Tuesday, July 17, 2001 | 11:16 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- In a split decision the Nevada Supreme Court ruled today that bills on energy and county fees are legal, even though they were passed after the Legislature's midnight deadline June 4.
The ruling supports a petition filed by the Nevada Resort Association, the Nevada Mining Association and public utilities that want a bill allowing big electric consumers to leave the present monopoly system.
Harvey Whittemore, lobbyist for the resort association, said he was pleased with the ruling that sets up the potential for major casinos and mines to apply to the state Public Utilities Commission to seek their own electric resources rather than relying on Nevada Power of Las Vegas and Sierra Pacific Power of Reno.
The other bill approved by the court allows counties to impose additional fees on things such as marriage licenses to support domestic violence shelters and other programs and to provide more money for county recorders to upgrade their offices.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Miriam Shearing, struck down the argument of the casinos and mines that the legislative session runs 121 days, not 120. The Nevada Constitution says the regular session is limited to 120 days.
But the gaming and mining interests argued that the first day of the session doesn't count. Shearing said the intent of the voters in approving the time limit was clear -- that the session was limited to 120 days.
Shearing said the starting day of the Legislature must be included in the 120-day limit.
But the court agreed with the argument on the ending time for the session. The Constitution says it must end at midnight Pacific Standard Time, 120 days after starting. Nevada was on Pacific Daylight time.
When the lawmakers could not complete their work by midnight, lawyers for the Legislature said they had an extra hour because of the change from standard to daylight-saving time.
Both bills were passed between midnight and 1 a.m. June 5.
Shearing said the change from standard time to daylight-saving time midway through the session "created an ambiguity in the deadline."
"Is midnight Pacific Standard Time the same as midnight Pacific daylight-saving time? We conclude that it is not and cannot be the same."
The decision said, "It would be absurd for us to interpret Pacific standard time to be the same as Pacific daylight saving-time, and we decline to do so."
Separate dissenting opinions were written by Chief Justice Bill Maupin and Justice Myron Leavitt. They both agreed the Legislature could not be extended to 121 days but took issue with the majority opinion on the question of midnight.
Leavitt wrote, "The entire phrase, 'midnight Pacific Standard Time,' read together results in only one conclusion: 'midnight Pacific Standard Time' is midnight on the Legislature's clock in Carson City, Nevada.
"This state falls into the Pacific time zone, and all of our citizens, as well as our state government, conduct their business and social affairs in accordance with the time on the clock. To conclude that the Legislature is free to follow a different clock than all of the people in this state is an absurd and unreasonable result," Leavitt wrote.
Maupin said those two bills approved after midnight, actually fell on the 121st day of the session, which was past the deadline.
The chief justice said, "It is evident to me that, if 'midnight Pacific Standard Time' means anything other than 'midnight Pacific Daylight-Saving time', the midnight adjournment does not and cannot occur on the 120th calendar day of the session."
When these two bills failed in the regular session they were presented to the special session of the Legislature. But they failed to pass when Republican assemblymen became involved in a feud over reapportionment.
The GOP Assembly was unhappy with the redistricting, which will cut into their numbers. Consequently, they refused to vote for these two bills that required a two-thirds majority since they impose fees.
Gov. Kenny Guinn said today he would sign the two bills when they are sent to him. And he said he would ask Legislative Counsel Bureau Director Lorne Malkiewich also to transmit Assembly Bill 460, which allows the state to collect a tax imposed on rental cars that has been going to the auto industry.
That original bill, he said, did not include a section that permitted a legislative oversight committee of the state Transportation Department. He opposed any legislative committee to be looking at the department that he runs. The second version of the bill that passed during the special session included the oversight committee. He signed that bill but vowed then he would challenge that in court.
He now wants the earlier version submitted to him to supersede the second bill.
archive
