The Supreme Court of Kentucky, for example, has held that "there is a prima facie presumption that an enrolled bill is valid, but such presumption may be overcome by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence establishing that constitutional requirements have not been met."
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, has also limited the application of the Doctrine. Although they held that "When a law has been passed and approved and certified in due form, it is no part of the duty of the judiciary to go behind the law as duly certified to inquire into the observance of form in its passage," the court also noted that "it would be a serious dereliction . . . to deliberately ignore a clear constitutional violation."
When a court strikes a bill down on procedural grounds, the action may result in the legislative body considering a resubmitted version of the bill, a process that gives opponents another opportunity to try to defeat it.
Message to the House of Representatives returning an enrolled bill for technical corrections.(Week Ending Friday, November 4, 2005)(Brief Article)
Nov 07, 2005; November 1, 2005 To the House of Representatives: Consistent with House Concurrent Resolution 276, I am hereby returning the...