Removal of race-based restriction on Guam's political status vote proposed

By Pacific Island Times News Staff

Seeking to pave the way for Guam’s long-postponed political status plebiscite, Sen. William Parkinson has introduced a bill that would remove ancestry-based voter restrictions, which the court has ruled unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment.

William Parkinson

Bill 242-38 would amend Guam law to open up the process to all registered voters regardless of race.

In a yet-to-be-scheduled political status vote, Guam would be asked to pick from three options: independence, statehood and

free association.

The non-binding plebiscite, however, has been indefinitely postponed due to a controversy over a provision that limits the process to “native inhabitants,” which under Guam law refers to those “who became U.S. citizens by virtue of the authority and enactment  of the 1950

Organic Act of Guam and descendants of those persons.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in response to a lawsuit filed by former Yigo resident Arnold “Dave” Davis, held that limiting the political status vote to a certain group of people based on race was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

Despite the court ruling, Guam's self-determination process remains in limbo.

“The ruling makes it legally necessary to amend Guam’s statute before any plebiscite can be conducted,” Parkinson said, noting that while the legislature takes no position on the court’s reasoning, it must act to remove the obstacles preventing Guam from holding a plebiscite.

“For decades, generations of Guamanians have waited for the opportunity to answer the question of our political future finally,”  Parkinson said. “Young people have grown up hearing about a self-determination vote that never came. This bill ensures that our voice and our choice is heard in the halls of Congress.”

The legislation recognizes the unique history of the CHamoru people, their struggle against the legacies of colonial rule, and their internationally recognized right to self-determination.

Parkinson argued that removing ancestry-based restrictions does not minimize that history, but instead ensures the process survives legal scrutiny and moves forward.

“The movement for CHamoru self-determination does not end because we adhere to constitutional requirements — it evolves. This bill aligns our aspirations with a legally viable path so that this generation of Guamanians can finally decide between independence, free association, or statehood.”

Parkinson noted that he has hosted multiple town halls across the island to explore alternative legal and procedural pathways to a plebiscite. After years of discussion, advocacy, and attempted workarounds, this bill represents the only actionable route that clears the constitutional roadblock and allows the plebiscite to proceed.

Other options that have been explored were not “legally executable,” Parkinson said, pointing out that removing the barrier “is simply the only path left that moves us toward a vote.”

He called on residents, activists, scholars and policy advocates to participate actively in the legislative process.

“This requires public discourse, civic engagement, and the courage to disagree respectfully. If our future matters, then our voices must be heard now,” Parkinson said. “This is our moment. If we want our children to inherit a Guam that chooses its destiny rather than waiting for it, then we must act. Let us finally advance the plebiscite from aspiration to reality.”

In May 2024, Attorney General Douglas Moylan issued a legal opinion, stating that Guam’s political status plebiscite must be open to all registered voters, noting that the U.S. Constitution “will not permit a vote for this purpose to be limited to a subset of voters.”

In a legal opinion requested by Gov. Lou Leon Guerrero, Moylan suggested that the legislature repeal the local statute that seeks to limit the vote to those who fall under the definition of “native inhabitants of Guam.”

“It is this attorney general’s legal opinion that the methodology enacted by the past Guam legislature in determining Guam’s political future is legally flawed and wasted decades pursuing,” Moylan wrote.

Subscribe to

our monthly

digital edition