections for Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives will be held in
November, 2014.
a.) This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to redress the deprivation of
rights and privileges secured to Plaintiffs, and all other American citizens of Puerto
Rico, to vote in Elections for Representatives to the US House of Representatives,
under the Constitution of the United States of America, U.S. treaty law, U.S.
legislated provisions, and under U.S. judicial interpretation. Plaintiffs question the
constitutionality of the process of apportionment of congressional districts that fails to
account for Puerto Rico and its residents, approximately 3.7 million American
citizens residents of Puerto Rico. The Plaintiffs also allege that the denial of
congressional representation violates their right to due process and abridges their
privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States. Finally, they contend that
the denial of their right to vote violates Article I of the Constitution, which provides
that the members of the House shall be chosen by "the People of the several States"
U.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 by
the Courts, by Congress and by the Executive Branch as a state, and/or as an
incorporated territory.
b.) Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, bring this
action on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons, citizens, taxpayers and
qualified voters in Puerto Rico who are similarly situated.
c.) Plaintiffs seek such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be proper to assure them,
and all others similarly situated, due process and the equal protection of the laws
which now and for many years (since 1898) have been denied to them by Defendant,
and their predecessors in office to vote in elections for Representatives to the House
of Representatives.
d.) Plaintiffs, and all other American citizens residents of Puerto Rico similarly situated,
are governed by a House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, which is not a body
representative of the People of Puerto Rico, and such denial conflicts with the concept
of government by consent of the governed, and is contrary to the prevailing
philosophy of government embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and recognized by all jurisdictions whereby the legislature has power to
make 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 a
decree of this Court declaring that the apportionment law presently in force assigning
congressional districts for the election of Representatives to the US House of
Representatives to be unconstitutional as it excludes the population of Puerto Rico,
3.7 million 4th, 5th and 6th generation American citizens and enjoining Defendants
from performing any acts or duties in compliance with such unconstitutional
provisions with respect to the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico.

3
f.) Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy other than the judicial relief sought herein. Until
such time as the apportionment process for electing US Representatives is not
judicially enforced to be applicable to Puerto Rico, Defendant will be bound thereby
and is not free to exercise any discretion to eliminate deprivation suffered by
Plaintiffs. Only judicial relief can remedy this condition.
g.) As particularized above, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the United States is
responsible for violations of their rights to elect five Representatives to the US House
of Representatives. Plaintiffs, unlike residents elsewhere in the United States, have
no meaningful representation in the Federal House of Representatives, and are
therefore denied effective participation in the National Legislature. (The House of the
People). These limitations are manifestly arbitrary and the United States has failed to
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 as
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, bring this
action on their own behalf and on behalf of all American citizens, and qualified voters
residents of Puerto Rico for a declaration of their rights to vote in elections for
Representatives to the House of Representatives, for the Court to order Puerto Rico's
population to be included in the apportionment elective process for Representatives to
the House, which fails to account for Puerto Rico and its residents so that five
representatives 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 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,
the Fourteenth Amendment,
Sections 1 and 2 - the Fifteenth Amendment.

This action alleges that Defendant has failed to apportion congressional districts for the
election of five members to the House of Representatives from Puerto Rico. Therefore, it is
requested respectfully that this Honorable Court appoint a Three-Judge District Court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 2281(et seq), which provides that "[a] district court of three judges shall be

4
convened... when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of
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 to
vote in elections for Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives is discriminatorily
denied by reason of residing in Puerto Rico. He has been previously qualified to vote in such
elections and lost the right to vote in such elections by moving residence to Puerto Rico from the
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 to
vote in Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives elections is discriminatorily denied
by reason of residing in Puerto Rico. He has been previously qualified to vote in such elections
and lost the right to vote in such elections by moving residence to Puerto Rico from the State of
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 to
vote in elections for Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives is discriminatorily
denied by reason of residing in Puerto Rico. (Annex III A-3)

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 and
taxpayer of Puerto Rico, USA. His constitutional right to vote in elections for Representatives to
the U.S. House of Representatives is discriminatorily denied by reason of residing in Puerto
Rico. He has been previously qualified to vote in such elections, and lost the right to vote in
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 moved
residence to Orlando, Florida, where he resided until 1994, when he moved back to Puerto Rico.
During his residence in Orlando, Florida, he voted in Elections for Representatives to the U.S.
House of Representatives, and lost his constitutional right to vote in such elections by moving
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 to
vote in elections for Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives elections is
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 House
of 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 similarly

6
situated, as their constitutional right to vote in elections for Representatives to the US House of
Representatives is discriminatorily denied by excluding them from the apportionment of
congressional districts for the House of Representatives. The action is brought in accordance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for these cases: All questions of law and fact pertinent
to this action are common to Plaintiffs and all other US citizens residents of Puerto Rico
similarly situated. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are so numerous that joinder of all
members is impractical. All are aggrieved because of the acts complained of herein below and
related to the denial to vote in elections for Representatives to the US House of Representatives.
The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interest of all similarly situated
in this claim. By reason of the nature of the relief sought in this action the disposition of
Plaintiffs claim 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, that
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 IV
related to the territory clause, the Treaty granted Congress full powers over Puerto Rico. Article
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
Congress.
Within this original legal source of authority, Congress started a local process of gradual
incorporation, and has gradually over the years adopted legislation to organize the government
of Puerto Rico to be compatible with its federalist structure, like states are to the federal
government. In fact, in 2014 Puerto Rico has been legally incorporated to the United States to be
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, the
minimum legal requirements to enfranchise the American citizens residents of territories to be
granted the right vote for Representatives to the U.S. House were the same, or less, as those
already implemented in Puerto Rico presently, and as will be shown below implemented under
the veil of US constitutional provisions. It is respectfully requested from this Honorable Court to
consider within this context and as pertinent to this claim the following historical and legal
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 April
12, 1900, (31 Stat. 77), became law. This legislation established a civil government for Puerto
Rico, including provisions for courts, and it extended the statutory laws of the United States not
locally inapplicable. The President was authorized to appoint, with the consent of the Senate, the
Governor of Puerto Rico, and its chief executive officers, the justices of the Supreme Court of
Puerto Rico and the judges of the local United States District Court. Congress required that all
laws enacted by the Puerto Rico legislative assembly be reported to Congress, which reserved
the power and authority to annul the same.

8
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

9
Citizens.
IV-1-D.) In 1947, Congress granted the qualified voters of Puerto Rico the right to elect
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 Immunities
Clause of the US Constitution. (Art. IV- Sec. 2)
"The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be
respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the
Union and subject to the provisions of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the
Constitution 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). (Also
referred to as Law 600). One important disposition of the Law was that, within the
jurisdictional territorial boundaries, the People of Puerto Rico were authorized to adopt their own
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 of
Puerto Rico subject to the approval of the US Congress, which it did subject to the condition that
any amendment or revision be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Constitution of the
United States. (66 Stat. 327). It was stated in Congress that ... as regards local matters, the
sphere of action and the methods of government bear 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 as
follows:
48 USCA 731 (b)

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 organize
a 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 of
Puerto 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 of
Puerto Rico for acceptance or rejection through an island-wide referendum to be
held in accordance with the laws of Puerto Rico. Upon the approval of said
sections, by a majority of the voters participating in such referendum, the
Legislature of Puerto Rico is authorized to call a constitutional convention to draft
a 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 of
the United States is authorized to transmit such constitution to the Congress of the
United 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 the
United States. Upon approval by the Congress the constitution shall become
effective in accordance with its terms.
Following the procedure adopted by Congress, as similarly adopted for territories
moving 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 a
fully democratic basis, to promote the general welfare, and to secure for ourselves
and our posterity the complete enjoyment of human rights, placing our trust in
Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealth
which, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union with
the United States of America
We understand that the democratic system of government is one in which the
will of the people is the source of public power, the political order is subordinate
to the rights of man, and the free participation of the citizen in collective decisions
is assured.
It is also pertinent to be considered by this Court, how the process of incorporation has
been legally interpreted. Of particular interest:

11
....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

12
are not allowed to vote in Federal elections, in Congressional elections.
Federal Judicial Branch In Puerto Rico Art. III U.S. Constitution
That with respect to the Federal Judicial Branch in Puerto Rico, the Federal District
Court of Puerto Rico is included as a judicial district of the United States; and in
matters of jurisdiction, powers, and procedures, it is in all respects equal to other
United States District Courts. Rules of Federal criminal and civil procedure are
applicable. Diversity jurisdiction of American citizens residents in states and of those
residing 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 causes,
and other matters or proceedings as between the courts of the United States and
the 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 the
courts of Puerto Rico. (P.R. is fully treated as a state in this Branch)
Federal Legislative Branch In Puerto Rico Art. I U.S. Constitution
That with respect to the political representation in the US Congress, Puerto Rico has
been granted non voting accessibility by having the right to name one Resident
Commissioner, elected every four years, unlike Representatives in states who are
elected every two years. (Hon. Pedro Pierluisi is the current Resident Commissioner
of Puerto Rico in the U.S. House of Representatives) Puerto Rico's population is
excluded from the apportionment process that assigns congressional districts to elect
representatives to the House. (3.7 million American citizens are discriminatorily
excluded).
The statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable have the same force
and effect in Puerto Rico as in the United States. The applicability in Puerto Rico of
Federal laws is almost the same as in the other states. Notwithstanding, contrary to
American citizens residing in the states the laws are made applicable without the
consent, by democratic vote of the People of Puerto Rico, who are not allowed to vote
for representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives in Federal elections, (48
USCA 891). Limited Federal aids are granted to Puerto Rico and channeled subject
to Federal rules and procedures. Even most Federal internal revenue laws are
applicable within the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico as if Puerto Rico were a state (to the
extent that more taxes are paid to the Federal Treasury than from some States). (See
IRS 2014 Highlights ) The American citizens of Puerto Rico paid in 2013 more than
three billion dollars to the Federal Treasury. The Internal Revenue Service operates
several offices in different regions within Puerto Rico, and the US Customs service
also operates in Puerto Rico. Such revenues collected, as the revenues collected from
Federal and state taxes from other American citizens residents of the different states,
constitute an active ingredient of the national economy, as they interact inside the
jurisdictional US boundary within the same forces of supply and demand under one

13
national free market system regulated by the same monetary policies (Art. I US
Const. 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 in
Puerto Rico. In this respect, all of the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico, as all other
American citizens, owe an absolute and permanent allegiance to the Federal Government
wherever these may reside. In this context, the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico have
been loyal and have defended their American citizenship.
Through the local electoral process (over 97% of voters since the 1960 elections have
favored permanent union with the United States).
By participating actively in the military campaigns of the United States. Many

American citizens residents of Puerto Rico have died in military conflicts in which
the Nation has been involved since 1917. (Including participation in the most recent
wars in Afghanistan & Iraq).
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.
By legislation on December 3, 1962, the Puerto Rico Legislature approved Joint

Resolution number one which stated:
Proposition to Congress to establish the ultimate final political status for
the people of Puerto Rico. Whereas,.... those who favor Commonwealth
and those who favor Federated statehood are against separation from
United States... Whereas those who favor the maximum development of
commonwealth in permanent union with the United States of America do
so within the following principle...
2.) The guaranty of the permanency and irrevocability of the union
between the United States and Puerto Rico over the basis of
citizenship....
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

14
primaries in Puerto Rico; raising funds in Puerto Rico for candidates from many states who are
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 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.)
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 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

15
and the Administration of Hon. Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla reached a historical
agreement in the case of U.S. v P.R. Police Department, in which by mutual consent
both parties accepted the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to the American citizens
and to aliens residents of Puerto Rico. (See: US v PR Police Dept. 922 F Supp 2nd 185;
Id., Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan 593 F Supp 2nd 386). If there was any
doubt as to whether the U.S. Constitution applied to Puerto Rico this case dissipated it,
Puerto Rico is a de jure incorporated territory of the United States. (See U.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. This
mutual agreement reaffirmed the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico by
the adoption of the Puerto Rico Constitution in 1952, adopted also by mutual agreement.
(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 denial
of voting rights in elections for five Representatives to the US House of Representatives, to the
House of the People. Plaintiffs and all American citizens residents of Puerto Rico will continue
to live in a brick wall scenario, in this case continuing with the servitude of government without
consent, if this Court does not follow the opinion in Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce (Id.)
qualifying Puerto Rico as an incorporated territory and as supported by the PR Police Dept. case
(Id.) and grants the relief requested in this Complaint based on what Plaintiffs are, American
citizens by birth, not on what these
might be.
Plaintiffs are not pro-American, they are
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
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 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;

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 the
standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of
the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times
to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning
captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be
for 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, suppress
insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing
such 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 the
authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not
exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the
acceptance 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 the
legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

18
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution
the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the
government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof..."
These legislative powers of the Representatives are fully 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 against
by a denial of political equality required by the Courts, by Federal legislation, and by treaty
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 voting
rights are derived from American citizenship, the requested relief must be granted. This Court
must determine that the apportionment process can be implemented in Puerto Rico to provide
for voting rights in Congressional elections to Plaintiffs, and to all other qualified voters
similarly situated in Puerto Rico (over two million American citizens), who have so much at
stake in such elections, including that of those Plaintiffs who had previously qualified to vote in
such Federal elections.
VI )
THE APPORTIONMENT PROCESS TO ELECT US

REPRESENTATIVES AS APPLICABLE TO PUERTO RICO
That the number of Representatives to the US House of Representatives assigned to

states is determined by a process based on their population. This process is designated as
apportionment and it is used to assign congressional districts to elect Representatives to the
House of Representatives. It is pertinent for this Court to consider that Puerto Rico is the only
U.S. Territory (of 4) that meets the minimum population required to elect representatives. (In
fact it qualifies for five Representatives under the apportionment formula).

19
The law establishes that the tabulation of total population by States (calculated by the
U.S. Census Bureau every ten years) as required for the apportionment of Representatives in
Congress among the several States shall be ... reported by the [Commerce] Secretary to the
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 every
second Year by the People of the several States."
- 2.) "The Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors
of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature..."
The Procedure of Apportionment is as follows:
Step 1:
Article I of the original Constitution specifies that Representatives ... shall

be apportioned among the several States according to an actual
Enumeration of persons made every ten years. U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 2,
Clause 3. The Fourteenth Amendment has superseded in part, but not
substantively altered, this requirement. Amend. XIV, 2. ( Puerto Rico's
population is composed of American citizens, and Puerto Rico has a
Legislature with a Senate and a House of Representatives elected by these
(P.R. Constitution Article III Section 1).
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).
Under the method of apportionment used by Defendant to assign Representatives, Puerto

20
Rico has a right to elect a total of five Representatives in Congressional Elections. The formula
used for determining total Representatives for Puerto Rico, following the one used for
determining states Representatives is as follows:
- EQUATION FOR DETERMINING US REPRESENTATIVES FOR PUERTO
RICO
Number of Representatives Puerto Rico would be entitled to if Puerto Rico were
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 citizens

residents of Puerto Rico under the apportionment formula.
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

21
residents of Federal enclaves, and Congress permits voting, even where there may be no
apportionment, by persons residing overseas who formerly resided in a State.
Plaintiffs assert that the Secretary of Commerce, by not including Puerto Rico in the
apportionment process, that is, by not assigning congressional districts to Puerto Rico is
discriminatorily impeding 3.7 million American citizens - the inhabitants of Puerto Rico - from
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 enjoyment
of that right by excluding them from the apportionment process.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, made also applicable by the
Fifth Amendment, provides a strong additional ground for a declaration that the inhabitants of
Puerto Rico have a constitutional right to vote for voting representation in the House of
Representatives, and that the failure of the Secretary of Commerce to include its inhabitants in
the apportionment process violates equal protection principles. Basic equal protection principles
require the Federal Government to treat similarly situated persons equally, particularly with
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 interest,
compelling or otherwise, in denial of it. (See US v PR Police Dept. 922 F Supp 2nd 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

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 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

23
Rico in 1898 as Nationals, American citizenship by law in 1917, or as American citizens by birth
since 1941, or American citizens as recognized by Congress and by the President in approving
the Preamble of the Puerto Rico Constitution. (See pleading IV-1- G), or the applicability of the
US Supremacy Clause to Puerto Rico as included in the Puerto Rico Constitution, (Article VII by
direct vote of the People of Puerto Rico) their constitutional right to vote for Representatives to
the US Congress has been discriminatorily denied as residents of Puerto Rico in national Federal
elections by being excluded from the apportionment process. Such discriminatory denial has no
rational basis under present national voting rights judicial interpretation and legislation, which
have established American citizenship as the basis of the right. Moreover, Defendant promotes
international democratic policies, and has legal obligations as signatory to Treaties protecting
voting rights and government by consent of its citizens and of those of other countries, while
simultaneously discriminatorily denying these same rights to all the American citizens residents
of Puerto Rico. The only legal source available to end once and for all such discriminatory
conduct by Defendant to Plaintiffs after 116 years is by judicial intervention. ( See Brown v,
Board of Education 347 US 383).
Federal officials of Defendant have created by discriminatory manipulation a brick wall
scenario whereby there is no way in which Plaintiffs can vote in Federal elections to the House
of Representatives. Incorporation of Puerto Rico, that is, the process of moving Puerto Rico to be
like a state is channeled though a dead end street of dtente for purposes of participating in
federal elections.
Defendants Federal Officials are holding the 3.7 million American citizens residents of
the Incorporated Territory of Puerto Rico captive in a state of servitude with government without
consent in violation of various U.S. Constitutional provisions by means of the discriminatory

24
electoral practices set forth below:
VII -1 A) DISCRIMINATORY ELECTORAL PRACTICES BY DEFENDANT
NUMBER ONE
Defendant has not complied with its democratic commitments to the American
citizens residents of Puerto Rico since 1898 and continues to deny them their
right 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, Puerto
Rico, General Nelson A. Miles, who commanded the expeditionary force, proclaimed:
- In the prosecution of war against the kingdom of Spain by the people
of the United States, in the cause of liberty, justice and humanity, its
military forces have come to occupy the island of Puerto Rico. They
come 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 for
centuries 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 our
enlightenment and liberal institutions and government. . . .
(Annual Report of the Major General Commanding the Army, Nelson A. Miles, Nov. 5,
1898, Messages, 1898-1899, at 31-32.)
One hundred and sixteen years later, the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico
have not been bestowed the immunities and blessings of the liberal institutions 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 five
Representatives. In this respect, General Miles Proclamation has proven to be a false
representation because Defendant has not complied with his promises 116 years later.

25
(b)
The 1952 Constitution of Puerto Rico
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
rights and privileges of democratic enjoyment to the
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

26
states, and to absentee voters, because the Puerto Rico Constitution meets all the requirements of
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 be
considered as supported by that commitment.
It is time for Defendant to comply with the Proclamation of General Miles and with the
democratic Commitment it assumed in 1952 by approving the language of Puerto Ricos
Constitution. The credibility of Defendants democratic promises 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 of
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 US
Constitution. (See: Pleading VII; US v PR Police Dept. 922 F Supp 2nd 185). If relief requested
in this complaint is not granted the discriminatory denial of voting rights in elections for
Representatives (Five Representatives) to Plaintiffs will continue, with its legal,
political,
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 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

27
of Puerto Rico similarly situated. Consider as pertinent to this claim that the US Constitutional
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 has
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 RIGHTS
ESTABLISHES NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AS THE BASIS OF
RIGHT 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 United
States, 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
citizenship) and establishes the amplitude and extent of the authority of Congress
in its duty and obligation to protect the exercise of the right. In pertinent part it
reads as follows:
42 USCA 1973 gg 1 and 2
1) ... the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right.
2) it is the duty of the Federal Government to promote the exercise of that
right....
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 elaborate
electoral mechanisms and commissions, and has provisions for monetary support, to
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 it
was adopted to protect voting rights of American citizens. The provisions cited above however
are evidence that Defendant discriminates against Plaintiffs by disregarding their American
citizenship voting rights with the evident consequence of denying them their right to vote for
Representatives in Federal elections. It is not recognizing the right of Plaintiffs to vote as
demanded in this complaint, as a fundamental right these have as American citizens. It shows
Defendant is not complying with its duty as required by law to promote the exercise of the right
to vote in Federal Elections to the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico, in this case voting
for five Representatives.
SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATIONS RECOGNIZE NATIONAL
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AS THE BASIS OF RIGHT TO VOTE IN
FEDERAL ELECTIONS
....The Constitution speaks, not simply to the states in their organized capacities, but
to all peoples, whether of states or territories, who are subject to the authority of the

29
United States.... .
The American citizenship of the Plaintiffs and of the 3.7 million American citizens
residents of Puerto Rico is an important legal basis supporting this claim.
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.

30
A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is

that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it. It must be
remembered that the National Government too is republican in essence and in
theory. John Jay insisted on this point early in The Federalist Papers, in his
comments of the government that preceded the one formed by the Constitution.
To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individual
citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection.
A strong sense of the value and blessing of union induced the people, at a very
early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They
formed 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 and
to make use of their identities and structures at various points in organizing the
federal union. It does not at all follow from this that the sole political identity of
an American is with the State of his or her residence. It denies the dual character
of the Federal Government which is its very foundation to assert that the people of
the 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 Federal
Government was formed, we are one people, with one common country.
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618, 630 (1969) (quoting Passenger Cases, 7
How. 283, 492 (1849) (Taney CJ dissenting); people of these United States
constitute one nation" and "have a government in which all of them are deeply
interested ").
It might be objected that because the States ratified the Constitution, the people
can delegate power only through the States or by acting in their capacities as
citizens of particular States. But in McCullogh v. Maryland, the Court set forth its
authoritative rejection of this idea:
"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State
legislatures. But the instrument.... was submitted to the people.... It is true, they
assembled 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 which
separates the States, and of compounding the American people into one common
mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures
they adopt do not, on that,- account, cease to be the measures of the people
themselves, or become the measures of the State governments. " 4 Wheat., at 403.

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 its
objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without
collateral 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 to
make 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 idea
of 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 the
State law in any sense which makes the exercise of the right to depend exclusively
on the law of the State. " 110 U.S., at 663-664. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 16
Wall. 36, 78-80 (1873), the Court was careful to hold that federal citizenship in
and of itself suffices for the assertion of rights under the Constitution, rights that
stem from sources other than the States. Though the Slaughter-House Cases
interpreted 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 if
those we have been considering are excluded, we venture to suggest some which
owe their existence to the Federal Government, its national character, its
Constitution, or its laws. " Id., at 79. Later cases only reinforced the idea that
there are such incidents of national citizenship. See Ex parte Yarbrough, supra;
Terral v. Burke Constr. Co., 257 U.S. 529 (1922);
United States V. Classic
supra; United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 ( 1966 ); Shapiro v Thompson 394
U.S. 618 (1969). Federal privileges and immunities may seem limited in their
formulation by comparison with the expansive definition given to the privileges
and immunities attributed to state citizenship, see Slaughter-House Cases, supra,
at 78; Hague, supra, at 520 ( opinion of Stone, J. ), but that federal rights flow
to the people of the United States by virtue of national citizenship is beyond
dispute... (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, 395
US. 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 in

32
its real perspective of citizenship, of national citizenship, as the source of the right to vote in
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 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,

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 national
"American citizenship" as the legal source of the right to vote in Federal elections. The Court
should consider the weight given by Congress and the US Supreme Court to national citizenship
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 is
evidently discriminatory. Moreover, Hon. President Barack Obama has gone as far as to state
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 to
end this practice of discriminatory denial of democracy, denial of voting for Representatives, is
by granting relief as requested in this complaint. If it is not granted, the Court will allow the
discriminatory practice to continue with its legal, political, social, and economic consequences
to Plaintiffs.
VII -1 C.)
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

34
opposes their applicability to Plaintiffs of the same U.S. constitutional
provisions to grant these their right to vote in elections for the U. S. House
of Representatives.
Defendant finds support for constitutional applicability in cases or controversies related
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 to
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 2nd 185) to secure US Constitutional applicability for the
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,

35
194 US 486) as relief requested is not unprecedented. It can also find support in the Necessary
and Proper Clause. (U.S. Const. Article I, Section 8).
Moreover, Puerto Rico has been incorporated to such a degree that it is discriminatory
unreasonable and/or arbitrary not to apply the U.S. Constitution to cases and controversies before
the Federal Courts. Plaintiffs have the constitutional right that their voting rights claim be
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 laws
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 constitutional
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 constitutional
amendments, so that in this year 2014, considering the expansive legal interpretation of the right
to vote, none is necessary for granting the right to vote for Representatives to the House of
Representatives to the American citizens of Puerto Rico. As previously stated, constitutional
provisions have been applied to Puerto Rico since 1898
by all Branches of the Federal
Government (Defendant) without constitutional amendments.

Besides Congressional action, the Federal Courts have applied constitutional provisions
to Puerto Rico, that refer only to states, or that the Constitution limits exclusively to states.
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
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 2nd 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 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

37
Congress shall have Power to make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting
the Territory... belonging to the United States....)
...Then, over a half century, Puerto Ricos autonomy increased in stages, its
relationship with the Federal government being governed successively by the
original Foraker Act 31, Stat. 77 (1900), then by the Organic Act of 1917, also
known as the Jones Act, 39 Stat, 951 (1917) and finally by Federal statues in 1950
and 1952 that established Puerto Ricos present status in accordance with the
legislation, a referendum and ultimately a Puerto Rican Constitution approved by
the people of Puerto Rico and by the Congress. See Cordova & Simonpietri Ins.
Co. V. Chase Manhattan. , N.A. 649 F 2d 36, 38-39 (1st Cir. 1981), Puerto Rican
Federal Relations Act, 48 USC 731 et seq... (Pleading IV)
....Today, the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in many respects
resembles that of a state. It has an elected governor and legislature, and its
legislature has powers akin to those exercised by the states. See 48 USC 821.
Puerto Rico has immunity to suit in common with state governments. Alcoa
Steamship Co. v. Perez 424 F. 2d 433, 435 (1st Cir 1970). Except for various tax
code provisions and certain other exceptions, Federal statutes apply in Puerto
Rico, as they do in any state, unless otherwise provided. 48 USC 734. Citizens
of Puerto Rico, like citizens of the States, are citizens of the United States
(8USCA 1402). The United States guarantees Puerto Rico a republican form of
government and Puerto Rico is bound to respect the rights, privileges and
immunities 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 Supreme
Court has explained, is the dominant purpose of the Commerce Clause to foster
economic integration and prevent local interference with the flow of the nations
commerce. DuMond,336US at 537-38, 69 S. Ct. At 664-65. This rationale applies
with equal force to official actions of Puerto Rico. Full economic integration is as
important to Puerto Rico as to any state in the Union. In a different context, the
Supreme Court has flatly rejected the notion that Puerto Rico may erect an
intermediate boundary separating it from the rest of the 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 or
immediate servant of the Federal government, then the dormant Commerce
Clause doctrine would have no pertinence, for a doctrine designed to safeguard
Federal authority against usurpation has no role when the Federal government
itself is effectively the actor.... Whatever the ultimate source of its authority or its
exact constitutional status, Puerto Rico today certainly has sufficient actual
autonomy to justify treating it as a public entity district from Congress Clause
doctrine. In the Supreme Courts words, the purpose of Congress in 1950 and
1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and
independence normally associated with States of the Union... (Examining Board
v. Flores de Otero, 426 US 572, 594).

38
We are reinforced in this conclusion by precedents in other circuits applying the
dormant 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 S
Ct., 428, 96, L Ed. 458 (1952), and to the present territorial government of the
Virgin 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 the
constraints of the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine in the same fashion as the
states... (1992) (Compare to Pleading IV in this Complaint) (Compare with
Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan 593 F Supp 2nd 386).
With such supportive judicial precedents, this Hon. Court must determine that there is no
rational basis to continue the discriminatory denial of voting rights in Congressional elections to
the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico, and that Puerto Rico be included in the
apportionment process. The same rational basis applied by the Court in Trailer Marine, or in
the other related cases cited above, can be applied to dispose of this Complaint. Judicial
constitutional interpretation for purposes of this claim is no barrier. There is solid legal basis so
that it can be applied in Puerto Rico, as were other constitutional provisions, to grant Plaintiffs
the requested relief. As stated before, when the Federal Executive, Legislative, and Judicial
Branches operate in Puerto Rico, they are applying the U.S. Constitution, because they can only
act under the veil of U.S. Constitutional authority, and they have done so since 1898. (See,
Consejo de Salud Id.)
Moreover, and as pertinent to this case, in July, 2013, Defendant, the United States, and
the Government of Puerto Rico signed a settlement agreement in the case of US v. Puerto Rico
Police Dept., (PRPD) 922 F Supp 2nd 185. The case involves a civil rights complaint by the
Federal Government, but where it states that the action is brought to enforce the First, Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution to protect the civil rights of the American
citizens of Puerto Rico. The complaint states that the United States seeks relief to ensure...

39
PRPD implements sustainable constitutional and effective policing practices ... The Civil
Rights Division of the Department of Justice went so far in the complaint as to require U.S.
constitutional protection in Puerto Rico for aliens and naturalized citizens of Dominican descent.
The Puerto Rico Government reaffirmed the U.S. Constitution applicability by signing the
Agreement. This agreement between the U. S. Government and the Government of Puerto Rico,
supported by mutual consent, that the U.S. Constitution applies to Puerto Rico, to its American
citizens, ratifies how incorporated is Puerto Rico as a state, and supports Plaintiffs request for
relief. The discriminatory practice by Defendant of applying the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico
in some cases and not in others must end by granting the relief requested in this complaint. If it
is not granted, the Court will allow the discriminatory applicability of the U. S. Constitution by
Defendant to Plaintiffs. This Court should not allow arbitrary, capricious, impartial, and/or
unreasonable applicability of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico (Consejo de Salud Playa
Ponce v. Rullan, 593 F Supp 2nd 386) to continue. Equal protection principles of U.S.
constitutional applicability to Puerto Rico and to Plaintiffs supports this complaint; moreso, with
knowledge that the Defendant, the United States, filed a Complaint demanding U.S.
constitutional applicability to the American citizens residents of
Puerto Rico. (Id. U.S. v
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

40
residence to the incorporated Territory of Puerto Rico where Federal
voting rights are denied.
Under present legislation American citizens moving residence to any part of the world
can continue to vote in Federal elections, except if they move residence to Puerto Rico. As a
consequence, these cannot vote in Federal Elections for Representatives because that voting right
is also discriminatorily denied in Puerto Rico. Thus, the Federal government treats the American
citizens of Puerto Rico differently from People residing in States, who are apportioned seats in
the House of Representatives, while simultaneously allowing different treatment for American
citizens who reside overseas, who, by virtue of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act. (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq. as amended) vote in Congressional elections in the last
state where they most recently resided, even if they have no intention of ever returning back to
the last state of residence.
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act requires a State to permit
overseas voters to participate (by absentee ballot) in general elections for Federal Office. 42
U.S.C. 1973ff-1(3). An overseas voter includes . a person who resides outside the United
States and (but for such residence) would be qualified to vote in the last place in which the
person was domiciled before leaving the United States. Id. 1973ff-6(5)(C). The Act does
not require States to permit overseas voters to vote in local or state elections. Nor does an
overseas voter under the Act need to be a citizen of the State where voting occurs. As a result,
an overseas voter, despite the language of US Const. Article I, may vote from any country of the
world absentee in Federal elections, without having the Qualifications requisite for Electors of
the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. (U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 2, Clause 1). An
American citizen, including a former resident of Puerto Rico, can vote in Congressional

41
Elections from anywhere in the world, except from Puerto Rico, absentee. The American
citizens residents of Puerto Rico are also discriminatorily denied the right to vote absentee from
Puerto Rico. The uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. was drafted to
discriminatorily denied the absentee vote to the American citizens moving residence to Puerto
Rico, where there is no right to vote for Representatives.
There is no rational basis for discriminating against Plaintiffs, and all others similarly
situated, simultaneously denying them such right to vote to be included in the apportionment
process to vote four Representatives, and simultaneously denying such right to vote absentee
because of their residence in Puerto Rico, when the basis of the vote is in both cases citizenship.
This double denial of voting rights by Defendant to Plaintiffs is evidence of its intentional
manipulation to exclude Plaintiffs to vote for Representatives.
Plaintiffs, by being deprived of this federal right to vote, are being deprived of a
democracys most precious attribute and are penalized by this denial in their right to travel and to
live where they wish, in this case residing in Puerto Rico. Moreover, by moving residence to
Puerto Rico, those Plaintiffs who were previously qualified to vote in Federal elections for
Representatives find themselves also in relation to their right to vote without part of the layered
citizenship granted by the Constitution. In order for citizens to be able to move freely between
the various states and Puerto Rico, they must continue to enjoy their rights and privileges in
Puerto Rico within the same jurisdiction as in the fifty states. Consider that US Const. Article IV
Section 2, Same privileges and immunities clause applies in Puerto Rico since 1947 by
Congressional mandate. (Pleading IV- 1-E).
In contrast, the Court should consider by analogy that federal income tax policies are
applied under Constitutional Authority to American citizens residing
in Puerto Rico for

42
purposes of income from sources outside Puerto Rico, which is taxable as in states. These tax
policies follow the income earned by the American citizens of Puerto Rico anywhere in the
world, however, the absentee vote does not follow them in federal elections like it follows the
residents of the fifty states. In this respect, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Equal
Protection clause, both applicable in Puerto Rico, must place the American citizens residents of
Puerto Rico in an equal footing with those of the other states. The denial of the right to vote in
congressional elections in Puerto Rico under the UOCAVA, while simultaneously denying the
right to vote in Federal Elections under apportionment,
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

43
State Board of Election v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 US 173- Voting is of the most
fundamental significance under our constitutional structure; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US356 the right to vote is preservative of all rights; see also, League of Women Voters v. Diamond ,
965 F597).
The denial (double denial) to Plaintiffs, US citizens residents of Puerto Rico - a
geographical location within the territorial boundaries and jurisdiction of the United States - to
vote for Representatives to the US Congress is discriminatory, capricious, and arbitrary, and it
constitutes an impairment of their constitutionally protected right to vote. It touches a sensitive
and important area of human rights, involves one of the basic civil rights of man, and it violates
the constitutional concept of We The People which visualizes no preferred class of voters but
equality among those who meet the basic qualification.
Considering Defendants voting polices for American citizens to vote from geographical
locations outside the United States, Defendant's exclusion of Plaintiffs residents of the
jurisdictional US territory from the apportionment process to vote for Representatives must be
determined by this Honorable Court to be unconstitutional, and such discriminatory denial can
only be repaired by granting the relief requested in this claim.
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens absentee Voting Act permits voting in Federal
elections by persons who are not citizens of any State, nor qualified under the literal terms of
Article I to vote in Federal elections, while American citizens residents of Puerto Rico, who are
similarly situated, are denied that right. An overseas voter does not reside within any State, and
need not have any intention to make a particular State his or her home. If Congress can
disregard an overseas voter's failure to satisfy the two most basic traditional prerequisites for
state citizenship, there is no reason why the fact that the overseas voter, unlike some residents of

44
Puerto Rico, who was recently a bona fide resident of a State should be the distinction of
ultimate constitutional dimension. By analogy, to granting electoral rights from geographical
locations outside the United States, consider: . Birth on soil outside the United States, under
sovereignty of the United States satisfies
the Natural Born Citizen Clause US Senate
Resolution, April 30, 2008.

If there is no constitutional bar to voting by overseas voters who were recently bona fide
residents of a State, there is no constitutional bar to voting by the People of Puerto Rico.
Accordingly, the inhabitants of Puerto Rico and overseas voters are similarly situated, and that
the extension of voting rights to one group, but not the other, is a scenario of foreseeable
electoral discriminatory effects purposely designed by Defendant as legislated by Congress. It
cannot be justified by any compelling government interest. Voting rights in Federal Elections as
absentee voters are discriminatorily denied by Defendant to Plaintiffs by simultaneously denying
them the right to vote in elections for Representatives as residents of Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs
are
confined to a discriminatory state of servitude, because of their geographic location, by

Defendants denial to them of the right to vote for Representatives both as residents of Puerto
Rico in Puerto Rico, and absentee from Puerto Rico with reference to their last state of residence.
Congress is in violation of its own legislation by not complying with its duty to promote
the right of Plaintiffs, and of all similarly situated to vote in Federal elections. (42USCA1973
gg(a) 1 and 2). Relief requested in this Complaint must be granted to eliminate this double
electoral discriminatory practice.

45
VII 1 - E) DISCRIMINATORY ELECTORAL PRACTICES BY DEFENDANT
NUMBER FIVE
Defendant is signatory to International treaties with the purpose of guaranteeing
voting rights, that is, government by consent of the governed to citizens of
signatory countries, and opposes the applicability of the democratic obligations as
set forth in the treaties to grant voting rights in elections for U.S. Representatives to
the American Citizens residents of Puerto Rico in violation of U.S. Constitution Art.
IV.
Defendant promotes vigorously the democratic rights of citizens of other countries, and
of its citizens, as signatory to international treaties, declarations, and resolutions, except that it
discriminatorily denies Plaintiffs and all other American citizens residents of Puerto Rico the
right to vote to elect Representatives that is, to have government by consent. By denying the
American citizens residents of Puerto Rico the right to vote for Representatives to Congress,
Defendant is violating these international obligations, particularly, and as legal consequence, it
is violating U.S. Constitution - Art. VI. This Court should consider that under the international
legal obligations of Defendant, and its international democratic practices, there is no rational
legal basis that can justify a constitutional interpretation that can overweigh the voting rights as
protected by Defendant for citizens of other countries, over the rights of the American Citizens
residents of Puerto Rico to vote in elections for Representatives to the US House of
Representatives. This Court should also consider that because of Defendants treaty obligations
and democratic policies, residents of Puerto Rico serving in the military, like some Plaintiffs, are
forced to participate in US military interventions abroad to defend the democratic rights of
citizens of other nations, with the embarrassing situation of being discriminated at Home by the
denial to vote in Congressional elections, to have government by consent. Hundreds of these
discriminated American citizens have died fighting for democracy.

46
The discriminatory denial to Plaintiffs confines them to a state of servitude with respect
to the Federal Government, and in a way inconsistent and contrary to its own interpretations, and
of those of this Court in relation to voting rights, to human rights. The denial of the right to vote
in Congressional Elections is a condition of servitude upon all the American citizens of Puerto
Rico (Servants), because all are compelled to accept the applicability of laws without their
consent from Congress (Master). (Compare to the Slaughter House Cases 83 US 36.) The
condition of servitude by imposing Federal government without consent has endured for 116
years since 1898, when the United States of its own political initiative decided to acquire Puerto
Rico as a result of the Spanish-American War by the Treaty of Paris (30 Stat 1754), and was
heightened by the discriminatory opinions in the Insular Cases, e.g.: Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US
244, 1901, which ironically should not have any present applicability considering the gradual
incorporation by Defendant of Puerto Rico to be "like a state" (see pleading - IV). (Consejo de
Salud Playa Ponce v. Rullan 593 F Supp 2nd 386; US v PR Police Dept. 922 F Supp 2nd 185).
a)
DEFENDANTS INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER TREATY

LAW ESTABLISHES CITIZENSHIP AS THE BASIS OF VOTING
RIGHTS
The voting rights of American citizens as requested for Plaintiffs in this complaint 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

47
US Constitution provides as follows:
U.S. Constitution Article VI
....This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the contrary notwithstanding.... (Emphasis supplied)
Any American citizen, including Plaintiffs, can claim rights under the disposition of a
treaty in domestic courts. The United States is signatory to various treaties protecting the voting
rights of American citizens which are therefore applicable law for purposes of this claim and
which justify the herein requested relief by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs request for declaratory judgment
and relief in this complaint is supported under Art VI of the U.S. Constitution by the following
international treaties, and/or resolutions to which the United States is signatory:
1) International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Articles 2, 3,5 25
and 26
2) U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 2, 7, and 21.
3) OAS Democratic Charter. Articles 1,2,3,6,7,8 and 9.
4) OAS American Declaration . Articles II, XX, XXIII)
b-1)
ICCPR
Defendant became signatory to the Treaty of the International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights in September 8, 1992.
It provides for voting rights, and to the right to
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,

48
.... Agree upon the following articles
Article 2
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.
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized
are violated shall have effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation
has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right
thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative
authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal
system of the States, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when
granted.
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:

49
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing
the free expressions of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on the general terms of equality, to public service in his
country.
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to
the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any
discrimination and guarantees to all persons equal and effective protection against
discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status....
The articles previously cited are evidence that Defendant recognizes as signatory the
importance of government by consent, not only nationally, but for citizens of other countries.
Moreover that it is in violation of its legal obligations under the Treaty by its discriminatory
denial of Plaintiffs voting rights in elections for Representatives to Congress, and by excluding
Puerto Rico from the apportionment process. The Treaty (ICCPR) is legally binding in the
United States, and has been invoked by private citizens securing rights under its dispositions.
See, Alvarez Machain v. U.S., 266 f3d 1045 (9th Circuit 2001) at 1052, where the Court held
that international human rights instruments such as the ICCPR, are evidence of customary
international law. The Court should grant the relief requested in this claim considering the
obligations of Defendant under the ICCPR Treaty, to all American citizens, including the
American citizens residents of Puerto Rico which were not excluded from the Treaty, and
considering the disposition of US Constitution - Article VI.
Consider that Other status in Article 2 has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights
Committee to include residence. (Sweden, Comm. No. 298/1998, Hum. Rts. Comm., 40th

50
Sess., U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/40/D/2981198 (1990).) To this end, the ICCPR prohibits
differentiating between citizens based on residence. According to the international legal
obligations the U.S. has voluntarily undertaken under the ICCPR and other human rights
instruments, distinguishing, for purposes of the right to vote in elections for Representatives
to the US House of Representatives between U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico and those
living in the States of the Union for the purpose of their right to vote, is neither reasonable
nor objective. It constitutes a violation of Article 2(1), prohibiting discrimination. Moreover,
the exclusion of a citizen from the rights enjoyed by other citizens in the States, because he
or she is a resident of Puerto Rico, has no justifiable basis, as interpreted by the Human
Rights Committee, and constitutes a violation of Article 25 of the Covenant, specifically the
dispositions contained under paragraphs (a) and (b) providing for political participation and
the right to vote.
b-2)
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

This Court should also consider that since 1947 the United States is signatory to the
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,

51
whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation
of sovereignty.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any
discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such
discrimination.
Article 21
... 3.) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this
will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free
voting procedures.
The articles previously cited are evidence that Defendant recognizes as signatory the
importance of government by consent not only nationally, but for citizens of other countries, and
that it is in violation of its legal obligation under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by
its discriminatory denial of Plaintiffs voting rights in elections for Representatives to the US
Congress.
The Court should grant the relief requested in this claim considering the obligations of
Defendant under the U.N. Declaration, to all American citizens, including the American citizens
residents of Puerto Rico, which were not excluded from the Declaration, and under the
disposition of US Constitution - Article VI.
b-3)
THE INTER-AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC CHARTER, ADOPTED BY

THE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
(INCLUDING DEFENDANT AS SIGNATORY) APRIL 29, 2002.
For purposes of this complaint, this Court should consider that since Sept. 1, 2001, the
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,

52
and development of the region, and that one of the purposes of the OAS is to
promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the
principle of nonintervention;
RECOGNIZING the contributions of the OAS and other regional and subregional mechanisms to the promotion and consolidation of democracy in the
Americas;....
REAFFIRMING that the participatory nature of democracy in our countries in
different aspects of public life contributes to the consolidation of democratic
values and to freedom and solidarity in the Hemisphere;
CONSIDERING that solidarity among and cooperation between American
states require the political organization of those states based on the effective
exercise of representative democracy, and that economic growth and social
development based on justice and equity, and democracy are interdependent and
mutually reinforcing;....
RECOGNIZING that all the rights and obligations of members states under
the OAS Charter represent the foundation on which democratic principles in the
Hemisphere are built; and
BEARING IN MIND the progressive development of international law and
the advisability of clarifying the provisions set forth in the OAS Charter and
related basic instruments on the preservation and defense of democratic
institutions, according to established practice,
RESOLVES:
To adopt the following:
Article 1
The peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments
have an obligation to promote and defend it.
Democracy is essential for the social, political, and economic development of
the peoples of the Americas.
Article 2
The effective exercise of representative democracy is the basis for the rule of
law and of the constitutional regimes of the member states of the Organization of
American States. Representative democracy is strengthened and deepened by
permanent, ethical, and responsible participation of the citizenry within a legal
framework conforming to the respective constitutional order.

53
Article 3
Essential elements of representatives democracy include, inter alia, respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power
in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections
based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the
sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and
organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of
government
Article 6
. It is the right and responsibility of all citizens to participate in decisions
relating to their own development. This is also necessary condition for the full
and effective exercise of democracy. Promoting and fostering diverse forms of
participation strengthens democracy.
II Democracy and Human Rights
Article 7
Democracy is indispensable for the effective exercise of fundamental
freedoms and human rights in their universality, indivisibility and
interdependence, embodied in the respective constitutions of states and in interAmerican and international human rights instruments.
Article 8
Member states reaffirm their intention to strengthen the Inter-American
system for the protection of human rights for the consolidation of democracy in
the Hemisphere.
Article 9
The elimination of all forms of discrimination, especially gender, ethnic and
race discrimination, as well as diverse forms of intolerance, the promotion and
protection of human rights of indigenous peoples and migrants, and respect for
ethnic, cultural and religious diversity in the Americas contribute to strengthening
democracy and citizen participation.
The articles previously cited are evidence that Defendant as signatory recognizes the
importance of government by consent not only nationally, but for citizens of other countries, and
that it is in violation of its legal obligation under the Democratic Charter by its discriminatory

54
denial of voting rights to Plaintiffs in Congressional elections. Defendant, the United States, has
actively promoted the applicability of the Charter in the OAS, particularly to promote earlier
elections in Venezuela.
The Court should consider also the importance given by Defendant to
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)
Situation in Venezuela, CP/RES. 811 (1315/02), 13 April 2002.
Declaration on Democracy in Venezuela, AG/DEC. 28 (XXXII-O/02), June 4, 2002.
Support for the Process of Dialogue in Venezuela, CP/RES. 821 (1329/02), 14

August 2002.
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 Democratic Government of the Constitutional President of the

Republic of Guatemala, Alfonso Portillo, and for the Institutions of the Rule of Law,
CP/RES. 784 (1266/01), 28 February 2001.
Support for Democracy in Haiti, CP/RES. 786 (1267/01), 15 March 2001.
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

55
apportionment process. If relief requested in this claim is granted, these will achieve political
equality within the national sphere by having representatives to the House of Representatives
elected in Puerto Rico with their consent. Within this context, Plaintiffs claim for the right to
vote should be considered by this Court within the perspective of the present US Federal
democratic policies, both nationally, where the right to vote has been largely extended by the
Courts and by Congress as deriving from American Citizenship; and, internationally, where the
Defendant has been assuming the leadership of promoting democratic governments in Grenada,
Haiti,
Panama, Kuwait, the Eastern block former communist countries,
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)
OAS AMERICAN DECLARATION

The OAS American Declaration states also in pertinent part:
"Article II. All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties
established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed
or any other factor".
"Article XX. Every person having legal capacity is entitled to participate in the
government of his country, directly or through his representatives, and to take part
in popular elections, which shall be by secret ballot, and shall be honest, periodic
and free".

56
Those provisions of the systems human rights instruments that guarantee political rights,
including Article XX of the American Declaration, must be interpreted and applied so as to give
meaningful effect to the exercise of representative democracy in the American Hemisphere.
Article XXIII provides also as follows:
"Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities:
a.) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives;
b.) to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will
of the voters
Therefore, to the extent that each of the Plaintiffs, unlike similarly-situation
citizens elsewhere in the United States, do not have the right to vote for representatives in
their national legislature (US House of Representatives), who have an effective
opportunity to influence legislation considered by Congress, these have been denied an
equal right under law in accordance with Article II of the Declaration to participate in the
government of their country by reason of their place of residence, and accordingly their
right under Articles XX of the Declaration to participate in their federal government has
been limited or restricted. In this respect, the Court should determine that the existence of
Defendant's intent to discriminate against the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico
since 1898 has had a disproportionately prejudicial impact upon a particular group,
namely the population of Puerto Rico, which is mainly Hispanic, a violation of US
Constitution Amendment XV.
This Court should consider as supportive to this Complaint the opinion of the
OAS Human Rights Committee in the case of DC Statehood Solidarity Committee v U.S. OAS (Case # 11, 2004 - Report #98-03-12-29-2003), where a group of American citizens
residents of the District of Columbia, similarly as in this case, claimed their right to vote

57
for representatives to the US House of Representatives. The Commission determined that
the U.S. was violating their democratic rights by such denial. " The state (U.S.) has failed
to justify the denial to Petitioners of effective representation in their Federal government
... Petitioners have been denied an effective right to participate in their government,
directly or through freely closen representatives". (Note 109).
Whether under national or international democratic policies, the right to vote is a
fundamental right, which our Constitution guarantees to all citizens. See, e.g., Bush v.
Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 198 (1992); Tashjian v.
Republican Party, 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 49 n.55 (1976);
Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 721 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972);
Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections,
383 U.S. 663, 667 (1966); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561-562 (1964); Wesberry v.
Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7 (1964):
No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election
of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other
rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our
Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily
abridges this right.
The Treaties cited are evidence that Defendant considers American citizenship is the
source of the right to vote in Congressional elections, and that it has undertaken the obligation
together with other countries formalized by treaties to secure voting rights to its citizens
domestically. Moreover, the treaties establish the United States affirmative obligation: to ensure
that any person whose rights, as recognized in the treaties, are violated shall have an effective
remedy; to provide that such person shall have (his/ her) right determined by a competent judicial
authority, and to develop the possibilities of judicial dispositions. ( ICCPR, Article 2 paragraph
3 b); J.R. Torruella, the Insular Cases: A Declaration of Their Bankruptcy Harvard Law School,
February 19, 2014). Plaintiffs are requesting judicial remedy also under the dispositions of the

58
treaties invoked.
Thus, the treaties cited
support Plaintiffs claim of voting rights for
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

59
the United States, except to 4th, 5th and 6th generation American citizens as Plaintiffs residing in a
geographical location inside the United Sates, in this case in the incorporated Territory of Puerto
Rico. This congressional policy, as implemented by the US Executive Branch, should be
considered by this Hon. Court to judicially dispose that there are U.S. constitutional provisions
made applicable to Puerto Rico that can be applied to implement the electoral process of voting
for Representatives to Plaintiffs and to all American citizens residents of Puerto Rico: the
Necessary and Proper Clause, (Art. I- Section 8), the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article
IV Section 2), Treaty Clause, (Article VI Section 2), and the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments.
Naturalization requirements include U.S. residence (typically five years), the possession of
good moral character, demonstrated English proficiency, and a basic knowledge of U.S. civics
and history. Consider that the US Immigration Pamphlet states that practically, naturalized
immigrants gain important benefits, including the right to vote, security from deportation,
access to certain public-sector jobs, and the ability to travel abroad on a U.S. passport The
United States benefits from having eligible foreign-born persons naturalize and acquire U.S.
citizenship. By naturalizing, the foreign born are able to vote in public elections, participate in
jury duty, and run for elective office where citizenship is required.
Even aliens in the US military qualify for American citizenship by naturalization. Since
the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, Congress has expressed interest in
streamlining and expediting naturalizations for military personnel and in providing immigration
benefits for their immediate relatives. (Hon. President Obama stated: this is a Country of
immigrants Z.A. Goldfarb, Obama calls for immigration reform , The Washington Post,
July 4, 2014). The reported deaths in action of noncitizen soldiers drew attention to the
immigration laws that grant posthumous citizenship and to the advantages of further expediting
naturalization for noncitizens serving in the U.S. military. Naturalization policy in 2012 was as

60
follows:
U.S. NATURALIZATION PROCESS IN 2012

Petitions Filed
Persons Naturalized
Military
899,162
757,434
7,257
Source: DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration

Statistics: 2012, Table 20.
In the past five years almost 3.7 million aliens have been naturalized, and have obtained ,
right as American citizens, including the right to vote in federal elections. In contrast, the 3.7
million American citizens residing in Puerto Rico cannot elect five Representatives to Congress.
Consider that Naturalized Aliens from the military are given full voting rights to vote in
Federal Elections. In Contrast, the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico in the military are
discriminated by the denial of such voting rights. This policy situates the American citizens
residents of Puerto Rico in the embarrassing situation of defending democracy abroad for citizens
of other countries while being discriminated at home by the denial of voting in Federal Elections.
These defend and die for the democratic rights of all American citizens in the Nation, and of
those of citizens of foreign countries, while being discriminatorily denied the right to vote for five
representatives to Congress because of the residential location in the United States, the
incorporated Territory of Puerto Rico, and/or because of ethnic considerations. (For an example
of American citizens from Puerto Rico in the military awarded the Congressional Gold Medal,
but discriminated for federal electoral vote purposes, see, 65th Infantry, www.nbcnews.com). This
discriminatory practice, as the others cited, must stop and be eliminated to grant the voting rights
in Congressional elections to Plaintiffs, to protect their right to government by Consent.
Moreover, for purposes of naturalization, time spent in marital union with a same-sex
spouse is now being treated exactly the same as opposite-sex marriages for fulfilling the required

61
residence period of naturalization.
On the other hand, Plaintiffs are not requesting something unprecedented. The
discriminatory practice by Defendant to Plaintiffs goes to such an extent that aliens have been
previously allowed to vote in Federal Elections without American citizenship. That is, citizenship
has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage in
Federal elections. This was the practice before 1900 in the following states:
- Missouri
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Florida
- Georgia
- Indiana
- Kansas
- Minnesota
- Texas
- Others
(See, Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874); also, see the Federal government,
hoping to encourage settlement, expressly permitted aliens to vote in the Northwest Territories
. A. Keyssar, the Right to Vote, 32, 33 and, Table A-12 (2000). (See also: J.B. Laskin Legal
Aliens, Local Citizens: The Historical, Constitutional and Theoretical Meanings of Alien
Suffrage, Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Review 1391-1470 Vol. 141).
The discriminatory electoral practices previously described have provoked legal,
social, political, and economic problems to Plaintiffs as is stated below.

62
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,

63
while at the same time it has denied the American citizens residing in Puerto Rico the
right to elect Representatives.
Section 936 tax policies have benefited U.S. corporations since 1921 with more
than $1.2 trillon dollars in tax free income. These corporations were able to be more
competitive worldwide with income that was received federal tax free from operations in
Puerto Rico. Employment was created in Puerto by 936 Corporations, but at the expense
of holding the American citizens of Puerto Rico in a state of servitude of government
without consent, because that would have been the end of Section 936. The tax free
income benefits were so lucrative in contrast to the number of jobs created in Puerto
Rico, that the so called US 936 Corporations opposed any attempt on the part of Congress
to grant residents of Puerto Rico federal voting rights because that would be the end of
the Section 936.
Millions of dollars were spent annually by the 936 Corporations for lobbyists in
Congress to oppose any attempt by the American citizens residents in Puerto Rico to
pursue their democratic aspirations as members of the American Family. These lobbyists
worked in consideration of their own monetary interests, without any regard to the state of
servitude by federal government without consent affecting the American citizens residents
of Puerto Rico.
The IRC Section 936 tax policy ended but presently these corporations have been
allowed to operate in Puerto Rico as IRC 901 foreign corporations, having the same
discriminatory expectations of perpetuating Puerto Ricos territorial status at the expense
of the denial of federal democratic rights to the American citizens of Puerto Rico.
Plaintiffs and all American citizens of Puerto Rico need and end to this discriminatory
federal policy. Monetary benefits exchanged as substitute of government by consent of
the governed cannot be justified on any moral ground. (Ex Governor Luis Muoz Marin

64
Verguenza Contra Dinero, 1948-1964. (See also, C. Romero They speak with forked
tongues, Caribbean Business, July 4th, 2014; H. Padilla, La estadidad es la nica opcin,
7 de Julio, el Nuevo Dia; The Economist, Puerto Rico debt Crisis- neither a state nor
independent, July 5, 2014.
Relief is necessary so that Plaintiffs can have five
Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives to supervise and/or censure these

policies and have a voice to adopt viable tax polices under domestic law and applicability.
(See, for example: Casiano, Obama White House can help Puerto Rico on Section 933A, 1 Caribbean Business, Dec. 12, 2013).
VIII.)
LEGAL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL DAMAGES AS A

CONSEQUENCE OF DEFENDANTS DISCRIMINATORY ELECTORAL
PRACTICE TOWARD RESIDENTS OF PUERTO RICO
The discriminatory electoral practices described are clear evidence that the Defendant has
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

65
Amendment XV because of ethnic and geographical discrimination .
Moreover, as accepted by the United States as signatory to the OAS Democratic Charter,
the citizens that are denied democratic rights will suffer as a consequence legal, political social
and economic damages. (Charter Art. I). (Pleading VII 1-E-d). The discriminatory electoral
practices on the part of Defendant, as set forth in Pleading VII, who is a signatory to the
Democratic Charter, have had a negative impact on the legal, social, political, and economic
developments of Plaintiff, which will continue until the time that the requested relief of this claim
is finally granted.
There is preponderant evidence that the cause of the injury to the Plaintiffs and to the 3.7
million American citizens residing in Puerto Rico is the Defendants unlawful and deliberate
acts, and course of conduct, which are in violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Plaintiffs
have suffered legal, political, social, and economical damages as stated in this complaint, and
particularly as follows:
1)
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).

66
.The current Commonwealth structure does not generate enough economic
resources and capital to put its own house in order in a relatively short time. And,
unfortunately, the Commonwealth receives but a fraction of the federal monies
States receive. The problem, thus, is one which both the United States and
Commonwealth must work together to resolve for the benefit of its people. The
Court sees the same story played out over and over: in cases involving compliance
with federal mandates, the Commonwealth must act like any State of the Union; it
must comply with the Federal Constitution and laws enacted by Congress; but, it
does not have the fiscal resources in place to do so. And, historically, time after
time, the Commonwealth is readily incapable of coming into full compliance with
federal law. (Id.) (See also, J. Torruella, Harvard Law Conference
Reconsidering the Insular Cases 2014; C. Howard, PRs Municipal Bond
Dilemma: Is Statehood. The only Viable option?
2)
Puerto Rico's annual

GAO Report.)
income per capita is less-than 50% of the Nation. (2014
3)
Puerto Ricos contribution to the U.S. Treasury (Taxation without

Representation)
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.

67
Residents of Puerto Rico contributed in the year 2012 to the U.S. Treasury 70 % of what
the residents of New Mexico did in business income taxes.
Moreover, the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico pay more than $7.9 billion
dollars annually to the State Treasury (C.A. Colon De Armas, La Carga Impositiva de los
Puertorriqueos, 22 El Vocero, 8 de junio de 2012).
4)
Dollar amounts, unemployment rates, and demographics

(http://www.caribbeanbusinesspr/news)
a. Unemployment 12/20/2013. PR unemployment holds at 14.7 %, payroll jobs down by
40,800 YOY.
1. Unemployment rate in PR in November 2013 was double the national (USA)
average.
2. Labor participation rate was 41.4 %, lower that the national (USA) average.
3. Jobs lost in PR between Nov. 2012 and Nov. 2013:
Government = 22,500
Construction = 5700
Manufacturing = 2500
Trade, transportation, utilities = 2100
Professional and business services = 4400
Education and health services = 2400
Financial activities = 900
4. Total jobs lost in PR = 40,500 in a 12 month period.
b.
Bankruptcies 12/20/2013. Bankruptcies tracking higher in 2013.

Bankruptcies in PR: November 2012 = 685
November 2013 = 823 (20 % more)
Nov. 2012 to Nov. 2013 = 9887

68
The 15 largest commercial bankruptcies in PR for the first 10 months of 2013 totaled
$353.5 million.
c.
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.
White House OMB report shows Puerto Ricos territorial
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 =
as much as $700 million.
Medicare and SSI =
at least $1.5 billion.
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
Department of Justice Program Awards as compared to the territories is shown below:
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Awards as of September 30, 2011.
(The World Almanac and Book of Facts. 2013).

69
STATE/OR TERRITORY
GRANT
POPULATION
AWARD PER CAPITA
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,
Puerto Rico has to bear most of the
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

70
of Puerto Rico.
f.
Less medicaid funding. More than $1.03 billion.
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

71
Rico to obtain federal funds from Congress are channeled by highly paid lobbyists and by the
Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration
in Washington D.C.
Thus Puerto Rico is
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.

72
IX.
RELIEF BY JUDICIAL ORDER IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT

THE APPORTIONMENT
DISTRICTS
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).

73
The relief herein requested is one pertinent for judicial disposition and is long overdue.
As Honorable Judge Torruella once stated:
The archaic notion.... that the United States can have a class of several
million of its citizens in a subservient condition ad infinitum, with less
rights that even aliens who reside in the United States, makes no sense and
cannot today be sustained on legal, moral or logical grounds.... It is the .....
Court which should correct this grave injustice...., (J. Torruella, The
Doctrine of Separate and Unequal, Chapter VI at. 268).
This Honorable Court should determine that the present denial by Defendant to Plaintiffs,
all 4th, 5th and 6th generation American citizens residents of Puerto Rico, to vote in elections for
U.S. Representatives, to the House of the People, constitutes a practice of an electoral policy
of inequality that keeps them in a state of servitude as a separate discriminated class of voters,
(See US Const Art. XV) and which cannot have a place in the field of voting rights considering
present judicial interpretation, legislation by Congress, and Defendants international democratic
obligations. There is no legal impediment to eliminate it. (This illegal electoral practice by
analogy was eliminated by judicial intervention in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, 74
SCt. 686).
Such denial has no rational basis and it cannot be upheld. Moreover, it is clearly in
conflict with this Courts holding that in voting rights the American citizens residents of Puerto
Rico are constitutionally protected to the same extent as those of all other citizens of the United
States. This Court stated in Rivera Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 US 1, 1982,
that:
....It is not disputed that the fundamental protections of the United States Constitution extend to
the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. See Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 US 465, 469-470, 61 L Ed 2d 1,
99 S. Ct. 2425 (1979).
In particular, we have held that Puerto Rico is subject to the

74
constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws. Examining Board v.
Flores de Otero, 426 US 572, 599-601, 49 L Ed 2d 65, 96 S Ct 2264 (1976); Calero Toledo v.
Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 US 663, 40 L Ed. 2d 452, 94 S Ct 2080 (1974). We thus think
that the voting rights are constitutionally protected to the same extent as those of all other
citizens of the United States.... (See also Mora v.
Mejias , 206 F2d 377; PanAmerican
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

75
PR Police Dept.), bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all American Citizens
residents of Puerto Rico, for a declaration of their rights to vote in elections for Representatives
to the US House of Representatives, and to be included in the apportionment process that assigns
Congressional Districts, considering they have the same at stake in such elections as all other
American citizens (Pleading V).
The discriminatory denial can only be ended by enjoining Defendant from performing
any more acts, or duties, or electoral practices related to such discriminatory denial. (Pleadings
VII -1- A to G). Federal Congressional Elections will be held in November 2014, time is of the
essence, and Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy other than the judicial relief sought herein.
Until this Court grants the judicial relief herein requested, Defendant will continue to deprive
Plaintiffs of their voting rights requested in this complaint, and will continue with the
discriminatory electoral practices as those described in Pleadings VII-1 A to G. Moreover,
economic and social damages will continue to affect Plaintiffs as residents of Puerto Rico. Only
judicial relief can remedy this condition. Consider as stated below:
."The goals of democracy have been substantially furthered by the judiciary,
especially under the equal protection clause in the apportionment cases and others which
removed shackles on the exercise of the franchise. 13A C. A. Wright, A. R. Miller, & E.
H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 3534.1, n.5 (2d. 1984) (citing Choper,
Judicial Review and the National Political Process 71-72, 127 (1980))
Since the right to vote is the most fundamental right for American citizens, including for
Plaintiffs and for all the American citizens of Puerto Rico, this issue deserves to be clarified by
the Federal Courts of the United States through the available remedies in this action. Declaratory
judgment granting the requested relief in this complaint is necessary to order the US Secretary of
Commerce and other U.S. Government Officials to implement the apportionment process to
Puerto Rico, for the President to send the Apportionment Report to the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, and for Congress to take the necessary complementary remedial actions for

76
such electoral purposes.
X.
REQUEST AND PRAYER TO COURT
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court:
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)
denies or abridges the inherent constitutional protections of these citizens

to vote for five US House Representatives from Puerto Rico.
2)
denies or abridges the inherent constitutional right of these citizens to

enjoy their free movement across State lines
3)
denies or abridges the privileges and immunities guaranteed to these

citizens as to all others U.S. citizens under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1,
of the Constitution
4)
may have the impermissible purpose or effect of denying these citizens

the right to vote for Representatives to the House because of the way they
may vote;
5)
may have the impermissible purpose or effect of denying these citizens

the right to vote for Representatives to the House because a state's number
of representatives may be diminished under the apportionment formula
that assigns congressional districts by including Puerto Rico.
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)
is in conflict with Defendants democratic commitment nationally and

internationally (including with treaties to which it is signatory)
8)
does not bear a reasonable relationship to any compelling national interest

in the conduct of Congressional elections; and
9)
is contrary to the treaty obligations and international policies of Defendant

77
applicable to voting rights of its American citizens, including the
American citizens residents of Puerto Rico and as required by Art. V1, of
the U.S. Constitution. Within this context, that under Art. I, of
Defendants democratic obligations under the Inter American
Democratic Charter their social, political and economic development
has been affected negatively with damages (Pleading VIII) by such
denial, and will continue to be affected until requested relief is granted
finally by this Court, therefore making the need one of urgent and
expeditious judicial implementation granting the requested relief.
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
Defendant, under present Federal judicial constitutional interpretation, under
present
Congressional legislation, and under present Federal Executive Branch constitutional

applicability to support cases and or policies related to the American Citizens residents of the
incorporated Territory Puerto Rico, and under present applicable U.S. international treaty
obligations and democratic policies, can adopt and must implement the necessary adequate steps
to grant the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico their fundamental right to vote for

78
Representatives to the United States House of Representatives, the House of the People For
these purposes, order Defendant, and all the U.S. Government officials in charge of
implementing the apportionment process to assign congressional districts to elect five
Representatives to the House in Puerto Rico, and to take all the necessary steps, considering that
Congressional elections will be held in November 2014, and order pertinent or adequate remedy
it deems necessary in relation to implementing the apportionment of Representatives electoral
process to Puerto Rico.
These Government Officials include:
- 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
3.) That this Court declares that it is evident from the foregoing that Plaintiffs, and all
others similarly situated in Puerto Rico, are governed by Representatives in Congress that adopt
laws for Puerto Rico while not elected by their vote, and that such denial conflicts with the
concept of government by consent of the governed, and is contrary to the prevailing principles
of U.S. democratic government, and as recognized by the Courts.
4.) That equity consideration demands that Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated
(more than 3.7 million American citizens) must have the right to vote in Elections for
Representatives to the US House Representatives.
5.) That this Court decrees, adjudge, and determine the rights of Plaintiffs, and of all
other United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico who are qualified to vote under local State
laws, to vote for Representatives to the Congress of the United States. (According to the
proportion of minimum population required with respect to the total population of Puerto Rico,
would be assigned five Representatives in the process determined for electing representatives
from each state under the apportionment process), and order any other further equitable relief

79
which it deems proper.
6.) That this Court provide the Plaintiffs with an effective remedy, which includes
adopting all measures necessary to guarantee these the effective voting rights to participate,
directly through five freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, in their
national legislature in the US House of Representatives.
D.) That with respect to the relief sought in this claim, the Court orders all adequate remedies as
it deems proper and just at law to protect Plaintiffs voting rights in a rapid and effective manner,
including protecting Plaintiffs due process rights by ordering Defendant to Answer this
Complaint, and process the complaint as required under the rules for Declaratory Relief.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy other than judicial reliefs sought herein. Until this Court
grants the judicial relief's herein requested, Defendant will continue with the discriminatory
deprivation of voting rights for Representatives to the US House of Representatives suffered by
Plaintiffs, including the social, political, and economic damages, as consequences. Only judicial
relief as requested in this complaint, can remedy such condition.
E.)
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
Dated this 14 day of July, 2014.

S/GREGORIO IGARTUA
GREGORIO IGARTUA
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS & PRO -SE
COMERCIO ST. #52, AGUADILLA, PR
BOX 3911, AGUADILLA, PR 00605
TEL (787)891-9040,
FAX (787) 882-3011
USDC ATTY. NO. 130712
bufeteigartua@yahoo.com

80

Igartua vs. United States of America

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Igartua vs. United States of America

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL NO. 14-1558

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 2 of 80

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

the Fourteenth Amendment,

Sections 1 and 2 - the Fifteenth Amendment.

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 4 of 80

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 5 of 80

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 6 of 80

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

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 7 of 80

a Republican form of Government for Puerto Rico (See U.S.

Const. Art. IV Section 4)

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 8 of 80

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 9 of 80

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

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

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 10 of 80

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 11 of 80

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 12 of 80

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 13 of 80

By participating actively in the military campaigns of the United States. Many

By legislation on December 3, 1962, the Puerto Rico Legislature approved Joint

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

Federal electoral laws apply to Puerto Rico

The American citizens residents of Puerto Rico voted by a margin in excess of

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 15 of 80

Plaintiffs are not pro-American, they are

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 16 of 80

WHAT IS AT STAKE IN ELECTIONS FOR REPRESENTATIVES TO THE

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 17 of 80

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 18 of 80

THE APPORTIONMENT PROCESS TO ELECT US

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

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 19 of 80

Article I of the original Constitution specifies that Representatives ... shall

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

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 20 of 80

= Five Representatives should be elected by the American citizens

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 21 of 80

The Plaintiffs includes as Defendants the following Public Officials:

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 22 of 80

DEFENDANTS DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES OF DENIAL OF THE

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 23 of 80

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 24 of 80

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 25 of 80

The 1952 Constitution of Puerto Rico

rights and privileges of democratic enjoyment to the

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 26 of 80

economic, and social consequences.

DISCRIMINATORY ELECTORAL PRACTICES BY DEFENDANT

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 27 of 80

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,

Consider as pertinent to this claim the following legislation:

National Voter Registration Act.

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 28 of 80

Case 3:14-cv-01558 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 29 of 80