L ATIMES.COM/OPINION THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2019A
OP-ED
‘W
e woke up!”
That’s how my
friend Nelly Cruz,
a publicist in San
Juan, explained
the massive street protests that led to
the resignation of Puerto Rico’s feck-
less and corrupt governor last month.
Alot of my fellow Puerto Ricans
had not expected such an awakening
in our lifetimes. There was just too
much to overcome — too much politi-
cal neglect and corruption and graft
and abuse of power. Among the Puerto
Rican people, there was too much pov-
erty and despair and political lethargy.
And yet, improbably, hundreds of
thousands of Puerto Ricans took to
the streets, and 15 days later, Gov. Ri-
cardo A. Rossello, the 40-year-old son
of a former governor, agreed to step
down. Since his July 25 resignation, his
constitutionally designated succes-
sor, Justice Secretary Wanda Vazquez
has refused to step up and others in
the line of succession have quit, or
been fired or arrested. On Wednesday,
Rossello named Pedro R. Pierluisi,
who formerly represented the island in
Congress, his new secretary of state, a
role that means he will likely take over
as governor when Rossello’s resigna-
tion becomes effective on Friday.
But heady and exciting as the
whole thing has been, the most impor-
tant days are to come. The next few
months will tell whether the crisis will
devolve into political chaos or lead to
fundamental changes, and which it
will be is far from certain.
Puerto Rico’s next chapter won’t be
written on a blank slate. The revolt
comes after 15 years of economic crises
that have included a massive debt
load, a bankruptcy and restructuring
plan and new austerity and budget
rules imposed by a fiscal oversight
board.
The island is still struggling to re-
cover from the devastation of Hurri-
cane Maria in 2017, something made
more difficult because of an inept gov-
ernment response and the disdain
shown for the island and its residents –
who are American citizens — by Presi-
dent Trump.
The current upheaval grew out of
more recent scandals. First came reve-
lations in late June of an “institutional
mafia” operating in the Treasury De-
partment. Days later, in a separate
case, two top former Cabinet mem-
bers were indicted on federal corrup-
tion charges.
The lid was blown off on July 13,
when private text messages involving
the governor and his inner circle were
leaked. Hundreds of pages revealed
plots to manipulate public opinion
and crude comments against LGBTQ
advocates, victims of Hurricane Maria
and a variety of women. (In the mes-
sages, the governor called former New
York City Council Speaker Melissa
Mark-Viverito a “whore.”)
Public outrage about the scandals
was immediate and widespread,
touching every sector of the island’s 3.
million people as well as Puerto Ricans
on the mainland. Led by throngs of
young people, popular music stars
and women’s groups like Colectiva
Feminista and Victoria Ciudadana,
the protests spilled over expressways,
neighborhoods and the protest’s epi-
center, the streets leading to La Forta-
leza, the governor’s mansion, in Old
San Juan.
So now what?
Some fear that the federal over-
sight board, known as the junta, will
expand its powers over the island.
Some fear that chaos and instability
will drive more Puerto Ricans to leave
and tourists to stay away.
Everyone agrees that change is es-
sential, but it is unclear who can steer
that change.
For now, the island’s two largest po-
litical parties have little credibility.
The protesters who rose up so effec-
tively have little trust in any status quo
politician, even Mayor Carmen Yulin
Cruz of San Juan, who plans to run for
governor in 2020.
Carmen Haydee Rivera, an English
professor at the University of Puerto
Rico, believes whatever happens next
is in the hands of the younger genera-
tion. “They are the driving force.”
Some political watchers are look-
ing to Alexandra Lugaro, who ran forgovernor as an independent in 2016
and is affiliated with the progressive
Victoria Ciudadana, or citizens’ vic-
tory, movement. She “may be one of
the emerging leaders of Puerto Rico,”
said Jorge Duany, director and profes-
sor of the Cuban Research Institute at
Florida International University.
Lugaro received only 175,000 votes
in the 2016 election, or about 11%, but
that was the biggest showing for an in-
dependent candidate in decades. Her
path won’t be easy. The island has a
long tradition of passing power back
and forth between the Partido Nuevo
Progresista, which advocates state-
hood for the island, and the Partido
Popular Democratico, which does not.
But some Puerto Rico watchers be-
lieve the recent demonstrations have
changed the calculus entirely.
In the long term, Puerto Ricans
must deal with the festering problem
of the island’s status. Since it is neither
a state nor an independent nation, its
residents cannot vote in presidential
elections, though they are citizens,
and the island has no vote in the U.S.
Congress.
Andres W. Lopez, a San Juan attor-
ney and political insider, hopes that
will soon be addressed. “Puerto Rico
must use its newfound power to
change its unequal relationship with
the United States,” he told me. “The
emerging voices are clamoring for jus-
tice and for change. The future will
bring about the full equality of state-
hood ... or independence. ”
I hope he’s right. I left Puerto Rico
as a teenager to attend private school
in the United States and have never
lived there full time since. But like all
Puerto Ricans who left, I want my
birthplace to thrive. For me, Puerto
Rico’s status has always been at the
heart of its intractable problems. It
needs to become independent, or at
least an American state. To be a colony
in the 21st century is an anachronism.
But before tackling that, the island
must decide whether the recent exu-
berant demonstrations will lead to
longer term change and better leader-
ship. And that is something only the is-
land’s residents can decide.Luisita Lopez Torregrosais a
journalist and a former editor at the
New York Times. She is the author of
two nonfiction books, most recently,
“Before the Rain: A Memoir of Love &
Revolution.”PUERTO RICANScelebrated the resignation of Gov. Ricardo Rossello in response to widespread protests.
Dennis M. Rivera PichardoAssociated PressWhat comes next for Puerto Rico?
By Luisita Lopez Torregrosa
The months ahead
will tell whether the
crisis devolves into
political chaos or brings
fundamental change.
G
ov. Gavin Newsomon Tuesday took an impor-
tant step to providing California voters with
critical information to inform their election
choices. He did so by signing SB 27, which re-
quires all candidates for president to provide
their income tax returns to the California Secretary of State
as a precondition for appearing on the state’s primary elec-
tion ballot.
The new law is a legitimate expression of California’s
sovereign authority to regulate who is listed on its ballot
and ensure that voters are properly informed.
In appraising SB 27, there are two questions: First, is it
important for voters to have access to a presidential candi-
date’s tax returns? Second, is it constitutional for a state to
require this as a condition for being listed on the ballot? The
answer to both questions is an emphatic yes.
Acandidate’s tax returns include information about
what a candidate owns, which can let voters know of pos-
sible conflicts of interest and whether there are entangle-
ments with foreign businesses and foreign governments.
They reveal whether a candidate owes money and to whom.
Tax returns let voters know how much a candidate has
paid in taxes and what kind of tax loopholes and shelters he
or she has employed. The returns also can be used to verify a
candidate’s claim about wealth and income.
This is why, beginning with Richard Nixon in 1952, al-
most all presidential and vicepresidential candidates have
released at least some of their tax returns. Since the 1970s,
the practice had become standard for those seeking the
presidency — until Donald Trump. In 2016, Hillary Clinton
released eight years of her tax records. Jeb Bush released 33
years of returns.
As with any information, each voter can decide how
much the tax information matters when choosing among
candidates. But it is impossible to see an argument that it is
inherently irrelevant or that voters should not be able to
have access to this information.
The question then becomes whether the U.S. Constitu-
tion allows a state to require this kind of disclosure as a con-
dition for being listed on the ballot.
In many cases, the United States Supreme Court has ex-
pressed deference to the states in deciding what qualifica-
tions to impose as a condition for being on the ballot. In
Bullock vs. Carter (1972), the Court said, “Far from recog-
nizing candidacy as a ‘fundamental right,’” state govern-
ments have authority to set conditions that must be met for
a candidate to be on a ballot. The court has put qualifica-
tions on those conditions, saying that ballot access rules
are likely to be struck down if they discriminate against less
affluent candidates or impose restrictions on new or small
political parties. But requiring disclosure of tax returns
does not run afoul of these conditions.
Although most cases dealing with ballot access have in-
volved state and local elections, the constitutional princi-
ples are the same: State governments may set conditions
for being listed on the ballot so long as they serve important
interests and do not discriminate based on wealth or ideol-
ogy.
Opponents of SB 27 contend that it is inconsistent with
the Supreme Court’s decision in United States Term Limits
vs. Thornton (1995). In that case, Arkansas law prevented a
candidate for Congress from being listed on the ballot if he
or she had already served three terms in the United States
House of Representatives or two terms in the United States
Senate. The Supreme Court said that a state cannot im-
pose qualifications for being in Congress other than those
specified in the Constitution.
But a critical difference is that, in Thornton, the state
completely barred a candidate from being on the ballot if he
or she had exceeded the term limits specified by Arkansas
law. SB 27 allows candidates to be on the ballot so long as
they meet an additional simple requirement that almost all
presidential candidates already do: disclosing tax returns.
Obviously, this law was inspired by Trump’s refusal to
disclose his tax returns. But the law is not just about him; it
applies to all who wish to be listed on the state’s presidential
primary ballots. Indeed, Trump’s behavior shows exactly
why the law is needed.
Unlike other recent presidential candidates, he has re-
fused to disclose his tax returns and has claimed that this is
because he is being audited by the Internal Revenue Serv-
ice. But that’s nonsense: Nothing about an audit prevents
disclosure. Portions of the Trump tax returns have been ob-
tained by investigative reporters, and they have provided
important information about how much money he received
from his father (vastly more than he claimed) and how little
he paid in taxes.
Long ago, James Madison wrote that “knowledge will
forever govern ignorance. A people who mean to be their
own governors must arm themselves with the power which
knowledge gives.”
SB 27 will arm Californians with information to make
them better informed voters. Why would anyone object to
that?Erwin Chemerinskyis dean of the UC Berkeley School of
Law and a contributing writer to Opinion.Requiring candidate
tax returns is legal
By Erwin ChemerinskyA
long rivers proneto
overflowing, people
sometimes talk of pre-
paring for a 100-year
flood — a dangerous
surge of muddy, debris-filled water
so overwhelming it comes only
once a century.
In our political world, we are
now seeing a 100-year flood of toxic
speech and attitudes. The sludge
washing ashore includes President
Trump’s continuing cries of “fake
news!” and “traitors”; his rage at
immigrants and refugees; his tout-
ing of an “invasion” at the southern
border; and his recent round of at-
tacks on the four young congress-
women of color known as the
Squad.
Disturbing as they are, Trump’s
xenophobic venom and media ha-
tred aren’t unprecedented. The
last time we had a similar outpour-
ing from Washington was almost
exactly 100 years ago and it, too, in-
volved a flood of angry rhetoric and
a fear of immigrants, as well as re-
pression on an enormous scale.
That previous flood lasted for
three violent years during the pres-
idency of Woodrow Wilson — from
early 1917 to early 1920. It began sud-
denly, with intense anti-German
sentiment following the U.S. entry
into World War I.
Schools, colleges and universi-
ties abruptly stopped teaching the
“Kaiser’s tongue.” Iowa forbade
the use of German in public. In
Shawnee, Okla., a crowd burned
German books to mark the Fourth
of July. Berlin, Iowa, changed its
name to Lincoln. Chicago’s Bis-
marck Hotel became the Hotel
Randolf. Families named Schmidt
became Smith.
In Collinsville, Ill., a crowd
seized Robert Prager, a coal miner,
and lynched him because he was
German-born. In Washington,
D.C., when a man failed to stand up
as “The Star-Spangled Banner”
was played, a sailor behind him
shot him dead.
Congress rushed through the
draconian Espionage Act, which
outlawed anything that would
“cause insubordination, disloyalty,
mutiny, or refusal of duty in the mil-
itary,” paving the way for a broader
crackdown not just on potential
German sympathizers but on la-
bor organizers, the press and the
political left.
The president who oversaw this
particular 100-year flood was no
Donald Trump, not in his manner
anyway. Wilson carefully kept his
image as an above-the-fray idealist
by outsourcing inflammatory rhet-
oric to others, including to his spe-
cial emissary to Russia, Elihu
Root.Root embraced the role, declar-
ing to an audience at New York’s
Union League Club in August 1917
that “there are men walking about
the streets of this city tonight who
ought to be taken out at sunrise to-
morrow and shot for treason ....
There are some newspapers pub-
lished in this city every day the edi-
tors of which deserve conviction
and execution for treason.”
The Espionage Act gave the
Post Office great powers over the
press, and newspapers were cen-
sored, editors jailed and publica-
tions shut down. Some 75 news-
papers and periodicals either had
specific issues banned or were
forced to close entirely.
Vigilante groups sprang up
across the country. The largest was
the American Protective League,
an official auxiliary of the Justice
Department. With a membership
that swelled to 250,000, its ranks
regularly broke up antiwar meet-
ings and, by the tens of thousands,
beat up or made citizen’s arrests of
suspected draft dodgers.
Such was the frenzy in the air
that two police officers in Guthrie,
Okla., hearing a man reading
something aloud that spoke of
abuses and oppression, promptly
arrested him. When he protested
that it was the Declaration of Inde-
pendence written by Thomas Jef-
ferson, one cop responded: “OK,where is this Jefferson? We want
him, too!”
Since almost any industry
could be deemed essential to the
war effort at that time, the govern-
ment and private industry took the
opportunity to come down hard on
the growing labor movement.
On Sept. 5, 1917, federal agents
raided every office of the nation’s
most radical union, the Industrial
Workers of the World, known to all
as the Wobblies. From the group’s
Chicago headquarters alone, the
raiders took five tons of material.
More than 100 Wobblies were
brought to trial in Chicago,
charged with violating the Espio-
nage Act for their organizing activ-
ities, and all were found guilty.
Even after the war ended in
German defeat, the crackdown —
including heavy press censorship
—continued, for it had never really
been about the war. The flood of vi-
tuperation, threats and arrests
was part of a different kind of war, a
struggle against those trying to
rectify America’s staggering mald-
istribution of its bounty. In 1915, the
richest 1% of the population owned
35.6% of the country’s wealth. The
biggest threat to their position was
the militant wing of the labor
movement.
Today, the richest 1% owns an
even greater slice of the pie —
about 40% of national wealth.Sadly, there’s not much of a labor
movement left for them to crush,
but they have other targets. Pro-
gressives are advocating many
measures that would help rectify
the gross inequalities of this
America of ours, from health insur-
ance for all to free college tuition to
raising taxes on the highest in-
comes and taxing wealth.
Suppressing such efforts is the
central aim of Donald Trump and
the people around him. While the
rest of us are furiously disputing
whether he’s a racist or a patriot,
he and his friends are quietly reap-
ing the rewards of a tax cut that
was a massive giveaway to billion-
aires, while his administration
fast-tracks oil pipelines, opens up
federal land to drilling and mining,
boosts for-profit diploma mills
that exploit the poor and puts
foxes in charge of every henhouse
in sight, including the Consumer
Product Safety Commission and
the Environmental Protection
Agency. These are the issues that
the hundred-year flood of rhetoric
distracts us from.Adam Hochschildteaches at
UC Berkeley’s graduate school of
journalism and is the author most
recently of “Lessons from a Dark
Time and Other Essays.” A longer
version of this essay appears at
TomDispatch.Woodrow Wilson also fanned the flames of hate
By Adam Hochschild