Political status and decolonisation
Per the catalogue's instruction to separate status options and eligibility debates, this bundle documents the three proposed political-status options for Guam (independence, free association, statehood) and the non-binding 1982 plebiscite, separately from the wholly distinct legal dispute in Davis v. Guam over voter eligibility for a planned status plebiscite, which the Ninth Circuit ruled unconstitutional in 2019. No legally binding plebiscite on Guam's political status has been completed.
Three political-status options have been proposed for a Guam self-determination plebiscite: independence, free association, and US statehood. A non-binding plebiscite in January 1982 favoured commonwealth status, with statehood second, on low turnout.[1] Guam's 2000 Plebiscite Law restricted voting in a planned status plebiscite to "Native Inhabitants of Guam," a restriction challenged in Davis v. Guam.[2] On 29 July 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this restriction violated the Fifteenth Amendment, applying Rice v. Cayetano and a related Northern Mariana Islands precedent; the US Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2020, and the plebiscite as configured was permanently enjoined. No legally binding plebiscite on Guam's political status has been completed.[3]
Status verified as of
Guam remains an unincorporated territory of the United States. No legally binding plebiscite on Guam's political status has been completed, and the plebiscite as configured under the 2000 Plebiscite Law remains permanently enjoined following the 2019 Ninth Circuit ruling and the Supreme Court's 2020 denial of certiorari. The eligibility question and the underlying status-options question remain analytically and legally distinct issues.[3]
History
From the 1982 non-binding plebiscite to the 2019-2020 Davis v. Guam litigation.
49 words · 1 min read
· Referendum or popular consultation
A non-binding vote on Guam's political status favoured commonwealth status on low turnout.
Significance here: The only completed, though non-binding and low-turnout, plebiscite on Guam's political status to date.
· Legal decision
A federal appeals court struck down the race-restricted plebiscite voter eligibility rule as unconstitutional.
Significance here: A decisive legal ruling that permanently enjoined Guam's planned status plebiscite as configured, halting the self-determination vote process.
Each number marks a specific claim. Notes give the source, its locator and how it relates to the claim.
Claim: Three political-status options have been proposed for a Guam self-determination plebiscite: independence, free association (close association with another nation without incorporation into the United States), and US statehood (which would make Guam the fifty-first state). A non-binding plebiscite held in January 1982 asked a broader set of status questions and showed overwhelming support for commonwealth status, with statehood in second place, though only a small minority of eligible voters participated.
Claim: Guam's 2000 Plebiscite Law restricted voting in a planned political-status plebiscite to "Native Inhabitants of Guam," defined by reference to persons who became US citizens under the 1950 Organic Act and their descendants; this restriction was challenged in Davis v. Guam by plaintiff Arnold Davis, a Guam resident not qualifying as a Native Inhabitant.
Claim: On 29 July 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Guam's 2000 Plebiscite Law's restriction of voting to Native Inhabitants violated the Fifteenth Amendment, applying the precedents of Rice v. Cayetano and a related Northern Mariana Islands case that had invalidated similar ancestry-based voting restrictions as unconstitutional proxies for race; the US Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2020, and the plebiscite as configured was permanently enjoined. No legally binding plebiscite on Guam's political status has been completed.