permitting defendant’s challenge on appeal to validity of section 5 — 8—1(a)(1) (c)(ii) of the Corrections Code where that attack, asserted for the first time on appeal, warranted consideration given its constitutional dimension
How later courts described this case
- permitting defendant’s challenge on appeal to validity of section 5 — 8—1(a)(1) (c)(ii) of the Corrections Code where that attack, asserted for the first time on appeal, warranted consideration given its constitutional dimension
- noting that most provisions of the enactment related to the subject of the act — crime—but that all did not and, therefore, the public act in question violated the single subject rule
- while invalidating the public act at issue, we held the legislature could pass legislation that amended several acts as long as the amendments related to the single subject of “crime”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE RATHJE, also specially concurring:
Like Chief Justice Freeman and Justices Bilandic and Heiple, I join in only part B of Justice McMorrow’s decision. When an act is held unconstitutional in its entirety, it is void ab initio; the state of the law is as if the act had never been passed. See People v. Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d 384, 399 (1990); see also People v. Reedy, 186 Ill. 2d 1 (1999). Thus, once we determine that the public act creating the statute is invalid in its entirety, we have nothing more to review. Addressing the constitutionality of the statute before addressing the single subject violation in no way changes this simple truth. Justice McMorrow’s substantive ruling is that Public Act 89 — 203 was passed in violation of the single subject clause; the remainder of the opinion is dicta and without any legal effect.
Having said that, I must point out that today this court sets a dangerous precedent. For reasons never explained and wholly unknown to me, this court has elected to release as the court’s “judgment” a position that garners only three votes, when four members of this court share an opposing viewpoint. I, Chief Justice Freeman, and Justices Bilandic and Heiple believe that Public Act 89 — 203 violates the single subject clause and that the court’s analysis should end there. Nevertheless, four members of the court voted to endorse Justice McMorrow’s approach, undoubtedly as a means of assuring the legislature that section 5 — 8—l(a)(l)(c)(ii) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—l(a)(l)(c)(ii) (West 1998)) is constitutionally valid. Until today, this court has “decline[d] to engage in speculative analysis or to render an advisory opinion *** where, as in the instant case, such analysis or opinion is not necessary for the disposition of the cause.” Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367, 470 (McMorrow, J., writing). Apparently, the rules have changed.
JUSTICE HEIPLE joins in this special concurrence.