Nevada Mining Ass'n v. Erdoes

• Citation: 26 P.3d 753,117 Nev. 531
• Decision Date: 17 July 2001
• Docket Number: No. 38039, 38053.,38039, 38053.
• Parties: NEVADA MINING ASSOCIATION, A Nevada Non-Profit Corporation, Including Members Such as Barrick Goldstrike, Inc.; Newmont Mining Corporation; Anglogold Corp.; Placerdome U.S., Inc.; Kennecott Rawhide Mining Company; Nevada Resort Association, A Nevada Non-Profit Corporation; MGM-Mirage, A Nevada Corporation; Sierra Pacific Resources; Nevada Power Company; Sierra Pacific Power Company; Nevada Bell Telephone Company; Central Telephone Company-Nevada D/B/A Sprint of Nevada; and Dean A. Rhoads, Nevada Senator from Northern District, Petitioners, v. Brenda ERDOES, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Respondent. Nevada Association of Counties, A Nevada Non-Profit Corporation; and Nevada Association of County Clerks and County Election Officials, A Nevada Not-for-Profit Corporation, Petitioners, v. Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Respondent.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

26 P.3d 753

117 Nev. 531

NEVADA MINING ASSOCIATION, A Nevada Non-Profit Corporation, Including Members Such as Barrick Goldstrike, Inc.; Newmont Mining Corporation; Anglogold Corp.; Placerdome U.S., Inc.; Kennecott Rawhide Mining Company; Nevada Resort Association, A Nevada Non-Profit Corporation; MGM-Mirage, A Nevada Corporation; Sierra Pacific Resources; Nevada Power Company; Sierra Pacific Power Company; Nevada Bell Telephone Company; Central Telephone Company-Nevada D/B/A Sprint of Nevada; and Dean A. Rhoads, Nevada Senator from Northern District, Petitioners, v. Brenda ERDOES, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Respondent.

Nevada Association of Counties, A Nevada Non-Profit Corporation; and Nevada Association of County Clerks and County Election Officials, A Nevada Not-for-Profit Corporation, Petitioners, v. Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Respondent.

No. 38039, 38053.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

July 17, 2001.

Wadhams & Akridge, Las Vegas, for Petitioner Newmont Mining Corporation.

Ann C. Pongracz, Las Vegas, for Petitioner Central Telephone Company-Nevada d/b/a Sprint of Nevada.

Sierra Pacific Resources, Reno, William E. Peterson, General Counsel, Reno, for Petitioners Sierra Pacific Resources, Sierra Pacific Power Company, and Nevada Power Company.

Lionel Sawyer & Collins, and Rory J. Reid, E. Leif Reid and Harvey Whittemore, Reno, for Petitioners Nevada Mining Association, MGM-Mirage, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, and Dean A. Rhoads.

Andrew A. List, Carson City, for Petitioners Nevada Association of Counties, and Nevada Association of County Clerks and County Election Officials.

Legislative Counsel, Brenda J. Erdoes and Kevin C. Powers, Carson City, for Respondent.

Before the Court En Banc.

OPINION

SHEARING, J.

The Nevada Constitution requires the Legislature to adjourn its regular session "not later than midnight Pacific standard time 120 calendar days following its commencement," and deems any action taken after the deadline void unless it is taken during a special session. The Nevada Legislature commenced its 71st session on Monday, February 5, 2001, and took its final action on Assembly Bills No. 94 and No. 661 on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, between midnight and 1:00 a.m. Pacific daylight saving time. The question presented by these writ petitions is whether the legislative action was constitutional. We conclude that it was, because midnight Pacific standard time (PST) is equivalent to 1:00 a.m. Pacific daylight saving time (PDST); thus, the Legislature's final action on the bills was taken before the constitutional deadline and the bills must be enrolled and delivered to the Governor.

FACTS

Docket No. 38039. Assembly Bill No. 661 was introduced and read for the first time in the Assembly on March 26, amended on May 22, and passed as amended on May 23, 2001. A.B. 661 was then introduced and read for the first time in the Senate on May 24, amended on May 30 and again on June 4, and finally passed as amended at 11:57:50 p.m. PDST on June 4, 2001 (10:57:50 p.m. PST). A.B. 661 was returned to the Assembly, which concurred with the Senate's three amendments to A.B. 661 at 12:24:17 a.m., 12:25:15 a.m. and 12:25:47 a.m. PDST on June 5, 2001 (11:24:17 p.m., 11:25:15 p.m. and 11:25:47 p.m. PST on June 4, 2001).

Thereafter, Brenda Erdoes of the Legislative Counsel Bureau declined to enroll A.B. 661 and did not deliver the bill to the Governor for his action.

On June 15, 2001, the Nevada Mining Association, several mining companies, the Nevada Resort Association, a casino resort, several power and telephone companies, and Senator Dean Rhoads filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus (docketed as No. 38039) to compel Legislative Counsel to fulfill her constitutional and statutory duties to enroll A.B. 661 and deliver the bill to the Governor for his action.

Docket No. 38053. Assembly Bill No. 94 was introduced and read for the first time in the Assembly on February 12, amended on April 20, and passed as amended on May 23, 2001. A.B. 94 was then introduced and read for the first time in the Senate on April 24, amended on May 28, and passed as amended on May 28, 2001. A.B. 94 was returned to the Assembly, which did not concur with the Senate's amendments. The Senate did not recede from its amendments, so each chamber appointed the First Conference Committee on A.B. 94. On June 4, 2001, the Committee reported back to the Assembly with the recommendation to concur with the Senate's amendments of A.B. 94 and to further amend the bill. The Assembly adopted the First Conference Committee Report for A.B. 94, and the Report was sent to the Senate. The Senate adopted the Report at 12:38:59 a.m. PDST on June 5, 2001 (11:38:59 p.m. PST on June 4, 2001).

Thereafter, Brenda Erdoes of the Legislative Counsel Bureau declined to enroll A.B. 94 and did not deliver the bill to the Governor for his action.

On June 20, 2001, the Nevada Association of Counties and the Nevada Association of County Clerks and County Election Officials filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus (docketed as No. 38053) to compel Legislative Counsel to fulfill her constitutional and statutory duties to enroll A.B. 94 and deliver the bill to the Governor for his action.

PROPRIETY OF WRIT RELIEF

A writ of mandamus is available to compel a public officer to perform an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.¹ A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, to compel a public officer to perform an act that the officer has no legal duty or authority to perform.² A writ of mandamus also will not issue if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.³ Petitions for extraordinary relief are addressed to the sound discretion of this court.⁴

Here, petitioners do not have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. Moreover, these writ petitions raise an issue of first impression, one that needs clarification and is a matter of public importance: What, precisely, is the constitutional deadline for adjournment, before which a bill that has passed both houses must be enrolled and delivered to the Governor for action and after which any legislative action is void? We conclude that our consideration of these writ petitions is warranted.⁵

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

Under Nevada's Constitution, "a majority of all the members elected to each house is necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution," and "an affirmative vote of not fewer than two-thirds of the members elected to each house is necessary to pass a bill or joint resolution which creates, generates, or increases any public revenue in any form."⁶ For a bicameral legislature such as Nevada's to pass a bill, both houses of the legislature must concur in and pass the same version of the bill during the same legislative session.⁷ Thus, if each house passes a different version of a bill, both houses must subsequently concur in and pass the same version of the bill before they adjourn the legislative session.⁸ If each house passes a different version of a bill and both houses do not subsequently concur in the same version, the bill has not passed the legislature, and no provision of the bill can become law.⁹ Under NRS 218.340, "[w]hen any bill or resolution is passed by both houses, the secretary of the senate or the chief clerk of the assembly shall immediately transmit the same to the legislative counsel to be enrolled." NRS 218.380 provides that "[a]n enrolled bill must be delivered by the legislative counsel, or such person as he designates in writing, to the governor for his action." In carrying out the statutory duties set forth in NRS 218.340 and NRS 218.380, Legislative Counsel is complying with the constitutional mandate that "[e]very bill which may have passed the Legislature, shall, before it becomes a law be presented to the Governor."¹⁰ Consequently, if A.B. 94 and A.B. 661 were passed before the constitutional adjournment deadline, Legislative Counsel has a duty to enroll them and deliver them to the Governor. We conclude that the bills were passed, and that they therefore must be enrolled and delivered.

DURATION OF THE REGULAR SESSION

The sessions of the Nevada Legislature are biennial and, under the Nevada Constitution, must commence on "the 1st Monday of February following the election of members of the Assembly, unless the Governor of the State shall, in the interim, convene the Legislature by proclamation."¹¹ The time for adjournment is constitutionally mandated under article 4, section 2, subsection 2, which provides:

The Legislature shall adjourn sine die each regular session not later than midnight Pacific standard time 120 calendar days following its commencement. Any legislative action taken after midnight Pacific standard time on the 120th calendar day is void, unless the legislative action is conducted during a special session convened by the Governor.

Although this provision seems plain on its face, petitioners and Legislative Counsel advocate different interpretations of two essential parts: "120 calendar days following its commencement" and "midnight Pacific standard time."¹² We must therefore decide whether the first day of the regular legislative session is included in the 120-day durational limit and whether midnight Pacific standard time is the same as midnight Pacific daylight saving time.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION

When construing constitutional provisions, we use the same rules of construction used to interpret statutes.¹³ Our primary task, then, is to ascertain the intent of those who enacted the durational limit on legislative sessions, and to adopt an interpretation that best captures their objective.¹⁴ We must give words their plain meaning unless doing so would violate the spirit of the provision.¹⁵ We are concerned here with a narrow legal issue, not with the legislation itself; we express no opinion on the merits of A.B. 94 or A.B. 661.

DISCUSSION

We first consider the meaning...