A vote is held
On June 18, 2005, thirteen indigenous villages in the municipality of Sipacapa (with 5,200 registered voters in a population of roughly 15,000) cast their votes. The result was 2,426 votes against open-pit mining, and 35 votes in favor. Each community carried out its voting according to the traditions and customs of that particular community.
In some communities there was an open vote through a show of hands. In another, the vote was carried out by secret ballot. In yet other communities, people lined up and individually marked their position (yes or no) on a poster-sized paper that was managed by the auxiliary mayor of the community, or signed the paper with either a thumbprint or a signature. Seventy national and international observers observed these various votes.
Three days later, the Municipal Government Council, which had opposed the vote, promised to support the decision of the voters and to assure that the outcome was respected. Through a municipal act, the local government committed to having the company withdraw.
The vote’s aftermath
Glamis claimed that requiring consent from local communities undermined national law, and that the vote had been organized by a small 
group of people who had pressured the municipality and threatened mining supporters. The company also argued that because the mine was closer to San Miguel Ixtahuacan than Sipacapa, in a fair vote, a majority of the residents of both Sipacapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacan would support mining.
On the other hand, a Guatemalan newspaper had reported that a poll performed by the Vox Latina Institute revealed that 95% of the people in both Sipacapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacan opposed the mining project because they feared that it would harm the environment and fail to benefit their communities.
Glamis further maintained that during the previous two years, the company had held one hundred seventy-seven public meetings attended by more than eleven thousand people. Local opponents of the mine countered that the people attending such meetings thought they were informational meetings and were surprised to see their names on documents saying that they had been “consulted.”
A Mixed Decision from the Constitutional Court
On May 8, 2007, the Constitutional Court released its decision in the case brought by the Ministry of Energy and Mines almost two years earlier. The Court ruled that the vote was legal and that it “constituted an important mechanism of expression for the populace.” However, the Court found that the vote was not binding within Guatemalan law because authority for mining was placed with the Ministry of Energy and Mines.
