dissenting:
Article 4, section 2, subsection 2 of the Nevada State Constitution 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.
This court has been asked to determine whether legislative approval of two measures between 12:00 a.m., Pacific daylight saving time, June 4, 2001, and 1:00 a.m., Pacific daylight saving time, June 5, 2001, are in compliance with the above-quoted provision.
This court has determined that these writ petitions present two primary issues of interpretation: (1) whether 120 days “following commencement” includes the first day of the session; and (2) whether 1:00 a.m. Pacific daylight saving time equates to “midnight Pacific standard time.”
120 days
I agree with all six of my colleagues that the people of this state intended the State Legislature to deliberate over its legislative responsibilities during a period totaling, or limited to, 120 calendar days. This conclusion is based upon the following language in a ballot question, which appeared on the 1998 general election ballot:
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to limit the length of Nevada’s regular legislative sessions to not more than 120 calendar days . . . ?
The contrary construction urged by petitioners, made by analogy to our rules for calculating legal deadlines, is not of neces*544sity unreasonable. However, our interpretation resolving this first threshold issue is more in line with the intent of the voters.
Midnight
The second issue presents a more interesting and unique problem. The term “midnight,” in and of itself, is not ambiguous. Going further, the language of the constitutional amendment establishing an adjournment deadline of “midnight Pacific standard time” seems perfectly plain and unambiguous in writing. This language is, however, tantalizingly ambiguous in application because Nevada changes from Pacific standard time to Pacific daylight saving time during the regular legislative session. Thus, the constitutional provision cannot be applied as written. As I will explain below, the deadline urged by petitioners, “midnight Pacific standard time,” if it is the functional equivalent of 1:00 a.m. Pacific daylight saving time, did not occur on the 120th day of the session.
The majority, correctly in my view, indicates that the term “standard time,” in its ordinary meaning, is different than “daylight saving time.” I would therefore have to agree that, standing alone, adjournment at midnight Pacific standard time meant 1:00 a.m. daylight saving time. Having said this, the language pertaining to midnight adjournment must be read in conjunction with the requirement that the session must not exceed 120 calendar days. When this exercise in construction is accomplished, the majority’s conclusion arguably becomes problematic.
First, under the 120-day limitation, the final day of the legislative session was set for Monday, June 4, 2001. Second, although “midnight Pacific standard time,” again standing alone, may equate to 1:00 a.m. daylight saving time, the one-hour time frame between 12:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. Pacific daylight saving time legally elapsed on Tuesday, June 5, 2001. In other words, the measures that are the subject of these writ petitions were, as a matter of law, finally approved by both houses of the Legislature on Tuesday, June 5, not Monday, June 4. Thus, regardless of how we interpret the meaning of the term “midnight Pacific standard time,’ ’ the legislative measures that are the subject of this controversy were actually approved on the one hundred and twenty-first “calendar” day of the legislative session.
To conclude, the pertinent language of article 4 of the Nevada Constitution requires that the Legislature adjourn any regular biennial session “not later than midnight Pacific standard time 120 calendar days following its commencement.” As noted, the ambiguity created by the change from standard to daylight saving time during regular legislative sessions renders this provision internally inconsistent. It is evident to me that, if midnight *545“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. Thus, at least in my view, that internal inconsistency cannot be resolved unless midnight standard time is construed in accordance with Justice Leavitt’s discussion in his separate dissent.
In light of the above, I would deny these petitions.
Concluding remarks
I would additionally note that resolving this matter was not as simple as one might conclude from a superficial recapitulation of the issues presented. We have been charged with deciding whether midnight means 1:00 a.m., Pacific standard time, or whether standard time means daylight saving time. Neither, of course, is literally true. Although it appears that we have been engaged, as some have said, in an intellectual exercise akin to “angels dancing on the head of a pin,” such is not the case. This is simply the inevitable result of a process that requires this court to resolve a very troubling, albeit technical, internal inconsistency in the constitutional provision at issue here. That I happen to disagree with our majority does not undermine the thoughtfulness with which this court as a whole has resolved this historic dispute.