Guam status debate reignites with controversy over voting rights

Guam’s battle towards decolonization has been hindered by a question of voting eligibility. Certain people believe that only CHamorus—the indigenous people of Guam—should vote, while others believe that CHamoru-only voting policies are exclusive and unfair. In 2017, a federal court ruling (David v. Guam) decided that CHamoru-only voting violated the 15th Amendment. 

After 6 years of political gridlock in Guam, Senator William A. Parkinson (D) outlined a plan to change Guam’s statehood status in a series of town hall meetings beginning September 25. The plan consists of two parts, the first being a simplified question asking whether the people of Guam want a political status change. If voters endorse the change, then there will be a second referendum with three options: independence, free association, and statehood.

In another town hall meeting on October 8, Parkinson clarified that his plan for voting eligibility would be based on whether residents lived in Guam in 1982 or 1997, plus their descendants. These two dates have particular historical significance to Guam. In 1982, Guam held its first plebiscite, where almost half of the voters (49.49%) chose commonwealth status. A plebiscite is a direct vote in which voters decide on the issue of the political status. In 1997, lawmakers created the Commission on Decolonization. 

He argues that these dates would foster representation of the indigenous people while also not violating the federal court ruling. At the latest town hall meeting on October 24, Parkinson pushed the 1997 eligibility date. He argued that Guam was already diverse by this time, which would refute any critical claims of racial discrimination. 

This proposal has drawn concerns from local advocates and politicians. Some believe that not choosing a date before 1950 disregards those who lived in Guam during colonization and undermines the voice of those native to the islands. Resident Paul R. Suba III supports 1950 as the most historically significant: it marks when the Organic Act was passed, granting US citizenship to Guam residents.

Decades of starting and stalling in efforts toward decolonization have made voters discouraged.

In addition to historical events, Guam must also factor in complications today. Senator Parkinson cites geopolitical tensions as a reason to advance Guam’s statehood status. Guam has major US military bases, making it a target for China amidst Sino-US tension. In the September 3 military parade, China introduced the DF-26 missile, dubbed by the Chinese media as the “Guam Killer.” Though the name derives mainly from the missile’s range, the implicit message remains: China’s missile arsenal is developing rapidly and poses a real and active threat. Parkinson argues that “making Guam the 51st state will remove any question in any adversary’s mind about America’s commitment to Guam.” 

Guam’s political leaders and advocates continue to debate over voter eligibility. Supporters of the 1950 cutoff date believe that preserving the history of Guam and the voices of the indigenous people is more important and worth risking breaking the federal court decision, while supporters of the 1997 law believe that it is a compromise that would allow indigenous representation while avoiding conflicts. Still others are completely uninterested in gaining statehood, reasoning that it would only lead to more federal oversight. Whatever the decision, it is clear that, for historical and contemporary reasons, Guam cannot afford to stay in a gridlock.