Clark County Council hears hours of public comment opposing removal of invocation and pledge; council stops short of repeal

Hundreds of residents and community groups urged the Clark County Council on Jan. 15 to keep the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of council meetings, after Councilor Will Fuentes proposed removing both.

The public comment period ran more than an hour. Dozens of speakers — including Anne Burbank, Logan Ruiz of Turning Point USA’s Clark County High School Activism Hub, Bonnie Ruiz of Firmly Planted Action and Amy Vail — urged the council to retain both the invocation and the pledge and cited historical and religious grounding for their view.

The council discussed the matter after public testimony. Councilor Will Fuentes apologized for how he handled the pledge proposal, saying, “I stuck my foot in my mouth.” He said his recommendation about the invocation came from a desire for neutrality and “inclusivity,” not hostility toward religion. Chair Sue Marshall and other councilors said the invocation has been offered by speakers from multiple faiths and backgrounds and that the county’s application process for invocation speakers is open to all. Marshall noted the council’s intent that invocations not be limited to any single religion and encouraged broader outreach to invite diverse voices.

Council members said there were not three votes to remove the invocation during that meeting. The chair and other members described the invocation as available to the public and suggested adding a brief, clear statement at the start of meetings explaining that invocations are open to people of all beliefs and that an online application is available. The council did not take a formal roll-call vote to repeal the invocation or the pledge during the session.

Public commenters cited a 2017 county measure — Resolution 2017-08-11, “recognizing the significance of public hearing through an invocation” — and federal law: 4 U.S. Code § 4 on the Pledge of Allegiance was referenced by at least one speaker. Members of the public expressed a range of views, from requests that invocations be expanded to include poetry and land acknowledgements to strongly worded criticisms of any council member thought to be opposed to religious language in the pledge.

What happened next: Councilors directed staff to publicize the existing invocation application process more widely, to invite a broader set of speakers (including poetry and land acknowledgements), and to consider a short preface before the invocation clarifying it is open to all beliefs. No formal repeal or replacement of the invocation or the pledge was adopted at this meeting.