Glory be. Maybe they’ve finally reached the outer limits of the partisan political universe known as Harrisburg.

When a special committee of the Pennsylvania State Senate voted last week to start a formal process that could end in a vote to remove Attorney General Kathleen Kane from office, only one Democrat on the bipartisan panel had the courage to do the right thing.

State Sen. Sean Wiley of Erie County broke political ranks and voted to remove Kane.

Wiley, one of three Democrats on the seven-member committee, sided with the four Republicans to move forward with the inquiry into the removal of Kane.

The embattled Democrat faces charges of criminal misconduct including perjury and obstruction. She is accused of leaking grand jury material to a newspaper and lying about it. The state Supreme Court on Oct. 21 suspended Kane’s law license.

Wiley got to the point when explaining why he joined all four of the committee’s Republicans in a 5-2 vote Wednesday against Kane.

“The special committee had one charge: Can the attorney general fulfill the duties of the office with a suspended law license?” he said. “Based on the information obtained by the committee and the testimony presented during the public hearings, there are potential broad reaching, negative implications to the license suspension, and public safety in this commonwealth must remain at the forefront. I have some serious concerns, and my vote was indicative of the need to move forward with a full Senate review.”

The committee’s specific task was to examine the ability of Kane to continue working with a suspended law license. Reasons for the license suspension, criminal allegations against Kane and issues related to the law or Pennsylvania Constitution were not part of their inquiry.

The other Democrats on the special committee issued statements justifying their nay votes.

Sen. Art Haywood of Philadelphia said he could find no evidence that the office of attorney general wasn’t functioning. Haywood also pointed out that a license suspension is not the same as disbarment — implying that Kane, still technically a member of the bar, is still, technicaly speaking, a lawyer. Sort of.

Sen. Judy Schwank of Berks County says she believes Kane should step down, but that the formal process being pursued by the committee could lead to costly and complicated legal challenges — challenges which would undermine the public’s faith and trust in state government.

But given state government’s general reputation for greed, corruption and partisan deadlock, there’s not much faith or trust left to undermine. As for legal challenges, we can be reasonable assured Kane’s coming court challenges will spawn as much mayhem as she can muster — or be reduced to evidence of “old boys” passing around pictures of naked women.

As for the formal process, Article VI, Section 7 of the state Constitution reads: “All civil officers elected by the people, except the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, members of the General Assembly and judges of the courts of record, shall be removed by the Governor for reasonable cause, after due notice and full hearing, on the address of two-thirds of the Senate.”

Under the Constitution’s framework, the Senate has no choice but to initiate removal proceedings against Kane. It’s the only path that might uphold the public’s faith and trust in this frequently frozen, partisan political universe.

Sen. Sean Wiley gets a salute for understanding that importance of his duty transcends political affiliation.