W. ROCKWELL WIRTZ et al., Appellees, v. PATRICK QUINN, Governor, et al., Appellants.
111903
Supreme Court of Illinois
July 11, 2011
2011 IL 111903
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
Held (Note: This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.)
Video Gaming Act held not to violate the single-subject provision of the
Decision Under Review
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District, reported at 407 Ill. App. 3d 776; heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Hon. Lawrence O‘Gara, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Appellate court judgment reversed; circuit court judgment affirmed.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Richard S. Huszagh, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
Sam Vinson, Floyd D. Perkins, Claudette P. Miller, Seth A. Horvath and Patrick J. Hanlon, of Ungaretti & Harris LLP, of Chicago, for appellees.
Marc R. Poulos, Kara M. Principe and Melissa L. Binetti, of Countryside, for amicus curiae Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting.
Justices
JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Garman, Karmeier, and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 In this appeal, plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of four public acts, Public Acts 96–34, 96–35, 96–37, and 96–38 (eff. July 13, 2009). The public acts at issue, comprising three substantive bills and one appropriation bill, were enacted as part of a “capital projects” plan and were signed into law by Governor Patrick Quinn on July 13, 2009.
¶ 2 The appellate court held that Public Act 96–34 violates the single subject clause of the
¶ 3 For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court.
BACKGROUND
¶ 4 ¶ 5 On August 25, 2009, plaintiffs, W. Rockwell Wirtz, on behalf of all taxpayers situated in the State of Illinois, and Wirtz Beverage Illinois, LLC, filed a petition pursuant to section 11–303 of the
¶ 6 On October 20, 2009, the circuit court denied plaintiffs’ petition. The court held that all of plaintiffs’ claims failed as a matter of law and, therefore, there was no “reasonable ground,” under
¶ 7 The appellate court reversed. 407 Ill. App. 3d 776. The court held that Public Act 96–34 violates the single subject clause of the
¶ 8 Defendants petitioned this court for leave to appeal as of right under Supreme Court Rule 317 (
¶ 9 For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court. In the interest of judicial economy, rather than remand the cause to the appellate court, we also address and reject the remaining claims raised in plaintiffs’ complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
ANALYSIS
I. Single Subject Clause
¶ 10 ¶ 11 ¶ 12 The single subject clause of the
¶ 13 The single subject rule regulates the process by which legislation is enacted, by prohibiting a legislative enactment from “clearly embracing more than one subject on its face.” Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 187 Ill. 2d 341, 351 (1999); People v. Olender, 222 Ill. 2d 123, 131 (2005). One purpose of the single subject requirement is to preclude the passage of legislation which, standing alone, would not receive the necessary votes for enactment.
¶ 14 In determining whether a particular enactment violates the single subject rule, we construe the word “subject” liberally in favor of upholding the legislation. Olender, 222 Ill. 2d at 132; Arangold, 187 Ill. 2d at 352. The subject may be as broad as the legislature chooses. People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89, 109 (2002); Johnson, 176 Ill. 2d at 515. However, “while the legislature is free to choose subjects comprehensive in scope, the single subject requirement may not be circumvented by selecting a topic so broad that the rule is evaded as ‘a meaningful constitutional check on the legislature‘s actions.‘” Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d at 109 (quoting Johnson, 176 Ill. 2d at 515-18).
¶ 15 Neither the length of an act nor the number of provisions in an act is determinative of its compliance with the single subject rule. Arangold, 187 Ill. 2d at 352; Cutinello v. Whitley, 161 Ill. 2d 409, 423 (1994). What is dispositive is whether the provisions in the act have a “natural and logical connection” to the single subject. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d at 109; Arangold, 187 Ill. 2d at 352. Thus, a piece of legislation violates the single subject rule when it contains unrelated provisions that by no fair interpretation have any legitimate relation to the single subject. Arangold, 187 Ill. 2d at 352.
A. Public Act 96–34
¶ 16 ¶ 17 In count I of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that Public Act 96–34 violates the single subject clause. Legislative enactments are presumed to be constitutional (Wooters, 188 Ill. 2d at 505; People v. Reedy, 186 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (1999)), and a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of clearly establishing a constitutional violation (People v. Dabbs, 239 Ill. 2d 277, 291 (2010)). The appellate court‘s finding that a statute is unconstitutional is reviewed de novo. People v. Burdunice, 211 Ill. 2d 264, 267 (2004); People v. Sypien, 198 Ill. 2d 334, 338 (2001).
¶ 18 Public Act 96–34, entitled, “An Act concerning revenue,” contains the following provisions.
¶ 19 Article 5 creates the Video Gaming Act. This legislation allows certain licensed establishments, including establishments where alcoholic liquor is served for consumption, fraternal establishments, veterans establishments, and truck stops, to conduct video gaming. Article 5 sets forth rules for obtaining licenses and requirements for video game terminals. It provides that the Illinois Gaming Board is responsible for testing and approving every
¶ 20 Article 800 creates the Capital Spending Accountability Law. This law requires the Governor‘s Office of Management and Budget to provide quarterly reports on the status of all capital projects in the state to the Comptroller, the Treasurer, the President and Minority Leader of the Senate, and the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
¶ 21 Article 900, section 900, amends the
¶ 22 Section 905 amends the
¶ 23 Sections 910, 915, 920, and 925 amend the
¶ 24 Section 930 amends the
¶ 25 Section 935 amends the
¶ 26 Section 940 amends the
¶ 28 Section 950 amends the
¶ 29 Section 955 amends the
¶ 30 Section 960 amends the
¶ 31 Finally, article 9999, section 9999, of Public Act 96–34 provides: “This Act takes effect July 1, 2009, except that the changes to ***the Illinois Vehicle Code take effect January 1, 2010; but this Act does not take effect at all unless House Bill 312 of the 96th General Assembly [enacted as Public Act 96–35], as amended, becomes law.”
¶ 32 The appellate court held that the single subject of Public Act 96–34 was revenue, based on its official title, “An Act concerning revenue.” However, defendants assert before this court that the single subject of Public Act 96–34 is capital projects. Defendants are not limited solely to the contents of the title of an act in offering a single subject rationale. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d at 109-10; see also Olender, 222 Ill. 2d at 140. Moreover, capital projects is a legitimate single subject, one which is not “so broad that the rule is evaded as ‘a meaningful constitutional check on the legislature‘s actions.‘” Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d at 109 (citing Johnson, 176 Ill. 2d at 515-18).
¶ 33 Having determined that the subject of capital projects is legitimate, we must examine the provisions in Public Act 96–34 to discern whether they have a “natural and logical connection” to that subject. Sypien, 198 Ill. 2d at 338-39. In doing so, we find that the substantive provisions in Public Act 96–34 clearly are connected to capital projects in that they establish increased revenue sources to be deposited into the Capital Projects Fund. The few provisions that do not directly raise revenue are still related to the overall subject of the Act in that they help to implement the other provisions. “‘An act may include all matters germane to a general subject, including the means reasonably necessary or appropriate to the accomplishment of the legislative purpose.‘” People ex rel. Ogilvie v. Lewis, 49 Ill. 2d 476, 487 (1971) (quoting People ex rel. Gutknecht v. City of Chicago, 414 Ill. 600, 607-08
¶ 34 For example, the provision in article 900, section 935, of Public Act 96–34, which authorizes a study on the effect of the lottery on Illinois families, is related to the amendments to the Illinois Lottery Law in article 900, including the establishment of a pilot program to purchase lottery tickets on the internet. The legislature reasonably anticipated that the amendments would result in additional sales of lottery tickets, with the extra proceeds to be deposited into the Capital Projects Fund. Therefore, a study on the effect of greater numbers of people buying lottery tickets is related to the implementation of these changes. Similarly, the amendments to the Illinois Vehicle Code in article 900, section 955, increasing certain vehicle weight limits, while not related to revenue, are related to the provisions increasing the fines for violations of these limits. Although the weight limits are increased, the amounts of most of the fines are doubled, which the legislature evidently believed would result in a net increase of revenue to be deposited into the Capital Projects Fund.
¶ 35 According to plaintiffs, even assuming that the single subject of Public Act 96–34 is capital projects, several provisions in the Act bear no relation to that subject because they have the effect of allocating money to the General Revenue Fund rather than to the Capital Projects Fund. We do not find plaintiffs’ argument persuasive.
¶ 36 First, plaintiffs allege that a portion of the tax revenue raised from the increased taxes on soft drinks, candy, and grooming and hygiene products is directed to the Common School Fund and the General Revenue Fund. Defendants respond that the recategorization of these products from the 1% tax rate to the 6.25% rate results in 5% of the revenue generated by the increased rate going to the Capital Projects Fund, 1% going to the Local Government Fund, and 0.25% going to the County and Mass Transit District Fund, with no money going to the General Revenue Fund. Defendants allege that this allocation was necessary because “doing anything else with the additional 0.25% would have required a massive overhaul of the current structure for processing the relevant sales and collecting the corresponding taxes.”
¶ 37 Secondly, plaintiffs point to article 900, section 905, of the Act, which authorizes transfers of certain amounts of money from the Capital Projects Fund to the General Revenue Fund, and also provides that, beginning in fiscal year 2010, no road fund moneys shall be appropriated to the Department of State Police and to the Secretary of State. Plaintiffs argue that the amounts to be transferred to the General Revenue Fund are much greater than, and not offset by, the elimination of road fund diversions to pay for operations of the State Police and Secretary of State. Defendants dispute the figures cited by the plaintiffs and allege that the amounts of money are comparable.
¶ 38 Whether or not the plaintiffs are correct about the percentages going to the Capital Projects Fund, it is not the function of this court to trace the origin and destination of every dollar amount cited in Public Act 96–34. Rather, our task is to decide whether Public Act 96–34, as a whole, is devoted to a single subject and, therefore, constitutional. In doing so, we bear in mind that the single subject rule is construed liberally and “is not intended to handicap the legislature by requiring it to make unnecessarily restrictive laws.” Cutinello v. Whitley, 161 Ill. 2d 409, 423 (1994). Applying that principle here, we see no provision in the Act which stands out as being constitutionally unrelated to the single subject of capital
¶ 39 We note, also, that previous decisions of this court which have struck down legislation for violating the single subject rule are distinguishable. In People v. Olender, 222 Ill. 2d 123, 139 (2005), a bill in its original form amended three criminal statutes: the
¶ 40 In another case, People v. Reedy, 186 Ill. 2d 1 (1999), the bill initially addressed the single subject of the criminal insanity defense but eventually dealt with as many as five separate legislative topics, involving both civil and criminal matters. Those topics included the basic duties and jurisdiction of law enforcement officials; the burden of proof for a criminal defendant asserting the insanity defense; civil and criminal rules governing drug offense and drug asset forfeiture proceedings; truth-in-sentencing law; and rules for hospital liens. Even when giving great deference to the legislature, we held that the contents of the bill encompassed at least two unrelated subjects: matters relating to the criminal justice system and matters relating to hospital liens. Id. at 12. The State‘s argument that each of the provisions fit within the category of “governmental matters” was not compelling. Id. at 12.
¶ 41 Finally, in Johnson v. Edgar, 176 Ill. 2d 499, 517 (1997), the enactment was held to be an “egregious example of the legislature ignoring the single subject rule.” What started as an 8-page bill became a 200-page bill, encompassing such diverse topics as child sex offenders, employer eavesdropping, and environmental impact fees imposed on the sale of fuel. Rejecting the State‘s suggestion that the subject of the bill was “public safety,” we held, “[w]ere we to conclude that the many obviously discordant provisions *** are nonetheless related because of a tortured connection to a vague notion of public safety, we would be essentially eliminating the single subject rule as a meaningful constitutional check on the legislature‘s actions.” Id. at 517-18.
¶ 42 In contrast to the cases described above, there are no “smoking gun” provisions in Public Act 96–34 which clearly violate the intent and purpose of the single subject rule. On the Act‘s face, all of the provisions have a natural and logical connection to the single subject of capital projects.
¶ 43 Furthermore, a review of the extensive legislative debate preceding the enactment of
“It‘s been ten years since we‘ve had a capital bill. The toughest part is coming up with the money. *** It‘s not easy voting for these taxes. Quite frankly, there‘s parts in here that I would prefer not be here, would–that would be substituted with other parts. But it‘s–when you work with different parties, different–the House and Senate, you need to have compromise. And that‘s what this is. *** We have measures here dealing with video gaming and the Lottery. We have sales tax–streamlined sales tax language that would generate more money by coming in conformity with the streamlined sales tax. There are liquor taxes, and also vehicle-related tax increases that are very similar to the ones that we did ten years ago when we had a successful capital bill.” 96th Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, May 20, 2009, at 111-12 (statements of Senator Cullerton).
¶ 44 Senator Risinger stated:
“It‘s not a perfect bill that we‘re going to be looking at, but certainly it‘s one that we‘ve worked together and–and made happen. There‘s–the revenue that we‘re going to talk about to fund this, if any one of us was going to put this together, we would probably put it together a little different way. But there‘s things in it that we like and maybe things that we don‘t like. *** And we‘re going to be able to address the real needs of our infrastructure that has been suffering for such a long period of time.” 96th Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, May 20, 2009, at 112-13 (statements of Senator Risinger).
¶ 45 Senator Dillard stated:
“Over here we‘re not necessarily happy with all of the revenue sources that are in here. *** I view capital as very different in terms of raising new revenues than I do the operations of State government. And I have always supported every capital bill that‘s ever been put out here. There is one component of this particular package that I really have trouble with. And that is the video poker side of things ***. *** But most importantly, I think, like many of you, I have committed to my local chambers of commerce, my local labor unions, my local newspapers, that I would support a major capital bill. And I intend to do that today. This State is literally falling apart.” 96th Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, May 20, 2009, at 115-16 (statements of Senator Dillard).
¶ 46 Representative Cross stated:
“I think it‘s important to point out that this Bill happened because a lot of people talked and a lot of people worked together. And it‘s called compromise; it‘s called building consensus. I don‘t like all of the revenue streams. I‘m troubled by some of them, but the reality is we would not have passed any capital Bill without some revenue stream causing us some angst.” 96th Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings,
May 21, 2009, at 142 (statements of Representative Cross).
¶ 47 The legislative debate demonstrates that the legislators engaged in a detailed discussion of many of the provisions in the bill. There is no evidence that any obviously unrelated provisions were “tacked on” to the bill at a later time. Overall, the debate shows that the legislators were aware that they were voting on sources of funding for capital improvements to the state. By contrast, in Olender, where this court struck down a bill because of logrolling, the debate revealed that legislators referred to the bill as “a short title, not *** a good piece of legislation,” and “a flawed, omnibus bill.” Olender, 222 Ill. 2d at 142-43. One Representative complained that there was no in-depth discussion of other, unrelated issues which were “tacked onto” the bill. Id. at 143.
¶ 48 In the debate on Public Act 96–34, although a few legislators remarked that they disliked some of the revenue sources, particularly video gaming, they also commented that the bill was reached through compromise and with the goals of putting people back to work and improving the state‘s infrastructure. We interpret these remarks as legitimate compromise on a bill which comprised a single subject. Indeed, there is a difference between impermissible logrolling and the normal compromise which is inherent in the legislative process. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Ventura, 632 N.W.2d 707, 713-15 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). A diverse and complex enactment such as Public Act 96–34 is likely to result from compromise and negotiation among the members of the General Assembly. The presence of such legislative compromise does not mean that the Act violates the single subject rule. Public Act 96–34 is a constitutionally legitimate enactment genuinely encompassing one subject. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court holding Public Act 96–34 unconstitutional.
B. Public Act 96–37
¶ 49 ¶ 50 In count I of their complaint, plaintiffs also contend that Public Act 96–37, entitled “An Act concerning government,” violates the single subject rule. Pub. Act 96–37 (eff. July 13, 2009). The official short title of the Act is the “FY2010 Budget Implementation (Capital) Act,” and its stated purpose is “to make changes in state programs that are necessary to implement the Governor‘s Fiscal Year 2010 budget recommendations concerning capital.”
¶ 51 During the Senate debate for House Bill 2424, Senator Trotter described the bill as
“As amended, House Bill 2424 creates various Acts and amends other Acts in order to implement the capital budget. Specifically, it adds language to implement funding for safety net hospitals, downstate hospitals, community health facilities, public libraries, parks, private colleges, school construction. It also amends the Video Gaming Act to provide further safeguards against the potential abuse of the Act. It amends the Illinois Lottery Law to address the transition to the selection of a private manager, the manager‘s use of the current department‘s employee services. It requires private managers to hire Lottery employees. And, again, there‘s many issues and–many Acts that are amended.” 96th Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, May 31, 2009, at 169-70 (statements of Senator Trotter).
¶ 52 Plaintiffs contend that Public Act 96–37 “creates entirely new acts, launches wholly new programs, and initiates laws that have nothing to do with implementation of the State budget.” However, there is no authority to support the proposition that a budget implementation bill may only makes changes to existing programs and may not create new programs. After much consideration, we find that all of the provisions in Public Act 96–37 bear a natural and logical connection to the single subject of implementation of the state‘s capital budget.