The United States is building up its military presence in Puerto Rico — and it’s doing the same in Guam. The Wall Street Journal reports that “The Pentagon is transforming Guam, a U.S. territory closer to Beijing than to Honolulu, into an anchor of its strategy in the Pacific.” They also report that Guam is pushing for a new status referendum involving a vote among statehood, independence, and free association, like the one Puerto Rico held in 2024. “Given that President Trump has mused about taking Greenland, the Panama Canal and Canada,” the Journal points out, “some believe it is a good time for statehood supporters to make a push.” But there are also some who argue for including status quo options in the hoped-for referendum.
What is status quo?
“Status quo” means keeping things the same. In relation to political status, it means maintaining the current status. For Guam, as for Puerto Rico, the status quo is that of an unincorporated territory without the full coverage of the U.S. Constitution, full representation in Congress, or the right to vote in presidential elections.
Why would anyone want that?
In Puerto Rico, a long tradition of misinformation and disinformation has led to many people believing that they could change the current territorial status into a new “enhanced commonwealth” which would be different from an unincorporated territory. Supporters of the status quo in Puerto Rico don’t actually want the current colonial relationship to continue. They just have a fantasy status in mind, one which has been rejected as unconstitutional repeatedly by all three branches of the federal government.
Guam doesn’t have this history. So why do they want to I elude the current status as an option? One reason is that, as a letter to the Guam Daily Post clarifies, they want to make sure that anti-statehood factions can’t bring up the lack of a territorial option as a talking point against their referendum.
“Several times Congress has denied Puerto Rico’s petitions for political status change based on the lack of a ‘Status Quo’ option during public education and voting,” said Ken Leon Guerrero in his letter. While we wouldn’t consider this an accurate description of what has happened, we see where he is coming from.
A column in the same source takes a pro-territorial stance. “Guam’s best political future lies in maintaining the status quo as a U.S. territory while seeking a more direct and effective partnership with the federal government,” writes John Simon Martinez. He is not suggesting “enhanced commonwealth.” He is saying that Guam should not be under the administration of the Department of the Interior, which has had this responsibility since the Navy transferred authority to them in 1950. He wants what Puerto Rico has, which is a connection with the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Executive Branch.
“Commonwealth” status in Guam
In 1982, Guam held a referendum between “commonwealth” and statehood, and “commonwealth” won. “Commonwealth” has no real meaning in U.S. political life. Several states, as well as the territory of Puerto Rico, use the word “commonwealth” in their official titles. Their political status is in no way different from other states and territories. Unsurprisingly, Congress did not take action on that vote.
Including status quo
The possibility that eliminating the status quo from the ballot on a referendum could lead to attempts to discredit the ballot is a real one. Puerto Rico has seen this happen. “Commonwealth” supporters have not only objected to votes without “commonwealth” on the ballot, but have also objected to votes with the honest option of voting for territory status. Voting for “commonwealth” is not an honest option. Certainly not in Puerto Rico, where family tradition supports the fantasy of “enhanced commonwealth.”
Voting for “commonwealth” in Guam would only be an honest option if “commonwealth” is clearly defined. Maybe not being under the administration of the Department of the Interior is all its supporters really want. If so, they should look to Puerto Rico’s experience: still no voting members in Congress, still no ability to vote in presidential elections, still no equity in federal programs, and still only partial coverage under the U.S. Constitution. “The current territorial status” would be an honest way to include the status quo on a referendum…just as it would be in Puerto Rico.
No responses yet