Guam is, like Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States. Territories can remain in that status indefinitely, but they can also become U.S. states or foreign countries; being a territory is historically a temporary arrangement.
Puerto Rico has been actively campaigning for a permanent political status for decades, and has held seven status plebiscites offering voters a choice among remaining a territory, declaring independence, or becoming a state. Some votes have also included an aspirational but unconstitutional “commonwealth” idea, and one listed “none of the above.” The four plebiscites held in this century have all resulted in wins for statehood.
Guam held a status referendum and a follow-up run-off vote in 1982. Now Guam plans another plebiscite.
Guam’s 1982 plebiscite
Guam, as an unincorporated territory, actually has only the same three options Puerto Rico has: territory, state, or independent nation. This has not stopped Puerto Rico from including other possibilities on plebiscite ballots, and Guam was not inhibited about their options, either. The 1982 ballot had seven choices:
-
U.S. commonwealth: 4,914 votes (49.49%)
-
U.S. state: 2,547 votes (25.65%)
-
Status quo: 1,012 votes (10.19%)
-
U.S. incorporated territory: 536 votes (5.40%)
-
Free association with the U.S.: 393 votes (3.96%)
-
Independence: 379 votes (3.82%)
-
Other: 148 votes (1.49%)
“U.S. commonwealth,” “Status quo,” and “U.S. unincorporated territory” all refer to the same status. Any of those choices, if accepted by Congress, would have led to no action on the part of Congress and no change in Guam’s relationship with the U.S.
Free association is possible only for sovereign nations, so a vote for free association would be a vote for independence with the hope of negotiating a successful Compact of Free Association. Statehood is clear. “Other” is completely undefined. So on this ballot, only the three possible status options are actually available to voters: territory status, statehood, or independence.
A runoff between “commonwealth” and statehood was held a few months after the initial vote, and “commonwealth” won. This was essentially a vote for no change in status, and that was in fact the outcome. However — just as in Puerto Rico — voters didn’t really want continued territory status. “Commonwealth” for most voters meant something similar to an “enhanced commonwealth,” essentially promises of new rights on top of the territorial status, none of which can be guaranteed or attained without congressional buy-in.
Developments in 1987
After the 1982 plebiscites, Guam drafted a Guam Commonwealth Act that voters approved (with some revisions) in 1987. The act sought a “mutual consent” relationship, under which the U.S. could not change Guam’s status or apply new federal laws without Guam’s consent, and gave Guam far broader control over immigration, taxes, labor, and federal land. Congress held hearings on the bill in 1989 and 1997, but Justice Department and executive‑branch lawyers argued that the mutual‑consent clauses were unconstitutional and legally unenforceable, because Congress cannot bind future Congresses or give up its Territorial Clause authority.
Federal officials also objected that the proposal mixed elements of independence, free association, territory status, and statehood into a “composite” status that didn’t fit U.S. territorial policy and could interfere with defense and military flexibility on Guam. The bill also limited who would be able to vote to ratify the new status, allowing voters to be excluded on the basis of their ethnic heritage. This is of course contrary to the United States Constitution.
The bill died in committee.
Guam’s Quixotic Quest for “Commonwealth”
Plans for 2028
The vote proposed this November will ask just one question: “Should Guam hold a political status plebiscite in 2028?”
If voters agree to hold a vote, the government of Guam intends to offer just the same three options as the Puerto Rico Status Act gave: statehood, independence, or free association. These were the alternatives on the ballot in Puerto Rico in November, 2024. Guam’s legislators believe that they will be able to use the two years between the planned 2026 vote and the potential 2028 referendum to educate Guamanians on the legalities of each alternative. The result should be a clearer mandate than in 1987.
Then it will be up to Congress to act.
Constitutional issues
Guam’s “enhanced commonwealth” plan faces the same constitutional, legal and policy problems Puerto Rico’s does. Namely, it is a fantasy status that will not work with the U.S. Constitution, so Congress cannot accept it.
But Guam may also have another constitutional issue. Alongside the question of whether or not to hold a plebiscite, Guamanians also plan to vote on whether to confine voting eligibility to “native inhabitants.” This term would mean that voters would have to be able to trace their ancestry back to people who became citizens in 1950. This is comparable to the terms under which individuals can become members of Native American tribes: in most cases, they must be able to trace their lineage back to the original tribal rolls in the early 20th century.
That is fine for membership in a group. It’s not legal for voting in the U.S. The Fifteenth Amendment bars the United States from denying or abridging the right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The federal court case Davis v. Guam determined that ancestry in this case was essentially the same as race. Since fewer than 40% of residents of Guam are native inhabitants in that sense, the voting limitations bill would disenfranchise the majority of the residents of the island.
Puerto Rico’s plebiscites have been open to all registered voters living on the Island. There has, however, been controversy. Some Members of Congress have proposed that stateside Puerto Ricans (many of whom are multiple generations removed from Puerto Rico and have never lived there) should be able to vote, or that only people born in Puerto Rico should be able to vote.
Who Should Vote on Puerto Rico’s Status?
Guam’s leaders express a new sense of urgency on the topic of self-determination in light of the federal government’s recent actions. Military buildup is accelerating in Guam as it is in Puerto Rico, and the rise of imperialistic rhetoric seems threatening to the concept of self-determination. While few Guamanians are interested in independence, both statehood and the discredited “enhanced commonwealth” position have support. Some leaders believe that the window of opportunity to gain a permanent political status may be closing.
The post Guam Plans Another Plebiscite appeared first on PUERTO RICO REPORT.
