holding that “an amended bill or a substitute bill, if germane to and not inconsistent with the general purpose of the original bill, does not have to be read three times on three different days to comply with [the three readings requirement]”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “an amended bill or a substitute bill, if germane to and not inconsistent with the general purpose of the original bill, does not have to be read three times on three different days to comply with [the three readings requirement]”
- holding that whether the legislature satisfied constitutionally mandated procedural requirements for enacting new laws is justiciable
- recognizing the judiciary's function as the "ultimate interpreter of the Alabama Constitution"
- "[I]t is clear that the substitute version of HB 84 was not read 'on three different days' in each house. However, we hold that an amended bill or a substitute bill, if germane to and not inconsistent with the general purpose of the original bill, does not have to be read three times on three different days to comply with § 63 [Alabama's the three readings requirement.]
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BRYAN, Justice
(concurring in part and concurring in the result in case nos. 1130987 and 1131021).
I concur in all aspects of the main opinion, except for Parts II and IV, as to which I concur in the. result.