Eye On Illinois: Supreme Court may be forced to revisit ‘enrolled bill doctrine’

A flashback, if you will, from Aug. 9, regarding the trial of Tim Mapes, former chief of staff for House Speaker Michael Madigan:

“Current lawmakers have access to virtually all the same tools Madigan wielded to rule Springfield … subtle implements of rules and procedures that quash dissent and enable lawmakers to hand-pick successors. If sitting leadership operates with higher standards, it’s by choice.”

Space limitations precluded further exploration, but the Illinois Supreme Court delivered an opportunity to circle back. On Aug. 11, in a 4-3 opinion, the court upheld new gun control legislation. The two Republican justices, Lisa Holder White and David Overstreet, dissented while asserting the General Assembly enacted the law without complying with Article IV, Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution, which reads in part: “A bill shall be read by title on three different days in each house. A bill and each amendment thereto shall be reproduced and placed on the desk of each member before final passage.”

The record shows the justices are correct. State Rep. Dagmara Avelar, D-Bolingbrook, introduced House Bill 5471 on Jan. 28, 2002, as an amendment to the Illinois Insurance Code. The House passed its third reading on a consent calendar that March. The Senate had a first reading three days later and a second reading Nov. 30.

Nothing significant happened until the January 2023 lame duck session. On Jan. 9, Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, filed the amendment that turned an insurance bill into gun control legislation. By the end of Jan. 10, the bill was a law, complete with the governor’s signature.

This was all legal – to some eyes – because of another phrase in Article IV, Section 8: “The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate shall sign each bill that passes both houses to certify that the procedural requirements for passage have been met.”

Illinois Supreme Court precedent took that clause to establish the “enrolled bill doctrine,” forcing courts to defer to the leaders’ attestation instead of actually reviewing whether the General Assembly followed the rules.

When the Fifth District Appellate Court considered the gun control law, it said the doctrine “belittles the language of the oaths, ignores the need for transparency in government and undermines the language of this state’s constitution.”

In July, the Fourth District Appellate Court declared a different controversial law constitutional while noting the Supreme Court “has long documented the Legislature’s complete and utter disregard for the requirements of the Illinois Constitution, but that court has done nothing in response.”

What matters most is whether any law is facially constitutional. But forcing the judicial branch to ignore the legislature violating enshrined obligations inexcusably negates the concept of equal power.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media. Follow him on Twitter @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.