Wirtz v. Quinn
942 N.E.2d 765
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs challenge Public Acts 96-34, 96-35, 96-37, and 96-38 as unconstitutional under Illinois constitutional provisions.
- Public Act 96-34 (Video Gaming Act and related amendments) expanded gaming and revenue provisions across multiple statutes.
- Public Act 96-37 (FY2010 Budget Implementation) and Public Act 96-38 (Trailer Bill) contingent on 96-34 becoming law.
- Act 96-34 amended the State Finance Act, Use Tax/Retailers’ Occupation Tax, Lottery, Liquor Control, Vehicle Code, and more.
- Act 96-35 was an appropriation bill linked to 96-34 and 96-37, with contingencies based on 96-34.
- Circuit court denied leave to file, and the appellate court reversed, holding 96-34 violated the single subject rule and nullified all four acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Public Act 96-34 violate the single subject rule? | Wirtz asserted multiple unrelated subjects. | Defendants argued broad connection to revenue. | Yes; 96-34 violated the single subject rule. |
| Are Acts 96-35, 96-37, 96-38 valid if 96-34 is void? | Contingent acts depend on 96-34, so may fail. | Contingent acts derive validity from 96-34. | They cannot stand because 96-34 is void. |
| Should severability apply to single-subject violations? | N/A | N/A | Severability does not apply; act void in its entirety. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Edwards, 176 Ill.2d 499 (1997) (single subject violations invalidate act in its entirety)
- Olender v. Gottlieb Mem. Hosp., 222 Ill.2d 123 (2010) (severability not allowed for single subject violations)
- Reedy v. City of Chicago, 186 Ill.2d 1 (1999) (broad subjects must connect to a single subject)
- Geja's Cafe v. MPEA, 153 Ill.2d 239 (1992) (illustrates broad but connected subject in enactment)
- Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder (Arangold I), 187 Ill.2d 341 (1999) (legislation with related budget implementation)