Maybe the title was a little intimidating: “An act to provide a legislative submission for consideration by Guam’s voters to determine whether residents support any reunification effort with the residents of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.”
Simple translation: If Bill 168 is passed into law, on your 2012 ballot there will be this question or one very much like it: “Should Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Islands (CNMI), reunify in the pursuit of a new political status? The CNMI consists of the islands of Rota, Tinian, Saipan, and eleven other smaller and uninhabited isles.” Yes or No?
Oh, and for further simplicity’s sake, your vote will be non-binding on these governments.
Thanks to CNMI Rep. Joseph M. Palacios, voters in the Commonwealth will likely be considering the same question under legislation he introduced Tuesday last week.
And the second guessing began in the CNMI too. Memories were sifted for why this issue is coming up after a 40-year hiatus.
Historians were quizzed about what occasioned Guam’s vote against reunification way back in 1969 and plenty of politicians were polled for their take on the greater significance of all this to the future of Guam and the CNMI.
It was the kind of day journalists enjoy.
But now that the bill introductions are done, I urge that we slow down a bit and recognize that this potential ballot question should be understood as the babystep that it is meant to be.
There is no question that 1969 was a very different time for both Guam and our island neighbors to the north. We had served as the backdrop for the Pacific conflict between the U.S. and Japan and these powers had pitted our people against each other, wherever they dominated. The legacy was plenty of residual suspicion between Guam and Saipan, despite ties of blood, language and history between us.
As we have learned at great cost, wars aren’t really ended by signing a treaty and sending the troops home, but in the minds of the former adversaries and with the passage of time. The World War II generation is leaving us now. Low voter turnout and hostile attitudes of the past that may have influenced that long past election have faded with the survivors of that generation and I would guess are largely a mystery to those under 40.
There was immediate talk of an educational campaign to explain all of this to the current electorate and that may be useful, but I would advise all voters to make every effort to educate themselves about the issues involved.
The purpose of the bill is to get a snapshot of current public opinion on the reunification issue. After 40 years, let’s clear the air and let the current generation of voters express themselves, and if they have questions about the past or the future of this issue, they should take the responsibility to inform themselves.
SEN. JUDITH P. GUTHERTZ
31st Guam Legislature
