Can the definition of “native inhabitants of Guam” be crafted to move forward with Guam’s political status plebiscite?

In a legal opinion responding to the Governor’s question, Guam Attorney General Doug Moylan essentially said no.

“Since on its face that appears to be a violation of the equal protection clause and the government cannot be engaging in activities using taxpayer money for functions like that violate the equal protection clause according to the Davis case, we need to find a different methodology to do this,” said Moylan.

He said the past legislature’s method to determine Guam’s political status with a plebiscite restricted to “Guam native inhabitants” is legally flawed and wasted decades.

“The scheme in which the legislature had previously determined a vote to occur would be from those people who really many of them are now descendants of anyone who was on Guam in 1950," he said.

The vote has been at a standstill since the 2019 Davis v. Guam case where the courts ruled the plebiscite unconstitutional.

“We have to find a different way, as a people, to go to congress and let the United States know this is what we want,” he said.

He said Guam’s best option is to pursue a federal statute from the U.S. Congress that recognizes Guam’s unique history, or seek political support from the United Nations with a resolution, or use a private organization to conduct a self-determination vote to be used by the Guam Legislature.

“It's important. We need to have our leaders move forward that’s workable. And that’s not spending years in court and paying for the other guy’s attorney fees," he said. "The Davis case and the fight that was put up there I believe hit a million dollars if not more of taxpayer money on something that should have been figured out early on.”

In response to the AG’ legal opinion, the Governor’s office said, “No comment.”