The lawsuits filed by two Philadelphia area judges challenging the legislature's recent repeal of controversial July 7 pay raise raises several interesting points — none of which will reflect positively on the judges or the legislature.

The judges claim that the November repeal of the pay raise violates the constitutional provision that prohibits a reduction in judges' pay as punishment for unfavorable rulings. That was clearly not the case in the repeal vote.

But by pointing to a mandate in the state constitution to make their case, the judges only remind citizens that the original pay raise vote was apparently illegal because lawmakers violated provisions in the constitution requiring that any bill voted on must be considered for three days in the House and three days in the Senate. That did not happen in the few hours of skullduggery in which the pay raise bill was formally considered.

The constitution also requires that a bill passed by lawmakers must not be significantly different in terms of content than the original version of the bill. In the case of the pay raise, the original bill was a brief, 24-line plan to place limits on certain executive branch salaries. The final pay-raise bill was 22 pages long and completely replaced the abbreviated wording of the original bill.

This is how Harrisburg works: 24 lines of text on limiting executive branch salaries is replaced by 22 pages detailing pay raises for lawmakers, judges and other officials, which is voted on at 2 a.m. vote with no advance public notice and no floor debate. Anyone outside of Harrisburg can see that this is clearly unconstitutional — and wrong.

By pointing to the state constitution to make their case, the judges also remind voters that many lawmakers took their additional pay, starting in early August by using "unvouchered expenses" — a clear violation of the constitutional provision banning lawmakers from taking any pay increase until after the next election.

So while lawmakers had hoped to put the pay-raise controversy behind them with last month's repeal vote, the judges' lawsuits will only provide fresh reminders of the legislature's blatant disregard for constitutional mandates on how laws should be crafted and passed in the interest of the transparency, integrity and keeping the public informed.

An additional problem these cases encounter is that every judge in the state has an interest in the outcome. Every judge in the state, including judges on the state Supreme Court, was receiving a higher salary (without the use of unvouchered expenses) after the controversial July 7 vote. Given the apparent conflict of interest, it appears that every judge in the state would have to recuse himself or herself from hearing the case.

Legal experts might have a different interpretation, but most Pennsylvanians, given the facts, will conclude that since the legislature apparently violated several constitutional provisions in passing the pay-raise law, the judges' lawsuits have no merit. In other words, repeal of an unconstitutional law is appropriate, and should be legal.