The first fight over political activity and sidewalks erupted at the MGM Grand
during a labor dispute.When the MGM Grand opened in 1989, the Culinary Workers
Union organized a large rally protesting the hotel management's decision to open the
hotel without a neutrality agreement with the union. A neutrality agreement would
have simplified the union organizing process by acknowledging the rights of the union
to organize workers without interference from management and recognizing the
union as the collective-bargaining representative upon the receipt of authorization
cards from a majority of employees, circumventing a secret-ballot election.
The hotel management attempted to prevent this rally, arguing that they owned the
sidewalks and, therefore, could control access to them (ACLU interview; Davis, 1994).
The CulinaryWorkers Union responded with a ``take back the sidewalks rally'', protest-
ing the private sidewalk restrictions themselves (Davis, 1994). At the rally, the MGM
security guards informed the protestors that they were trespassing, at which time they
were taken to a nearby hotel, cited, and then released (Green, 1994a). Union members
continued to handbill in front of the hotel and, soon after the initial rally, Clark
County legal staff advised the Metropolitan Police Department to stop assisting citizen
arrests until a federal judge ruled on the private sidewalk issue (Green, 1994b). Accord-
ing to the chief deputy district attorney, they did not ``want the county to be liable for
unlawfully transporting and incarcerating people who are arrested by MGM security''
(Green, 1994b). Because the MGM management settled with the union, the sidewalk
issue was dropped and remained unresolved.
In 1999 Venetian Resort-Hotel-Casino executives attempted to use the private
status of the sidewalks to prevent union activity. As in the MGM case, Sheldon
Adelson, the chairman of the Venetian's board, refused to sign a neutrality agreement
with the Culinary Workers Union. However, in this case, throughout the development
process, the Venetian hotel executives were outspokenly antiunion.While Clark County
commissioners did not want a repeat of the MGM situation (2/18/97 BCC hearing),
once again they did not insist that the Venetian executives dedicate the sidewalk as a
public right of way. In describing these proceedings, one Las Vegas reporter criticized
the County because ``while the county in 1997 insisted that The Venetian dedicate the
property as a public right of way, the hotel eventually struck a deal with the state that
didn't require any concessions, and the County rubber-stamped the arrangement''
(Sebelius, 2002b).
At the public hearing, Clark County commissioners requested assurance that the
language in the county's agreement with the Venetian would protect First Amendment
activity (2/18/97 BCC hearing; 3/4/97 BCC hearing). The county used stronger lan-
guage in the Venetian agreement than they had previously (3/4/97 BCC hearing), and
included a provision that ensured accordance with state and federal law (Packer,
1999a). The Culinary Workers Union agreed to the language (Culinary Workers Union
interview; 3/4/97 BCC hearing). The agreement with the NDOT, however, is ambig-
uous. While it requires that the Venetian provide a sidewalk with a public access
easement, it also includes a provision stating that the Venetian maintains their private
property rights (8 January 1999 NDOT/Venetian sidewalk agreement).
The ensuing sidewalk conflict between the Venetian and the Culinary Workers
Union rests on this ambiguity. In February 1999, prior to the resort opening, Clark
(9) Other hotels, however, have been supportive of the CulinaryWorkers Union. During the 6ÃÙÄ-year
strike at the Frontier Hotel-Casino, the owners of the Circus Circus Hotel-Resort-Casino provided
daily meals to the strikers for more than five years (Mosle, 1998).
316 E Blumenberg, R Ehrenfeucht
County issued a permit for a labor demonstration on a temporary walkway along the
Venetian's frontage. At the rally, on 1 March 1999, Venetian executives demanded that
the Metropolitan Police arrest protestors for trespassing on private property. The
district attorney determined that the sidewalks were public for the purpose of political
activity and, consequently, the police refused to arrest the protestors.
The Venetian emphasized that the sidewalks were part of the resort experience.
Bill Weidner, president of the Venetian's parent company, contrasted the sidewalk
attraction with union activity: ``We're trying to improve the ambiance of Las Vegas
Boulevard, and what do they do? Whistles, signs and chants. And they say we're anti-
Las Vegas'' (Strow, 1999). In response to the inaction by the Metropolitan Police, the
Venetian filed suit in federal court against Clark County, the Clark County District
Attorney, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, seeking a declaratory
judgment that the newly constructed private sidewalk was not a `public forum'. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Clark County and the interveners,
the unions, and the ACLU, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the Ninth
Circuit Court.(10) The Venetian appealed this decision to the US Supreme Court and,
on 4 March 2002 the US Supreme Court denied cert, upholding the Ninth Circuit
decision.