Public hearing on Guam plebiscite bill marred by rage and heightened emotions

By Jayvee Vallejera

Tears. Trembling voices. Frequent applause and loud cheers from protesters holding up placards. A chorus of "Biba Guam!" And some occasional comic relief.

Wednesday's public hearing on a bill that aims to open Guam’s political status plebiscite to all voters was a cauldron of emotions, with some speakers testifying in the grip of anger, with heartfelt appeals to tradition and culture and even a mention of witchcraft and evil spirits.

Sen. William A. Parkinson, author of Bill 242-38, drew much criticism and attacks for introducing the measure. He was himself emotional after listening to the testimonies that mostly opposed the bill.

In his closing remarks, a teary-eyed Parkinson said he takes no great pleasure in proposing the bill.

“I am doing this at great risk to my own career and even my ability to live on Guam and raise my family peacefully. I have been called a traitor, a colonizer, and shamed for being willing to have hard conversations,” he said.

Gripped by strong emotions, Parkinson wiped his tears with his palm several times. Somebody later handed him a handkerchief.

One of the speakers, Annie Camacho, said she is so angry she could barely look at Parkinson, whom she accused of ignoring people’s voices.

“I find it difficult to look at you. You disregarded the people that stood in front of you, village after village. You disregarded so many people that have told you this is not the way," Camacho said.

"Your bill is the most destructive way. The path that you chose is the most destructive. It’s the one that nobody asked for. So if you want to say that you are a person of the people, that you serve the people, withdraw your bill,” she added.

A speaker who described himself as the “Yankee Go Home of Guam" and "a domestic activist" said the political status issue has already been tackled before and nothing came of it.

His comment was echoed by another speaker, who said: “He is right. Why are you repeating this that has been done already? I thought this had been resolved.”

The event was not without theater. At one point, a speaker, accompanied by another behind him, performed a ritual, where they blew conch shells—a traditional CHamoru ceremony—at the onset of his testimony.

In another instance, there was a spontaneous singing of the Guam hymn and nearly everybody stood up.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that a Guam law limiting the political status vote to a certain group of people based on race was discriminatory and unconstitutional. Parkinson’s bill seeks to amend Guam law to comply with the court’s ruling.

Parkinson said it would be easy for him to lie to the people of Guam or peddle false hopes that the law, as written, is a viable path to achieving the goal of decolonization.

The idea, however, of allowing non-native inhabitants to participate in a plebiscite that would ultimately decide Guam’s political status was deeply distasteful to many of those who showed up Wednesday at the Guam legislature.

Except for some testimonies supporting Bill 242-38, the majority of rejected the proposal to remove ancestry-based voter limits in Guam’s political status plebiscite. At least two testimonies called on Parkinson to withdraw the bill.

The public hearing was also attended by protesters waving banners that read “Respect the CHamoru People!,”“We Will Not Be Erased!,” “Respect the Native Inhabitants!” and “Decolonization is the Right of the Colonized!”

Many of the bill’s opponents insisted that the process of decolonization must focus on the people who were colonized—the CHamoru people.

“This is the fundamental principle behind CHamoru self-determination. It is the process for freeing the island of its colonial past as well as present,” said former Guam delegate Dr. Robert Underwood, who testified via Zoom.

A petition against Parkinson’s bill points out that a decolonization plebiscite “must be a mechanism for restoring justice to the distinct group of people whose right to sovereignty was violated.”

Victoria Leon Guerrero said this is not just about following the rules of the colonizer but an issue of justice.

“The CHamoru people were colonized. To decolonize, we must respect their right and their voice. Period,” she added.

In a yet-to-be-scheduled political status plebiscite, Guam would be asked to pick from three options: independence, statehood or free association.

Parkinson pointed out that Guam's decolonization efforts have historically been inclusive. When Guam held a territory-wide status referendum in January 1982, all registered voters were eligible to vote, regardless of ancestry. Also, the Guam Commonwealth Act drafted in that era, which would have made Guam a commonwealth of the United States, allowed all residents to vote.

Leon Guerrero pointed out, however, that the referendum on the Commonwealth Act had the lowest voter turnout in Guam's history.

“Even then, organizing CHamorus had resisted the idea that all people be allowed to vote in that election,” she said.

Parkinson also argued that the 1982 plebiscite had universal suffrage and was open to all registered voters, and was the only way to move the needle for Guam in the U.S. Congress.

Leon Guerrero disagreed: “Even though there was universal suffrage in that election for the draft Commonwealth Act, Congress did not respect the will of the people of Guam, no matter who voted. So remember that. Universal suffrage does not equate respect from Congress.”

She also argued that Guam’s definition of “native inhabitants” is not a race-based definition but one of citizenship. “It is those who were made citizens by the signing of the Organic Act and their descendants,” she added.

She pointed out that there are other places where date-based eligibility has succeeded and been upheld by the United Nations.

Camacho brought a petition to the public hearing containing the signatures of 1,870 people who oppose the bill.

She said the petition had 1,820 signatures that morning. “And as I checked my phone sitting here, the number had grown to 1,870,” she added.

The petition claims Bill 242-38 eliminates the ability of the CHamoru people to exercise their right to self-determination.

“One merely has to have lived on the island for 30 days to establish residency and be able to register to vote in Guan's elections,” it added.

One of those who supported the bill, Ken Leon Guerrero, pointed out that the only path to any change in Guam’s political status is through the U.S. Congress and Parkinson’s bill provides the first step in that process.

Steven Algier Amagan, who also supported the bill, cautioned against letting emotions get in the way. He said that abiding by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will help advance the goal of determining Guam’s political status.

“Having our emotions dictate how we are going to be able to attain political status will not help us,” he added.

Groups that spoke against Bill 242-38 included the Filipinos for Guahan and Kumisión I Fino’ Chamoru.

Jamela Santos said her group, Filipinos for Guahan, does not support any bill that would deny the CHamorus their right to political self-determination. She urged lawmakers to oppose the bill.

Dr. Laura Souder said the effort to remove ancestry-based voter restrictions in a political status plebiscite for Guam is an affront to the CHamoru people.

In his closing remarks, Parkinson said he believed, deep in his heart, that decolonization is the most pressing issue facing Guam today.

 Subscribe to

our monthly

digital edition