The controversial pay-raise vote of July 7, 2005, returned to the news this week as the state Surpreme Court hears arguments about whether the legislature violated the state constitution in approving the now-repealed pay raises.

To most citizens, the case could not be simpler. A common-sense reading of the constitution suggests lawmakers violated the law in at least three significant areas in passing the 2005 pay raise.

At the outset, it must be noted that there is a potential for a conflict of interest since state judges, including those on the Supreme Court, were included in the pay-raise deal, which was repealed by lawmakers in November in response to sustained voter anger. In fact, Chief Justice Ralph Cappy has recused himself from this case because he was a public and vocal supporter of the pay raises, lobbied for the raises with legislative leaders — and reportedly worked behind closed doors to help lawmakers craft the pay-raise package.

But the plain language of the state constitution seems clearly to be at odds with the reported actions of lawmakers last summer.

• The state constitution (Article III, Section 1) says, "No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be altered or amended, on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose."

Yet, the bill that eventually became the pay-raise package started out life as a simple, 24-line bill aimed at limiting certain executive branch salaries. But, at virtually the last minute, the wording in the 24-line bill was replaced by 22 pages of material describing all the aspects of the pay raise that would apply to lawmakers, judges and other administration officials.

• Article III, Section 4, of the state constitution states, "Every bill shall be considered on three different days in each House."

Yet, the pay-raise deal was passed in the dead of night, with no advance public notice and no public debate in the legislature.

• On the issue of pay raises for lawmakers, the state constitution is quite clear. In Article II, Section B, Part 2 it states that "... no member of either House shall during the term for which he may have been elected, receive any increase of salary, or mileage, under any law passed during such term."

But, more than half of the state lawmakers filed bogus expense forms, known in Harrisburg as unvouchered expenses, to immediately put the extra money in their pockets on a pro-rated basis. They turned in expense reports that were higher than their actual expenses by an amount equal to the exact amount of money they would receive beyond their current pay if the new pay plan were in place.

It is hard to imagine the justices on the Supreme Court, or anyone else for that matter, finding that unvouchered expenses are legitimate, legal or ethical. But it's anyone's guess what the justices will decicde — or when.

This case has the potential to put the state legislature on notice that it must follow the law — obey the state constitution. Or, if the court does not find fault with legislators' actions surrounding the pay-raise fiasco, it could signal the end of any control over what elected officials do and how they do it, thus eliminating all public involvement in the legislative process.

To most people, the court's decision seems obvious. Legislative leaders violated the letter and spirit of the constitution. But the court's earlier decisions giving lawmakers the benefit of the doubt make the outcome of this case difficult to predict.

Finding the pay-raise passage and the use of unvouchered expenses to be unconstitutional should be expected of the state's highest court. But the issues before the court are about much more than the pay raise. They are about an arrogant, self-serving legislative leadership that feels it is not accountable to the public and believes the public has no right to know how it conducts its business.

The court's decision will say a lot about the future of democracy in Pennsylvania.