Heritage, history, and the ballot: who decides Guam's political status?

Today’s public hearing on Bill 242 drew cultural pride and sharp legal debate as lawmakers consider whether to remove ancestry requirements from Guam’s long-awaited political status plebiscite.

At stake in today’s public hearing is more than compliance with a court order: it’s the definition of self-determination itself, and one after another, community members stepped up to the mic to draw their line on Bill No. 242.

It was a show of CHamoru and Guamanian pride at the Guam Congress Building this morning, as the community came together to provide testimony on the controversial bill by Senator William Parkinson. Former executive director for the Commission on Decolonization and the Commission on Self-Determination Leland Bettis was among those opposing the bill.

As a young man, Bettis was involved in negotiations surrounding Guam’s push to become a commonwealth in the 1980’s. He says his position is rooted in his lifelong advocacy, noting, “As a resident of Guam, I’ve been a supporter of the right of the CHamoru people to exercise self-determination.”

Bettis also present to represent the memories of his two friends, also staunch advocates for Guam’s self-determination. “The late Ron Rivera and the late Ron Teehan," he pointed out. “Ron Rivera would ask, ‘Are there Chamoru people?’ If you answered yes to that question, he would ask, ‘Have they ever exercised self-determination for their homeland in Guam?’ The answer to that is obviously, no. So that means there should be an exercise of the CHamoru people to determine the future of their homeland.”

Bettis says Teehan told a different story, but with the same heart – that just because a non-CHamoru resident lives here and pays their taxes here that does not mean that they have the right to decide Guam’s future – a choice that has its own generational consequences.

“So I’m telling those stories today because I think they both tell us something about the opportunities for Guam in self-determination and the complexities that we face in terms of the current demographic situation," he explained.

Coleen Cruz-Corpus, a Yoña native, attended the hearing to represent her mother’s heritage. “I’m present because I feel that if I don’t oppose then I’m dishonoring my ancestors," she said. “Because of the 500 years of colonization we never really had a choice or a voice. I don’t want our voice to be taken away.”

Turning to the testimony shared in the Public Hearing Room, members from all facets of the community argued that the indigenous CHamoru people must lead the decision-making process on the Guam’s political status.

Several speakers emphasized the importance of carving out a place for ourselves in rooms where decisions about Guam have been made for us for nearly 500 years – saying true self-determination begins with the historical inheritors of colonization determining their future. 

And one individual voiced support for the measure, arguing that emotion should not dictate public policy and that the court’s ruling leaves little room for alternatives. 

Finally, from an administrative standpoint, executive director of the Guam Election Commission Maria Pangelinan was present to address operational concerns, telling KUAM News that if enacted and implemented in this year’s general election, it would cost the Commission $80,000 to carry out.

Still, the prevailing message among those in attendance was unmistakable: the CHamoru people have not had the opportunity to exercise their right to determine their political future, and that this effort must remain in CHamoru hands.