In 1950 the population was 59,498, an increase of 37,208 or 167 percent in 10 years. The precise demographic nature of that increase isn’t known, but we can reasonably assume that it consisted almost entirely of non-Chamorros. Most of it would have occurred after Guam’s July 1944 liberation from Japanese occupation, and much of the new population would have been military personnel and other federal employees, contractors, dependents and support personnel. Many were Filipinos.
In 1950 Chamorros in Guam numbered approximately 30,000, or 50 percent of the total population. Census data show that some 65 percent of those, or 20,000 were 15 years of age or older at the time. Relatively few of those 20,000 — all now 75 years of age or older — remain alive today.
Guam’s 2009 population is estimated to be 178,000 of which approximately 37 percent, or 65,860 claim Chamorro heritage. Some 65 percent of Chamorros or 43,000 are of voting age. Those 43,000 — identified in Guam law as “eligible voters” for purposes of any vote on Guam’s political status — are therefore predominantly descendants of those who became U.S. citizens in 1950 with the passage of the Organic Act of Guam.
Provisions for a political status plebiscite in Guam are set forth in Guam Public Law 25-106. It specifies that only those present in Guam in 1950 at the time of the enactment of the Organic Act and their descendants may vote in any such election. That means that more than 70,000 of Guam’s otherwise eligible voters are barred from voting or registering to vote in a political status election.
That sort of voter eligibility discrimination is specifically prohibited by the Organic Act of Guam, paragraph 1421b, Bill of Rights, subparagraph (m), Title 48 U.S.C.A. which reads as follows:
“No qualification with respect to property, income, political opinion, or any other matter apart from citizenship, civil capacity, and residence shall be imposed upon any voter.”
In 1999 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hawaii’s Rice v. Cayetano landmark case that voter discrimination based on ancestral tracings is a proxy for racial discrimination in violation of the Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment. Some of many scathing comments in that ruling went like this:
“The ancestral inquiry…is forbidden by the Fifteenth Amendment for the further reason that the use of racial classifications is corruptive of the whole legal order democratic elections seek to preserve. Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”
I have a direct and simple question for those who advocate the so-called “Chamorro only” political status plebiscite. How, exactly, do you propose to circumvent the Organic Act and the U.S. Constitution in asserting ancestral qualification to vote on Guam’s future political status?
Don’t be shy. Give it your best shot.
I don’t anticipate any rational response to that question. There is none. Maybe you’re confident that 70,000 of Guam’s eligible voters will stand idly by while their voting and civil rights are denied. I doubt it.
DAVE DAVIS
Yigo, Guam
