Wirtz v. Quinn
953 N.E.2d 899
Ill.2011Background
- Wirtz and Wirtz Beverage Illinois sue to enjoin disbursement of public funds for four acts (96–34, 96–35, 96–37, 96–38) enacted July 13, 2009 as part of a capital projects package.
- Act 96–34 creates the Video Gaming Act, raises revenue via taxes, and reallocates funds to the Capital Projects Fund; other sections (800, 900, 905, etc.) amend related statutes and establish the Capital Projects Fund.
- Act 96–35 is an appropriation bill for capital projects, contingent on the passage of 96–34 and its amendments.
- Act 96–37 (FY2010 Budget Implementation) and Act 96–38 modify and refine provisions related to capital projects, revenue streams, and the Video Gaming Act.
- Appellate Court held 96–34 violates the single subject clause; appellate decisions on the other acts were based on their contingency on 96–34.
- Court ultimately reversed the appellate judgment and affirmed the circuit court, holding all four acts constitutional and the contingency provisions lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Public Act 96–34 violate the single subject clause? | Public Act 96–34 lacks a natural connection to capital projects | Act 96–34 has a valid single subject (capital projects) | No; Act 96–34 is a valid single-subject enactment |
| Do contingency provisions tying Acts 96–34, 96–35, 96–37, 96–38 violate single-subject rule? | Contingencies improperly merge acts into one bill | Contingencies are reasonably related; do not create a single bill | No; contingencies do not violate single subject rule |
| Do tying provisions violate presentment, effective-date, veto, or separation of powers clauses? | Tying strips governor of veto power and violates separation of powers | Bills remain separable; tying provisions permissible | No; no constitutional violation; governor retains veto power |
| Do private video gaming and lottery provisions violate the Public Funds Clause or Uniformity Clause? | Public funds used for private interests; no public purpose | Public purposes are served; incidental private benefits permitted; classifications reasonable | No; provisions serve public purposes and classifications are reasonable |
| Do the appropriation bills contain impermissible substantive law? | Inclusion of substantive provisions in 96–35 and related acts unconstitutional | Appropriations may include contingent provisions; severance possible | No; substantive provisions properly severable or permissible as related to appropriations |
Key Cases Cited
- Olender v. People, 222 Ill. 2d 123 (2005) (single-subject analysis; broad constitutional safeguards)
- Johnson v. Edgar, 176 Ill. 2d 499 (1997) (egregious logrolling; multi-subject invalidity)
- Boclair v. Jones, 202 Ill. 2d 89 (2002) (subject scope; legitimate broad subject allowed but not evasion)
- Cutinello v. Whitley, 161 Ill. 2d 409 (1994) (limit on number of subjects; legislative process efficiency)
- People v. Reedy, 186 Ill. 2d 1 (1999) (multi-subject legislative bills; not permissible to combine unrelated topics)