Word came last week that Puerto Rico will switch from a caucus to a primary. I did not see much commentary on this switch, but I think it could be a significant wild card in the race.

Two questions come to mind. Just how many Puerto Ricans will turn out to vote? Whom will they support? I personally do not know enough about Puerto Rican politics to answer either question. However, I do have a few comments.

Turnout could be very large. There are four important points to keep in mind. First, Puerto Ricans tend to be better voters than those of us stateside. In the last four presidential elections, our participation rate has been about 39% of the total population. About 2 million Puerto Ricans voted in 2004, or about 52% of the public. Bear in mind that they did not get to vote for president. Those are votes for governor and resident commissioner.

Second, the Republican and Democratic parties do not organize political life in Puerto Rico. The two major parties are the New Progressive Party (PNP) and Popular Democratic Party (PPD). Elected officials in Puerto Rico often align themselves with the Democrats or the GOP - but there the alignments are not systematic. For instance, the current Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico is Luis Fortuño-Burset. He is a member of the PNP and is aligned with the Republicans in Congress. From 1993 to 2001, Carlos Romero Barceló was resident commissioner. He is a member of the PNP as well, but was aligned with the Democrats during his time in Congress. So, "Republicans versus Democrats" does not have nearly the same salience in Puerto Rico as it does in the United States. Instead, the PNP and PPD divide over the issue of Puerto Rico's status vis-à-vis the United States. The PNP is for statehood. The PPD supports a modification of commonwealth status toward greater sovereignty.

Third, and unsurprising considering the above comment, party registration is not a relevant factor in determining eligibility for the upcoming primary.

Fourth, Puerto Ricans are United States citizens, but are not entitled to a vote in the presidential election. This will therefore be the first time that Puerto Rico has had an opportunity to play a major role in a presidential election.

I think that, all in all, this implies high turnout. Puerto Ricans actually vote. Their political questions often involve the commonwealth's relationship to the mainland. The primary is open. And they have not had this chance ever before. That is a potent combination.

The comments of Kenneth McClintock, a DNC member from Puerto Rico, is consistent with the prospect of high turnout:

The rationale [for the switch]? There's no way we could handle more than a few tens of thousands of voters in eight district caucuses, while we can handle a million voters (at least 500 voters between 8am and 3 pm per polling place in each of 1,800+ barrios) in a primary.

By the end of the delegate selection season, we would normally have a pro-forma vote that could fit into caucuses. This time around, it was increasingly obvious that we'd have a turnout well in excess of caucus capacity.

As for whom is favored - I think it is hasty and oversimple to ascribe the same Hispanic versus African American divide to Puerto Rico that we have seen in the United States. Racial perceptions and relations in this country are quite different than those in the Caribbean. I do think a lot could depend on how both candidates orient themselves to the politics of the commonwealth. A lot could also depend on the fact that New York state has a large Puerto Rican population - around 1/4 the size of the commonwealth itself.

What could be really interesting is if there is high turnout that favors one candidate over the other. If we look at the remaining states - we see that a rough draw among the popular votes is plausible. What happens if Puerto Rico breaks the tie? Last February, Michael Barone discussed the implication of Hillary Clinton winning all 63 of Puerto Rico's pledged delegates. He wrote:

My guess is that most American voters, no matter how many times they are reminded that Puerto Ricans are our fellow citizens and that Puerto Rican volunteers in disproportionate numbers have shed their blood for their and our country, would consider it absurd for Puerto Rico to determine the presidential nominee of a major party. And that Hillary Clinton's managers (or Barack Obama's, if you alter the scenario) would not want to have this appear to be the case.

Things are quite different now than they were when Barone wrote this. Puerto Rico's governor endorsed Obama, which was expected to mute if not eliminate Clinton's advantage in the caucus. Delegate selection has switched from a caucus to a primary. Obama has a lead in pledged delegates that Clinton could not overcome even if she won Puerto Rico's all of delegates. And both candidates now have to make appeals to the super delegates. Nevertheless, the situation on June 1st might be strangely similar to the one outlined by Barone. What happens if Puerto Rico puts one candidate over the top in the popular vote? How will the mainland react? How will the super delegates react? Will that help (or harm) the candidate for whom Puerto Rico made the difference?