-
What is Right to Democracy?
Right to Democracy is a non-profit organization that is building a movement to confront and dismantle the undemocratic colonial framework that impacts over 10 million people – 3.6 million in U.S. territories and over 6 million more in the territorial diaspora. Our vision is that people in U.S. territories should have power and agency over the decisions that impact their lives. We approach all our work through the shared values of building common ground, respecting differences, provoking change, staying focused, and avoiding toxicity. Together with a diverse Cross-Territorial Coalition, we use participatory advocacy, narrative and cultural change, and ecosystem building to advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories. Working across traditional partisan and ideological divides, we do not take a position on status outcomes. But we believe it is time for a reckoning: U.S. colonial rule is real, wrong, and needs to end now.
-
Does Right to Democracy take a position on what is the “best” political status?
No, Right to Democracy does not favor any particular status option over another, other than to reject the undemocratic colonial framework that currently governs U.S. territories. We are careful in our work not to put a “thumb on the scale” of any status result. Our core belief is that the future political status of each territory must be determined by the people of each territory.
-
Why does Right to Democracy work with people and organizations who have different views on political status and political ideology?
Right to Democracy and the Cross-Territorial Coalition we coordinate includes people and organizations whose views on political status range the full spectrum from pro-Statehood to pro-Independence and options in between. While we are exclusively a non-partisan organization, our work brings together people who identify as both Democrats and Republicans and includes people from the major political parties in Puerto Rico. The fact that Supreme Court Justices with as different views as Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor both reject the colonial framework governing the Territories highlights how these issues are not partisan or ideological.
We work across partisan and status differences for two reasons. First, our core values include building common ground, respecting differences, and avoiding toxicity. This means working collectively with people from diverse perspectives to improve understanding, co-create new meanings, and leverage collective power to achieve a common objective. It also means listening with an open mind, empathizing with lived experiences, acknowledging power dynamics, and treating everyone with dignity. Second, a key lesson we have learned over the course of dozens of listening sessions with people from across all five territories is that there is much more that unites us than what separates us. Internal divisions over political status or partisan ideology have historically been used as an excuse for continued inaction by the federal government on issues of democracy and self-determination in U.S. territories. We believe people can respectfully differ on solutions while sharing a deep underlying common understanding of the problem and the need for change. From this shared foundation, we can work together in true solidarity and community towards a reckoning that U.S. colonial rule is real, wrong, and needs to end now.
-
What do you mean by the “undemocratic colonial framework”?
The undemocratic colonial framework governing people in U.S. territories today was established by all three branches of the federal government following the Spanish-American War and continues in full force until today. It is grounded in the idea that the United States has the power to unilaterally govern the people of island territories without their say and without their consent. Justice Neil Gorsuch has labeled this relationship “American colonialism.” The legal foundation of this framework is the Insular Cases, a series of controversial Supreme Court decisions Justice Sonia Sotomayor has called “odious and wrong,” and Justice Gorsuch has declared “deserve no place in our law” because they “have no foundation in the Constitution and rest instead on racial stereotypes.” This colonial framework is also characterized by the legal doctrine of “plenary power,” where the Supreme Court has described the power of Congress over people in the Territories as “absolute and undisputed.” Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence, recently questioned this doctrine, explaining that “[the Territories] Clause, rightly understood,” does not “endow the federal government with plenary power even within the Territories themselves.”
Based on these legal doctrines, the federal government claims sweeping power to govern every aspect of life in the Territories, including the power to ignore the will of the people in the Territories and their calls for democracy, equity, and self-determination. Right to Democracy believes it is important to challenge both the Insular Cases and the Plenary Power Doctrine to confront and dismantle the undemocratic colonial framework governing people in the Territories.
-
What are some specific examples of how this colonial legal framework impacts people in the Territories?
Under this colonial legal framework, the United States claims near-unlimited power to govern people in the Territories without any basis in the “consent of the governed.” Below are some egregious ongoing examples in each Territory, which are often shared cross-territorially.
- Puerto Rico: The unelected Puerto Rico Financial Oversight and Management Board, whose members are named by the President of the U.S, has governing powers over Puerto Rico, has veto power over any governmental contract, and has full control over any decision related to Puerto Rico’s budget or tax structure. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly defended the structure and powers of the Board over legal challenges from people in Puerto Rico.
- Guam: The U.S. military claims ownership of nearly a third of the island, with an ongoing military buildup that is massive in scale. Yet the people of Guam have little to no say in any of this, despite the significant economic, social, and cultural challenges it creates for their community. Their very lives are at risk, with China’s DF-26 ballistic missile labeled the “Guam killer” and North Korea regularly testing ballistic missiles that threaten Guam.
- U.S. Virgin Islands: The people of the U.S. Virgin Islands are currently undertaking their Sixth Constitutional Convention. Under federal law, Virgin Islanders have no power to create their own constitution without the approval of the President and Congress. That consent has been withheld in the past and presents a major roadblock for moving forward.
- American Samoa: In 2024, Congress delegated its full “plenary power” over American Samoa to the Secretary of the Interior. Now, the Department of the Interior is seeking to impose Deep Seabed Mining off its waters. After American Samoa’s elected leaders unanimously opposed these efforts, rather than stop, Interior acted to nearly double the size of the proposed area it could lease out for Deep Seabed Mining, all without sufficient scientific evidence on the environmental impacts of this practice or any financial benefits to the people of American Samoa.
- Northern Mariana Islands: Fifty years after the United States promised to support self-determination and self-government in its Covenant with the people of the NMI, the U.S. regularly takes unilateral action over the NMI’s objections. The U.S. has taken control over submerged lands claimed by the NMI, stripped local control over immigration, removed power over local wage rates, prohibited local cultural practices, and is now seeking to impose Deep Sea Mining in the waters off their islands, regardless of what the people there want.
-
Does Right to Democracy believe the issue of U.S. colonial rule is a domestic civil rights issue or an international question of self-determination?
We believe that to bring an end to U.S. colonial rule over people in U.S. territories, it is important to engage at both a domestic and international level. The denial of political rights, federal benefits parity, and unequal treatment in many federal programs are civil rights injustices that no community in the United States should have to accept. At the same time, the ongoing denial of self-determination and Indigenous rights to people in U.S. territories violates fundamental principles of international law, including international agreements like the United Nations Charter that the United States has fully adopted. Both domestic and international law are also grounded in a shared concern for what are sometimes called “fundamental” or “natural” rights, or as the U.S. Declaration of Independence explains them, the idea of “unalienable rights,” the “consent of the governed,” and of “all created equal.” Right to Democracy approaches its work with the belief that advocacy seeking to confront and dismantle the undemocratic framework governing U.S. territories is most powerful and effective when it leverages both U.S. domestic and international law.
Do you like this page?