Opinion ID: 2121849
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Three-Readings Requirement

Text: Lastly, plaintiffs argue that Public Act 86-16 violates the three-readings requirement of the Illinois Constitution. The Constitution provides that [a] bill shall be read by title on three different days in each house. (Ill. Const.1970, art. IV, § 8(d).) Plaintiffs argue that the legislature did not follow this procedure and therefore we should invalidate the Act. Illinois follows the enrolled bill doctrine. This doctrine provides that once the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate certify that the procedural requirements for passing a bill have been met, a bill is conclusively presumed to have met all procedural requirements for passage. (Emphasis added.) ( Geja's Cafe v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority (1992), 153 Ill.2d 239, 259, 180 Ill.Dec. 135, 606 N.E.2d 1212.) Thus, under the enrolled bill doctrine, a court will not invalidate legislation on the basis of the three-readings requirement if the legislation has been certified. In this case, plaintiffs acknowledge that Public Act 86-16 was certified. Plaintiffs argue that we should take this opportunity to reconsider the use of the enrolled bill doctrine, relying on Geja's Cafe, 153 Ill.2d 239, 180 Ill.Dec. 135, 606 N.E.2d 1212. In Geja's Cafe, this court noted that the General Assembly had not exercised much discipline in following the three-readings requirement. Ultimately, however, this court declined to abandon the enrolled bill doctrine. The Geja's Cafe court noted that the 1970 Constitutional Convention specifically contemplated the use of the enrolled bill doctrine to prevent the invalidation of legislation on technical or procedural grounds. (See 6 Record of Proceedings, Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention 1386-87; see also Benjamin v. Devon Bank (1977), 68 Ill.2d 142, 145, 11 Ill.Dec. 270, 368 N.E.2d 878.) The Convention determined that the legislature would police itself with respect to procedure. In Geja's Cafe, this court also noted that judicial review of legislative procedure would raise a substantial separation of powers concern. We continue to find these reasons persuasive and accordingly decline to abandon the enrolled bill doctrine.