Given Guam’s precarious financial situation, it would entail unnecessary expense. It would merely serve as a sop to appease the non-Chamorro voter, and it would distract from resolving the basic constitutional issues which plague the Chamorro-only plebiscite.
P.L. 23-147, the enabling legislation of the Chamorro-only vote, appears to violate the Organic Act, as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments.
For example, the Organic Act, Section 1421(b) (m) limits voter qualifications to “citizenship, civil capacity, and residence.” It does not include ethnicity, race, or ancestry. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection to all citizens, and the 15th Amendment mandates that no state or local government shall abridge or deny a citizen’s right to vote.
Tortuous
The history of the Chamorro-only plebiscite is tortuous, but it is clearly tied to Guam’s first political status plebiscite. It is also tied to the underhanded machinations of a non-elected political status commission.
In 1982, the first Guam political status plebiscite was held. Open to all voters, Guamanians sought “closer ties to the U.S.” and chose “Commonwealth” from among five political status options. After the plebiscite, a Guam Commission on Self-Determination, or CSD, was appointed. This commission was tasked to flesh out the details and to write the Draft Commonwealth Act. This is where we see evidence of the political chicanery which affects us even today.
Rather than closer relations with the U.S., the CSD gave the Guam public a political status that a mainland newspaper described as “independence but with a pipeline to the U.S. treasury.”
In the draft act, the CSD proposed that GovGuam be given authority to nullify the application on Guam of any future federal legislation; to force the U.S. military to consult with GovGuam regarding DOD deployments on-island; to nullify the application on Guam of U.S. treaties regarding air rights; to control immigration to Guam; and to end U.S. naturalization on Guam. It was as if this commission was oblivious to the U.S. Constitution, and it is no wonder that, during the congressional hearing on commonwealth, most members of the House committee walked out.
There were other problems with the draft Act as well. Without previous legislative or voter approval, the CSD relegated “commonwealth” to an “interim” status and made the quantum leap of leaving the final political status exclusively to Chamorro voters.
This was their rationale. U.N. Resolution 1541 had called for three political statuses that could meet U.N. self-determination requirements — independence, free-association, and integration. commonwealth, they argued, was none of these and so it had to be an “interim” status. And within an appointed commission operating with a somewhat ethnocentric mindset, who better to make the final political status decision than members of the Chamorro community?
Problems
There were two problems with this, however. U.N. Resolution 1541, which mandated the three political status options, also required that these options be selected through “universal adult suffrage.” That means every voter is eligible to vote — a fact conveniently overlooked by this commission.
The second problem was U.N. Resolution 2625 (xxv) adopted October 1970, 15 years previously. Expanding on Resolution 1541, it states that the right to self-determination can be implemented in four ways: by “(1) the establishment of a sovereign and independent state, (2) the free association with or (3) the integration with an independent state, or (4) the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people.” This would mean that “status quo,” (or “commonwealth,” for that matter) being “freely determined,” could meet U.N. requirements as a legitimate exercise in self-determination.
It appears that a determined group of activists have not been forthright with the Guam public. It seems that this group is surreptitiously advancing the free association/independence cause.
By ignoring the requirement of “universal adult suffrage,” they successfully limit the pool of plebiscite voters to the most persuadable group. It also accounts for why they failed to inform the public about U.N. Resolution 2625. If “status quo” were on the ballot, it would be an overwhelming favorite, thus steering voters away from the free association/ independence options.
Ten years ago, the total cost of self-determination efforts was estimated to be near $12 million. Now the cost is probably well beyond that. Consequently, when it comes to our political status, it’s high time to face reality.
Let’s face it: What the U.N. says doesn’t matter. U.N. troops won’t be charging up Asan Beach any time soon. What does matter, however, is what the U.S. Congress says. And for Congress to act positively on our political status, we will first have to resolve the constitutional issues.
PHILIP DAUTERMAN
Barrigada, Guam
