THIRD DIVISION January

26, 2011
Nos. 1-09-3163 1-10-0344 W. RO CKWEL L WIR TZ, an I ndividual and ) Appeal from the WIRTZ BEVERAGE ILLINOIS, LLC, an ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Illino is Limit ed Liab ility Co mpa ny, o n Be half o f ) Co o k C o un t y. and f or t he Ben

efi t o f the Tax

pay ers of the ) State of Il l i noi s, ) ) Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts, )

) v. ) ) PA TR IC K QUIN N, i n His O f f i ci al Ca paci ty as ) Go ver nor of t he St at e o f Illinois; DANI EL W. ) HYNES , i

n H i s Of f i cial Capa ci ty as Com

ptroll er ) of the State of

Il li noi s; ALEXI GIA

NNOU LIA S, ) in His Off ic ia l C apaci ty as Treasurer of the State ) of Il l i noi s; THE DEPA

RTMENT OF R

EVENUE; ) BRIA N HA MER, D i rector of Rev en ue; THE ) ILL INOIS G

AMING B OA

RD; AA RON J AFFE, ) CHA RLES GA

RDNER, EUGENE W

INK LER, ) JOE M OORE , JR., a

nd J AMES E. SULLIVA

N, ) as M em bers of the Il l i noi s Ga m i ng B oard; THE ) ILL INOIS L OTTERY ; a nd J ODIE W INNETT, ) S up er int en de nt o f t he Lo t t er y, ) Honorable ) Law

rence O' Gara , Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Presidi ng Judge.
PRE SI DI NG J US TI CE QUI NN d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Justic es N evi l l e an

d Steel e concurre d i

n the j udgm

en t and opi ni on. OPINI ON Pla int iffs, W. Ro ck we ll Wir t z a nd Wir t z B ev er ag e I llino is, LL C, o n be ha lf o f all t axpa yers s itu at ed in t he St at e o f Illinois, br ou ght t his suit pur sua nt t o s ect ion 1 1- 303 of t heNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-2-

Illinois Co de o f Civil

Pr oc edu re (Co de) (7 35 I LCS 5/ 11- 303 (Wes t 200 8) ), see king t o e njoin t he dis bursem ent of publ

ic fun ds by the defe ndan t publi c off ic ia ls in connecti on with the “Capi tal Pro j ec ts A cts ,”f our pi ec es of l eg i sl ati on pa ss ed b y th e I l l i n oi s G en eral A ss em b l y an d s i gn ed i n to la w by Governor Patrick Qui

nn on J uly 13, 2009. Specif

ic ally , plai ntif fs alle ged that the Capital Projects Acts, three substantive bi ll s and one appropri ation bi ll (now Publ

ic Acts 96-34, 96-35, 96-37 and 96-38), violated provis ions of the Illi nois Constitution, i

ncl udin g the si ngle subj ect rule, the un i f orm i ty cl au se , th e re qui

rem en t tha t an appropriati

on bi l l be con f i ne d to the sub

j ec t of app ro pr iatio n, t he r equ irement t hat public fund s be u sed only for public pu rp os es a nd t he requirem ents of separation of powers and ef fecti ve date of l

aws. The ci

rcuit court denied plai ntif f s leav e to fi l e the i r com pl ai nt an d pl ai ntif f s’ motion to recons i der. Pl

ai ntif f s n ow appe al
. Fo rt he fo llo win g r ea so ns, we find t ha t Pu blic A ct 96
- 34 wa s e na ct ed in vio lat io n o f t he sing le
su b j ec t re qui re men t of our sta te c on sti tuti on an d, t h eref ore , Pu b l i c A ct 9 6- 34 i s v

oi d i n i ts e n ti re ty and b ecause Publ

ic Acts 96-35, 96-37 and 96-38 are contin gent on the enactm

ent of Publ

ic Act 96-34 , thes e pub l i c ac ts can not stan d. I. BACKG

ROUND Plai ntif fs ’ compl ai nt chal le nged the consti

tut iona li ty of Pub li

c Acts 96-34, 96-35, 96-37 and 96-38. A. Publ ic Act 96-34 Publ ic Act 96-34 is

titled “ AN ACT concerni

ng reven ue.” Articl

e 5 of Publ

ic Act 96-34
cre ate s th e V i de o Ga

m i ng A ct, w hi ch al l owsl i cens ed

reta i l es tab l i sh men ts w he re a l coh ol i c l i quor i s s er v ed f or c on su m pti on , l i cen se d f ra ter n al estab l i sh men ts, an d l i cen se d vete

ra n s e sta b l i sh men tsNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-3-

and t ru ck s t op s t o c ond uct video gaming. Pu blic Act 9 6- 34 a lso a mends t he River boa t Gambling Act to provi de f

or adm i nistration an

d en f orcem en t of v i deo gam i ng b y the Il l i noi s Ga m i ng B oard. The bill also amends t he I lli

nois C riminal Cod e t o p ro vide t hat gaming und er t he Vide o G aming Act i s not il

le gal gam bl in g under Illi

nois la w. Publ ic Act 96-34, articl e 800, creates the Capital Spendi ng Accountabili

ty Law, wh

ic h
re quir es t he Go ver nor ’s Office o f Manag ement and B udg et t o mak e r epo rt s ea ch qu ar t er on t he Stat e’s capi

tal projects. Section 905 of Publ ic Act 96-34 ame

nds the State Fi

nan ce Act to: (1)
cr eat e t he Ca pit al Pr ojec t s Fund and r equ ire t ra nsfers t o t he Ge ner al Reve nue Fu nd and t hat t he Capi tal Projects Fun

d be used f

or capital proj ects and debt servi ce; (2) create the Local Gov er n men t Vi de o Ga m i n g D i str i b uti v e F un d; an d ( 3) sto p al l

di v er si on s f rom th e R oad Fu n d to the Se cretary

of State and State Pol

i ce. Publi c Act 96-34 , section 910 and 925, also am ends the Use Tax Act and Retailers' Oc cu pa ti on Ta x A ct to prov

i de th at c an dy , c er tai n b ev erag es , a n d g room i n g a n d h y gi en e p rod uc ts are taxed at the 6.25% rat e (in stead of the 1% rate) and to require deposi t o f the i ncreased
re venue into t he Ca pit al Pr ojec t s Fund . S ect ion 9 00 a mends t he I lli nois L ot t er y Law t o a llow t he De pa rtm en t of Re v en ue to co n du ct th

e L otter y th rough a m an ag em en t ag re em en t wi th a p ri v ate manage r a nd t o a ut hor ize a p ilot pr og ra m to allow t he pu rc hase of I lli nois L ot t er y ticke t s o n t he In ter n et. Se cti

on 93 5 a men dsth e U n i v er si ty of Il l i n oi s A ct to r eq ui reth e U n i v er si ty to co n du ct a stu dy on th e e f f ec t on Il l i n oi s f am i l i es of mem b er s of th e f am i l y pu rc h as i n g I l l i n oi s L otter

y ti ckets and to repo rt its fin

din gs. Sec t ion 9 45 o f Public Act 96- 34 a mends t he Liqu or Co nt ro l Act o f 193 4 t o incr eas e t heNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-4-

tax on wi n e, b eer, a

n d al coh ol an d s pi ri ts. Se cti on 95 5 a men dsth e I l l i n oi s V eh i cl e C ode to in crease various fees and f

in es and to make changes concernin g tr uck load and weight restrictions. B. The FY2010 Budget Im ple me ntation Ac

t (Publi c Act 96-37) Publ i c Act 96-37 creates the

FY201 0 Budget Im

pl em entati on (Capi

tal) A ct (the BIMP) and is t itled “AN ACT co ncer ning go ver nment. ” Co nt ingent upo n Pu blic Act 9 6- 34 be co ming l aw , the B IM P a

men dsth e p rov

i si on s i n Pu b l i c A ct 9 6- 34 i n cl udi n g th ose pertai n i n g to th e p ri v ate
manager f or the l ottery a nd to the cen tral com m uni cations s y stem f or the v i deo gam i ng program . T he BI MP ad ds a n ew se ct io n 8 5 t o t he Vid eo Ga ming Ac t , mak ing it s p r o visio ns s ev er ab le pursuan t to secti on 1.31 of the Statute on Statutes (5 I LCS 70/1.3 1 (West 200 8)). Also c ont ingent upo n Pu blic Act 9 6- 34 be co ming law, t he BI MP c larifies t hat , w hile the pr oc eed s o f the new liquo r t ax ar e t o be dep os ited into t he Ca pit ol P roject s Fund , t he exist ing liquo r t ax amo unt s ar e t o be dep os ited into t he Ge ner al Reve nue Fu nd. The BIM P also makes t he additional tax severable un

der sect ion 1.31 of the St atut e on St atut es. The BIMP contai

ns other provis ions , in

cl udin g: a provis ion that am

ends the R

iv er Edge Red evelo pment Zo ne Act t o p ro vide fo r t he ce rt ifi cat ion o f a pilot river -e dge re deve lop ment z one in E lgin in 2 00 9; a p r o visio n a men din g t he Ve hic le C o de t o man da t e a fina nc ial d isc lo su r e in
r en t al c ar co nt r ac t s fo rco nsu mer s; pr o visio ns c r ea t ing an ur ba n w ea t he r iza t io n p r o gr am; provisi ons addi ng Gam in g Board peace off

ic ers; an d provisi ons authorizi

ng the Capi

tal Development Bo ard t o pr ovide grant s to fund capital pro jects t o improve o r reno vate a ho spital’s fa cili t y o rt o imp r o ve , r ep lac e, o rac qu ir e e qu ip men t o rt ec hno lo gy.Nos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-5- C. The Trai

l er Bi l l (Pub l i c Act 96-38 ) Publi c Act 96-38 (the Tr ail

er Bil l) i s titled “A

N ACT concerning governm ent,” and is a t r aile rbill t o Pu blic A ct 96
- 34
. T he T r aile rBill a men ds ce r t ain pr o visio ns o f Pu blic A ct 96
- 34 , if and o nly i f Public Act 96- 34 be co mes law. Co nt ingent upo n Pu blic Act 9 6- 34 be co ming law, t he Tr ailer Bill change s t he effect ive dat e fo r t he incre ase in taxe s o n cand y, ce rt ain bever age s, a nd gr oo ming and hygiene p ro duc t s t o S ept ember 1 , 2 009 (r at her t han Aug ust 1, 200 9) . C ont ingent upon Publ

ic Act 96-34 becom

in g la w, the Trailer Bi ll

am ends the Vi

deo Gami ng Act by : (1)
ma kin g chan ges concerni

ng the resi

dency requirem ents f or licensi ng; (2) cl arif yi ng that the 50% split o f the aft er -t ax pr ofit s fro m a video gaming t er minal i s manda t or y “not wit hst anding a ny agree men t to t he contrar y ” b etween the l

i censed estab l i sh men t and the v i deo gam bl i ng ope rator; and (3) addi

ng a sev erabi li ty cl ause. D. Th e A ppropri ati on Bi l l (Pub l i c Act 96-35 ) Pu blic Act 9 6- 35 ( t he App ro pr iatio n Bill) is tit led “AN ACT making ap pr op riat ions. ” T he Appropriati on Bill

provides appropriations f

or publi c fun ds f or pro je cts provided b

y Publi c Act 96-34 and t he BIMP. The Appro priation Bill contains an article maki

ng i ts effectiv eness co nt ing en t up o n P ub lic Ac t 96
- 34 be co ming law , pr o vid ing t ha t it “d o es no t t ak e e ffec t at all unless [Publ

ic Act 96-34], as amen

ded, become s l aw.” Th e A ppr opri ati on B i l l i nc l ude s a prov i si on th at “ [n]o con

tract sh al l be en tere d i nto or
o blig at io n inc ur r ed fo ran y exp en dit ur es fo rap pr o pr iat io n in S ec t io ns 5 an d 1 0 o f t his A r t icle un t il aft er t he pu rp os es a nd amo unt s have been a ppr ove d in wr iting by t he Go ver nor .” The A ppr opri ati on B i l l also crea tesa gran t prog ram f or th e En vi ron men tal Prote cti on A ge nc y f orNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-6-

wastewater compli

ance, b ut o nl y w here “ [t]hese grants are lim ited to proje cts for which the l ocal go ver nment p ro vides a t least 30% of t he pr ojec t co st . T her e is an ap pr ove d co mpliance plan, and there is an en forceabl e compl ia nce sch edul e prior to grant award. ” E. Trial Court Proceedings On Oc t o be r20 , 20 09 , t he cir cu it co ur t en t er ed an o r de rde nying pla int iffs le av e t o file their com pla in t challe ngi ng the consti

tut iona li ty of Pub li

c Acts 96-34, 96-35, 96-37 and 96-38. In doing so, t he ci

rcuit cou rt st ated as follows:

“ Thi s m atte r i s a n a cti on th at re stra i ne d a nd en j oi ne d the di sb

urs em en t of public fund s by any officer or officer s o f the st at e go ver nment a nd t hat may be
mai nta i ne d un de r our l aw s b y the A ttorn ey Gene ral or an y ci tizen a nd tax pa yer of the state. In thi s case, thi s i s a heari ng pursuan

t t o t hat statut e regardin

g the bri ngi ng o f t he ac t io n by a cit ize n t ax pa yer . And t he de t er minat io n fo rt his c o ur t t o mak e is
** * w he t he ro rno t t he r e’ s r ea so na ble gr o un d fo rt he filing o f su ch an ac t io n by, in thi s ca se, a

ci tiz en taxp ay er. * * * And in making t he co ur t ’s de cision, in addit ion t o r eviewing t he wr itt en su bmiss io ns a nd list en ing t o t he ar gu men t s o f co un se l, I ha ve t o r ema in c o nst an t ly aware that the judi

ci ary cl ose [ sic ] t he legislat ive pr oc ess a nd t he legislat ion wit h a st ro ng co nst itu t ional pr esu mpt ion, and, furt her , t hat t he langu age t hey use d in t he subm is si ons bef

ore t he court clearl

y i s not the lan

guage of com

mon e very dayNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-7- co nve r sa t io n, wh ich is c lea r ly evid en ce d b y t he dis cu ss io n o f t he sing le s ub jec t rule t hat per haps only lawyers or legislat ive analyst s wo uld co nceive o r d efine in the
wa y th at ou r c our ts h av e def i n ed i n a v er y , v er y b road, l i b eral se n se , qu i te di f f eren tly than most peopl

e on the stree

t woul d def

i ne ‘s i ngl e su bj ect.’ But the court has gone through al l of the counts of the compl

ai nt, revi ewed all the a ut hor ities a nd cit at ions a s t o a rg ument by cou nsel, a nd bas ed o n all of t he
au t ho r it ies t ha t ha ve be en su bmit t ed , t he iss ue is w he t he ro rno t a r ea so na ble gr ou nd [ for ] filing a co mplaint is fo und, and t his co ur t re spe ct fully finds in the
ne gati ve , and, theref

ore, the p eti

tion to fi l e i s res pectf ull y den i ed.” On No vember 1 8, 200 9, plaint iff s filed a no t ice o f app eal fro m the c ircu it co ur t ’s o rd er denying le ave to fi le their com

pla in t (No . 1-09-3163). On January 29, 2010, t he ci

rcuit court denied pla in tif fs ’ m ot ion f or reco nsi deration and pl

ai ntif fs fi le d a second notice

of appeal (No. 1- 10- 0344). On February

18, 2010 , t hi s court consolidated the t wo appeals. On appeal, plai

ntif fs contend that the circui

t cour t faile d to appl

y the proper st andard
un de rse ct io n 1 1- 30 3 o f t he Co de ( 73 5 I LC S 5 /1 1- 30 3 ( We st 20 08 ) ) , an d t he cir cu it co ur t sho uld have a llowed plaint iff

s leave t o file t heir co mplaint w hich st at ed c ons t itu t ional claims, includ ing vi ol ati ons of the si ngl e sub j ec t rul e, th e u ni f orm i ty cl au se , th e re qui

rem en t tha t an appropriati

on bi l l be con f i ne d to the sub

j ec t of appropriati

on, the req ui rem en t tha t publ i c f un dsbe us ed onl y f or publi c purpo ses and the requiremen ts o f separation of powers and effectiv e date o f l aws.Nos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-8- II. AN AL YSIS A. Standard of Rev

ie w Plaint iff s’ pe t itio n for leave t o file t heir co mplaint w as br ou ght unde r se ct ion 1 1- 303 of t he Code (735 ILCS 5/11-303 (West 2008)). Sect ion 11-303 provi des: “Such

action, when pr o se cu t ed by a c it ize n a nd t ax pa yer o f t he St at e, sha ll be c o mmenc ed by p et it io n fo rlea ve t o file
an ac ti on to res trai

n a nd en j oi n th e d ef en da nt or de f en da nts f rom di sb urs i ng the publ i c f un dsof t he St at e. ” S ec t io n 1 1- 30 3 fu r t he rpr o vid es t ha t if t he co ur t is s at isfie d t ha t t he r e is “r ea so na ble gro und for the fili

ng of such action, the cour t may grant the petition.” 735 I LCS 5/11-30 3 (West 200 8). Ou

r s upr em e c ourt h ashe l d that a

prop ose d c om

pl ai nt pres en ts “ rea son ab l e g roun ds ” f or f i l i ng sui t when the re i s n othi ng to i nd i ca te that the p urp ose

of the pe ti ti on “ i s f ri vol ousor ma li ci ous.” Strat-O-Se

al Manufacturi

ng Co. v. Sco tt , 27 Il

l . 2d 563 , 566 (1 963). W he the r a s tatute i s u nc ons ti tutiona l i s a que sti on of l aw su bj ec t to de novo revi ew. Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital , 23 7 Ill. 2d 217 , 22 7 (2 010 ); People v. Olender , 222 Ill . 2d 123 , 13 1 (2 005 ). W

e a re m i nd f ul tha t l eg i sl ati ve ac ts a re af f orde d a consi de rabl e p res

um ption of
co ns t it ut io na lit y. Olender , 222 Il l . 2d at 13 2. B. Sin gle Su bje ct Ru le W e f i rs t con si de r pl ai nti f f s’ arg um en t tha t the l eg i sl atu re v i ol ate d the s i

ngl e sub j ec t rul e of the Ill in ois Constitution (Ill . Const. 1970, art . IV, §8(d)) when it ena cted Publi c Acts 96-34, 96- 35, 96- 37, an

d 96-3 8. The si ngle subj ect rule of the Il

li nois Constitution provi

des, in relev ant part: “Bi ll

s, except bill s for app ro pr iatio ns and for t he co dificat ion, re vision o r r ear ra ngement of law s, s hall beNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-9-

co nfined t o o ne su bject .” Ill. Co nst . 1 970 , a rt . I V, §8( d) . T he single su bject ru le reg ulat es t he proces s by

whi ch l egi slati on i s en

acted. People v. Cervantes , 189 Il l . 2d 80, 8 3 (199 9). Sp ec ifica lly, t he sing le s ub jec t rule is d es ign ed t o pr ev en t t he pa ss ag e o f leg isla t io n t ha t , if stan di ng a l one, c oul d not m

uster the nece ssa

ry votes f or ena ctmen t. Olender , 222 Il

l . 2d at 13 2. The practice of

bundl in g le ss popular l

egi sl ation wi

th more palatabl e bi

ll s so that t he wel

l rece iv ed bi ll s would carry

the unpopula

r ones to passage is kn

own as “l ogro ll in g.” Olender , 222 Ill . 2d at 132. In addi ti on to prev

en ti ng l ogrol l i ng , th e s i ngl e sub j ec t rul e al so f ac i l i tate s th e ena ctm en t of bi l l s throug h a n orde rl y and i nf orme d l egi slati

ve proces s. Olender , 2 22 I ll. 2d a t 132 . B y li miting a bi ll to a si ngle subj ect, legi sl ator s can b etter understand an d more i ntell ige ntly debate the i ssues pres en ted by a b i l l
. Olender , 222 Ill . 2d at 132 (citin g People v. Reedy , 186 Il l . 2d 1, 14

(1999 )). Fu r t he r , “ ‘t he sing le s ub

jec t rule en su r es t ha t t he leg isla t ur e a dd r es se s t he diffic ult de cis io ns it face s di rectly and sub je ct to publ

ic scrutin y, rather than

passi ng unpopul

ar measures on the bac

ks of popular ones.’ ” Olender , 222 Ill . 2d at 132 (quo ting Johnson v. Edgar , 176 Ill . 2d 499, 515 (1997 )). In deter m i n i n g w h eth er a statu te v i ol ate s th e s i n gl e s ub j ec t ru l e, th e te

rm “ su b j ec t” gen eral l y i s con strued

l i beral l y i n f avor of the legi slature. Reedy , 18 6 I ll. 2 d a t 8- 9. While leg isla t ive ac t s a r e a ffo r de d a co nsid er ab le p r es ump t io n o f co nst it ut io na lit y, t ha t pr es ump t io n is not wi thout li m i ts. Reedy , 186 Il

l . 2d at 9. Th

e su bj ect of a b i l l may be as b road as the l egi slature chooses, a s l

ong a s the

bi l l ’sprovisions h

av e a n atural and logi cal

conn ection. Reedy , 186 Ill . 2d at 9. The legisl ature violates the si ngle subj ect rule when “it i ncl udes wi thin one bi ll unrelatedNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-10-

provisi ons that by

no fai r in terpret ation ha

ve an y l egi tim ate relation to one another.” Reedy , 186 Ill . 2d at 9. C. Publ ic Act 96-34 W i th th es e p ri nc i plesi n m i nd , we exam i ne the proc ed ura l hi story an d the sub sta

nc e of Publ ic Act 96-34 in

order t o determin

e i f a s in gle subj ect vi olation e

xi sts. See Olender , 22 2 I ll. 2d at 133 ; Johnson , 176 Il l . 2d at 51 6. Pub l i c A ct 96-34be gan

as H ouse B i l l

255, w hi ch wasi ntroduc ed on

Jan uary 20, 200 9. In its o riginal for m, Ho use Bill 255 beg an as a five-p age bill amending t he I lli

nois e st at e and ge ne rati on- sk i ppi ng tran sf er ta x. Th e ori

gi na l Hou se Bi l l 255 wa s a

ppr ove d by the Hou se on March 24, 2009. On Ma

y 20, 2009, the Sen

ate adopt ed Senate Fl

oor Am endm ent Nos. 1 and 3, whi ch repl aced every

thin g after the ena

cting c la use i n the origi

nal House Bil

l 255 wi th 280 pages of the current provis ions

in Publ ic Act 96-34. These provi si ons i ncl ude the creation of the

Vide o Gam i ng A ct and the Capi tal Spen di ng A ccoun tabi l i ty Law an d am endm en ts to the Il

l i noi s Lottery A ct, th e Sta te F i na nc e A ct, th e U se Tax A ct, th e Se rvi ceUs e Ta

x A ct, th e Se rvi ceOc cu

pa ti on T ax Ac t , t he Re t aile r ’s Oc cu pa t io n T ax Ac t , t he Mo t o rFu el T ax La w, t he Un ive r sit y o f I llino is Act , t he River boa t Gambling Act , t he Liqu or Co nt ro l Act, t he E nviro nmenta l Pro t ect ion Act , t he Vehi cl e C ode , an

d the C ri m i na l Code. On May

21, 200 9, th

e H ous e c onc

urred wi th S en ateFl oor Am endm ent Nos. 1 and 3. On Jul

y 31, 2009, Governor Qui nn s ign ed Publ ic Act 96-34 in

to la w. In Johnson , the Ill

in ois Suprem

e Court inva

li dated a statut e that vi olated the si ngle subj ect rule. Johnson , 1 76 I ll. 2d a t 516 -1 7. At iss ue in Joh ns on was the consti

tut iona li ty of Pub li

c Act 89- 428 , w hich bega n as a n eight -p age bill add re ssing t he nar ro w su bject of r eimburse ment byNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-11-

pri sone rs to the D epartm

en t of Corre cti ons f

or the ex pen se of i nc arce rati on. Johnson , 176 Ill . 2d at 517. The supreme court noted t hat Publ ic Act 89-428 becam

e a 200-page bi

ll whi ch created a la w providi ng f or t he com

mun ity notif ic ation of ch

il d sex of fen ders, created a law i

mposi ng f ees on th e s al e of f ue l , an d e nh an ce d the f el ony cl as si f i ca ti ons f or th e p oss es si

on a nd de l i ve ry of
can na bis. Johnson , 17 6 Il

l . 2d at 5 16. Th e b i l l

also crea ted an exem ption f rom pros ecution f

or eavesdropping appli

cable to empl

oyers who wish to monitor t hei r employees’ conversations, amende d t he law t o a llow t he pr os ecu t ion o f juveniles as ad ult s in cer t ain case s, a nd cr eat ed t he
new cri me of preda tory cri m i na l sex ual ass aul t of a chi l d. Johnson , 17 6 I ll. 2 d a t 51 6. T he bill furt her chang ed t he law g ove rning t he t imi ng o f par ole he ar ings for pr ison inmat es, chang ed t he law governi

ng when a def

endant who is receiv

in g psych ot rop ic drugs i s entitled to a fitness heari ng, and adde d a provis ion to the law governi ng ch il d hearsay statements. Fi

nal ly , Public Act 89-42 8 am

ended a m ul titude of provisions i

n over 20 d

i f f eren t acts an d crea ted several

new laws . Johnson , 176 Ill . 2d at 516-17. In determi

ni ng whether the enactm

ent of Publ

ic Act 89-428 violated the si ngle subj ect
ru l e, our su pr em e c our t ex pl ai n ed , “W h i l e th e l en gth of a b i l l i s n ot deter m i n ati v e of i ts compl ia nce wi th the si ngle subj ect rule, the vari ety of i ts contents certainl

y i s.” Johnson , 17 6 I ll. 2d at 516. Our supreme court not ed that Publi c Act 89-428 encom

passed sub

je cts as di verse as ch ild s ex o ffen de r s, emp lo yer ea ve sd r o pp ing , an d e nvir o nme nt al imp ac t fee s imp o se d o n t he sa le
o f fue l. T he co ur t co nc lud ed t ha t “[ b] y no fair int en dme nt may t he man y dis co r da nt pr o visio ns in Publ ic Act 89-428 be consi

dered to po ssess a

natural an

d logical connecti on.” Joh

ns on , 17 6 I ll. 2d at 51 6- 17
. Ac co r din gly, o ur su pr eme co ur t he ld t ha t Pu blic A ct 89
- 42 8 w as en ac t ed inNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-12-

vi ola tion of the si ngl e su bj ect rul e of our state consti

tution
. Johnson , 176 Ill . 2d at 517-18. The Act at issue in t he pr ese nt cas e pr ese nt s a similar examp le of t he legislat ur e violat ing t he single su bject ru le. As no t ed a bove , P ublic Act 96- 34 be gan a s a five-p age bill add re ssing t he
na rrow su bj ec t of am en di ng the Ill i noi s e sta te a nd ge ne rati on- sk i ppi ng tran sf er ta x. A s ena cte d on Jul y 13, 2009, Publ

ic Act 96-34 grew to 280 pages coveri ng a variety

of sub je cts. The origi

nal bi ll addressi ng the Il li nois estate and generati on-skippi ng transf er tax becam

e a bi ll that created the Vi deo Gami

ng Act, legal

izin g vi deo gami ng i n l ic ensed es tabli shm ents, and the Capi

tal Sp en di n g A cc oun tab i l i ty La w, re qui ri n g th e G ov er n or’ s O f f i ce of Ma n ag em en t an d B udget to
ma ke report s each qua

rter o n the state’s capi

tal projects. The b il

l a me nded the Ri

verboat Ga mbling Ac t t o pr o vid e fo rad minist r at io n a nd en fo r ce men t o f vid eo ga ming by t he I llino is Gaming Bo ar d and amende d t he Cr imi nal Co de t o p ro vide t hat gaming und er t he Vide o G aming Act i s not il

le gal gam bl in g under Illi

nois la w. The bi

ll al so amen

ded the State Fina

nce A ct to : (1)
cr eat e t he Ca pit al Pr ojec t s Fund and r equ ire t ra nsfers t o t he Ge ner al Reve nue Fu nd and t hat t he Capi tal Projects Fun

d be used f

or capital proj ects and debt servi ce; (2) create the Local Gov er n men t Vi de o Ga m i n g D i str i b uti v e F un d; an d ( 3) sto p al l

di v er si on s f rom th e R oad Fu n d to the Secret ary of State and St ate Po li ce. The bil

l f urt her amen

ded the Use Tax Act and Ret ail ers' Oc cu pa ti on Ta x A ct to prov

i de th at c an dy , c er tai n b ev erag es , a n d g room i n g a n d h y gi en e p rod uc ts are taxed at the 6.25% rat e (in stead of the 1% rate) and to require deposi t o f the i ncreased
re venue into t he Ca pit al Pr ojec t s Fund . T he bill amended t he I lli nois L ot t er y Law t o a llow t he De pa rtm en t of Re v en ue to co n du ct th

e L otter y th rough a m an ag em en t ag re em en t wi th a p ri v ate manage r a nd t o a ut hor ize a p ilot pr og ra m to allow t he pu rc hase of I lli nois L ot t er y ticke t s o n t heNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-13-

In ter n et. The b i l l

am en de d th e U n i v er si ty of Il l i n oi s A ct to r eq ui reth e U n i v er si ty to co n du ct a stu dy on th e e f f ec t on Il l i n oi s f am i l i es of mem b er s of th e f am i l y pu rc h as i n g I l l i n oi s L otter

y ti ckets
an d to rep ort i

ts f i n di n gs . F i n al l y , Pu b l i c A ct 9 6- 34 am

en de d th e L i qu or C on

trol A ct of 19 34 to in crease the t ax on win

e, beer, and alcohol and spi rits, and the Illi

nois Vehi cle Code to in

crease various fees an

d fi nes and to make changes concerni ng truck load and weight rest rictions. We f in d that the wide range of to pics i n Publ ic A ct 96- 34 cannot be co nsidered t o po ssess a “n atural and l

ogical connecti on.” Johnson , 1 76 I ll. 2d a t 517 . While de fendant s ass er t t hat t he varied provisi

ons in Publi c Act 96-34 fi

t within the broad catego ry of “ revenue,” defendants’ argum en t is unc onv i nc i ng. I n Johnson , o ur sup re me co ur t re ject ed t he ar gument t hat t he di scorda nt prov i sions of Pub l i c A ct 89-42 8, en

titl ed “ An Act in relati on to pub l i c saf

ety ,” wer e related “ because of a tort ured connecti on to a vague n ot ion of publ ic saf ety.” Johnson , 17 6 I ll. 2d a t 517 -1 8. Our sup re me co ur t cau t ioned in Johnson , t he pe rmitt ed u se o f such a swe eping a nd
va gu e c at eg o ry t o un it e u nr ela t ed mea su r es wo uld “e ss en t ially e limina[ t e] t he sing le s ub jec t rule
as a m eani ngf ul c heck on the l

egi sl ature’s actions.” Johnson , 176 Ill . 2d at 517-18. Likew ise, o ur sup re me co ur t in Reedy , 18 6 Il l . 2d at 1 2, f oun d a si ngl e sub j ec t vi ol ati on in the e nact ment o f a pu blic act ent itled “An Act in relat ion t o g ove rnment al matt er s, a mending
nam ed Acts.” The Reedycour t held that t he act encompassed at least t wo unrelated subjects:
matters re l ated to the c

ri m i na l j ustice sy stem

and m atters re l ated to hos

pi tal l i en s. Reedy , 18 6 I ll. 2d at 12. The Reedycou

rt con cl ude d, “ tha t the se topicsm i gh t f i t wi thi n th e b road su bj ec t of ‘governm ental ma tt ers’ i s not compelli

ng.” Reedy , 186 Ill . 2d at 12. Simil ar ly, in Olender , o ur sup re me co ur t fou nd a s ingle subjec t violat ion in t he ena ct mentNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-14-

of a publ ic act that t he State argued in volv ed the l egi

tim ate sin gle subj ect of “reve

nue.” Olender , 222 Ill. 2d at 140 -4 1. The public ac t at issue in Olender am en de d th e I l l i n oi s In com

e T ax A ct to signifi cantl y i ncrease the pe

nal ty, from mi sdem eanor to felony

, for the fi rst-t im e off ense of wil lf ul and f raudulen t acts, but incl

uded unrel

ated provisi

ons such as m atter s creatin

g a council to study is sues rel ating to geographic i

nf ormation m

anagem ent technology an

d creating a

n authority

whi ch could i ssue b onds

to support an

d dev elop uni versi ty-r elated re sea

rch parks
. Olender , 222 Ill . 2d at 135-3 6. The Olender

court found that the State’s characterization of “ revenue ” was as b

road as the s ubj ects of governm en tal regul ati on, “ governm

en tal matters,” a

nd “ pub l i c saf ety ” wh i ch were fou nd t o be t oo bro ad in Reedyand Johnson resp ecti ve l y . Olender , 2 22 I ll. 2d a t 140 . T he Olender cou rt e x pl ai n ed th at u n der the S tate ’s

i n ter pr eta ti on of re v en ue , “ al most an y sta tute
wo uld have a nat ur al and lo gical co nnect ion t o t he su bject of r evenu e t o t he st at e as long as t he statut e had an

y tan gentia l i mpa ct on the stat e’s econom

y.” Olender , 222 Il

l . 2d at 14 0-41. In contrast t o t he State’s all-en compass in

g in terpret ation of rev

enue, the court not ed, “Bl ack’s La w Dic tionary defi nes ‘ revenue ’ as ‘[g]ross i ncom e or receipts’ an

d defi nes ‘ general

revenue ’ as ‘[ t]h e i nc ome s trea

m f rom wh i ch a s tateor m

un i ci pal i ty pa y s i ts ob l i ga ti on u nl es s a l aw cal l s f or pay me nt from a special fun d.’ ” Olender , 222 Ill . 2d at 141 (quo ting B la ck’s Law Dic tionary 1344 (8th ed. 2004)). T he Olender cou rt con cl ude d that i

n l i gh t of the de f i ni ti on of rev en ue , m an y of the provis ions

in the publ ic act at issue h

ad no natural a

nd l ogical connecti on to the si

ngle subj ect of rev en ue , i nc l udi ng the cre ati on of a c oun ci l to study i ss ue s rel ati ng to ge ogra

ph i c i nf orm ati on manage ment t echno log y and cr eat ing an au t hor ity which co uld issu e bo nds t o s upp or t andNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-15-

develop uni

versi ty-r elated re sea

rch parks
. Olender , 222 Il

l . 2d at 14 1. A ccordi

ngl y , the c ourt
conc l uded that the pub l i c ac t viola

ted the si ngl e su bj ect rul e. Olender , 222 Ill . 2d at 142. In the presen

t case, not all

of the provi si ons of Publ ic Act 96-34 have

a natural a

nd l ogical
co nnect ion t o t he single su bject of r evenu e t o t he st at e. Fo r e xample, we d iscer n no na t ur al and lo gic al c o nne ct io n be t we en t he su bje ct o f r ev en ue an d t he ame nd men t t o t he Un ive r sit y o f I llino is Act t o r equ ire t he univer sity t o c ond uct a st udy o n t he effect on I lli nois families of members of t he f am i l y purch asi ng I l l i noi s Lottery

tickets. Also, t her e is no nat ur al and lo gical co nnect ion bet wee n re venue and t he pr ovisio ns crea ti n g th e C ap i tal Sp en di n g A cc oun tab i l i ty La w. Un der the C ap i

tal Sp en di n g A cc oun tab i l i ty Law, the Governor’s Of

fi ce of Man

agem ent and Budget i s requi

red to ma ke report s each qua

rter on t he st at e’s c apit al expe ndit ur es. This r equ irement involves e xpend itu re s, r at her t han r epo rt ing
on rev en ue. Fur t her , P ublic Act 96- 34 a mends t he I lli nois V ehicle Co de t o mak e cha nges co ncer ning tru ck l oad an d w ei gh t re str i cti on s. Th i s a men dm en t b ea rsn o n atu ra l an d l ogi ca l con n ec ti on to
reven ue to the state. Defend ant s, no net heless, re ly on Geja’s Café v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority , 153 Ill . 2d 239 (1992) and Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder , 187 Ill . 2d 341 (1999) ( Arangold I

), i n s upp ort of the i r con ten ti on th at ou r s upr em e c ourt h asuph el d s i m i l ar l eg i sl ati on as nonv iolative of the si ngle subj ect rule. However, we f in d defen dants’ rel ia nce on these

cases misplaced . I n Ge

ja ’s Ca fe , our suprem

e court uph

eld an enactm en t that i nc l uded , inter al

ia , pr ovisio ns re quir ing Lak e Sho re Dr ive in Chicago t o be re ro ut ed a ro und M cCo rmick P lace a ndNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-16-

requiri ng excess revenues obtai

ned b y the Sport s Faci

li ties A uthority to go t o t he Metropoli tan Pier an d Ex pos i ti on A uth ori ty , b ec au se

al l matte rsi n cl uded wi th i n th e en ac tmen

t had a n atural
and logi cal

conn ection to the s

ubj ect of ex pan di ng McCorm

i ck Pl ace f aci l i tie s. Ge ja ’s Ca fé , 153 Ill . 2d at 256-58. Unl

ike Ge ja ’s Ca fé , not all of the provi si ons i

n Publ ic Act 96-34 bear a n

atural
an d l ogi ca l con n ec ti on to a s i n gl e s ub j ec t ( i.e. re venue t o t he st at e) . I n Arangold I , o ur su pr eme cou rt h el d that the l

eg i sl ati on a t i ss ue(Pu bl i c A ct 8 9-2 1) e

m br ac ed the si ngl e sub j ec t of im ple me ntation of the state budget for t he 1996 f is cal ye ar, whi ch was a

dopt ed on the sam

e day as the ac tual

state b udget (Publ

i c Act 89-22 ). Arangold I , 187 Ill . 2d at 346-47, 352. Here, Publ ic Act 96-34 does not inv

olve the si ngle subj ect of im

ple me ntation of the state budget. Our sup re me co ur t co nsider ed t he ho ldings in Arang old I and Geja’s Café in Cervantes , w her e t he
co ur t held t hat Pu blic Act 8 8- 680 (t he Sa fe Neighbo rho od s Act ) w as u nco nst itu t ional as being vi ola tiv e of the s i ngl e su bj ect rul e. Cervantes , 189 Ill . 2d at 94, 98. Ac co r din gly, we co nc lud e t ha t Pu blic A ct 96
- 34 wa s e na ct ed in vio lat io n o f t he sing le subj ect rule. Duri

ng argum ents bef ore t hi s court, defen

dants conceded that a si

ngle subj ect violat ion is a q ues t ion o f law and, t her efo re , t his co ur t need not re mand t he ca se u po n finding such a v iolation. See Lebron , 237 I ll . 2d at 227 (whet her a stat ute is unconstitut ional is a que sti on of l aw su bj ec t to de novo revi ew). Our sup re me co ur t has he ld t hat when a n act is found t o vio late t he single su bject ru le, t he act m ust b e struck i

n i ts en tire ty. Johnson , 17 6 Ill. 2d at 511 -12 ; Olender , 222 Il l . 2d at 14 5-46. In Johnson , our supreme court explai ned: “[T]h e si ngl e su bj ect rul e proh i bi ts the e nactmen t of b i l l s tha

t enc omp ass

moreNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-17- t han o ne su bject . T hus, a cha llenge t hat an ac t violat es t he single su bject ru le is, by de f i n i ti on , di re cte d a t th e act in its en tirety . The re i s n o one prov

i sion or f eature of t he ac t t hat is challenged as u nco nst itu t ional, suc h t hat t he de fect co uld be remedi ed by a subs equent am

endm ent whi ch si mpl y de le ted or al tered t hat pr ovisio n or feat ur e. In fac t , a single su bject challenge do es no t add re ss t he substanti ve consti tut iona li ty of the acts provi si ons at all . Rather, a sin gle subj ect chal le nge goes to t he very s

truct ure of the act, and the process by whi ch i t was enacted. If we determ

in e that Publi

c Act 89-428 in

its structure is i

nva li d, the Act may not be pe rmitt ed t o s t and. The legislat ur e is, o f co ur se, free t o r evisit t he pr ovisio ns co nt ained in t he Act in ot her legislat ion. Su bseq uent legislat ion, however, will

not remedy

the constitutional

defec t in Pub li c Act 89-428 if

it was pas sed i n v i ola tion of the si ngl e su bj ect rul e.” (Em phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Johnson , 176 Ill . 2d at 511-12. In Ole nder , our supreme court foll owed its ho lding in Johnson tha t seve rabi l i ty pri nc i plesdo n ot appl y to si ngl e su bj ect vi ola

tions. Olender , 2 22 I ll. 2d a t 146 . I n Olender , the court expl ai ned, “All ow ing for seve ra bili

t y with r ega rd t o s ingle subjec t violat ions w ou ld be co nt ra ry t o t he purposes behi

nd the si ngle subj ect rule.” Olender , 222 Ill . 2d at 146. W e f i nd tha t Pub l i c A

ct 9 6-3 4 v

i ol ate d the s i

ngl e sub j ec t cl au se of the Il l i noi s C ons ti tution (Ill . Cons t. 1970, a rt. IV, §8), a

nd th eref ore hol d tha t Publ i c Act 96-34i s void

i n i ts en tire ty. Pursuant to their own terms, Publ ic Acts 96-35 (the Appropriati on Bill ), 96-37 (BIMP) and 96-38 ( t he T r aile rBill) ar e a ll co nt ing en t o n t he en ac t men t o f Pu blic A ct 96
- 34
. Sin ce we find Pu blicNos. 1-09-3163, 1-10-0344

-18-

A ct 9 6-3 4 voi d i

n i ts enti rety , th e re mai ni ng ac ts c an not s tan d. A cc ordi ngl y , we ne ed not consider plai

ntif fs’ constitutional ch

all enges to t he remai

ni ng publ ic acts. III. CONCLUSION Fo rt he ab o ve r ea so ns, we find t ha t Pu blic A ct 96
- 34 wa s e na ct ed in vio lat io n o f t he sing le subj ect rule an

d is , therefore, void i

n i ts entirety . As a resul

t, Publi c Acts 96-35, 96-37, and 96-38
cann ot stand. The j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court is reverse d. Judg men t reve rsed
.