When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issues a ruling, it ought to reveal the thinking behind that decision.

But that wasn't the case on April 13 when the court ordered election officials to prohibit the citizens of Philadelphia from voting on a referendum that the City Council authorized on a 17-0 vote. The referendum intended to ask Philadelphia voters whether they wanted to prohibit slots casinos from being built within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, playgrounds and places of worship.

The court issued its order without providing an opinion and, therefore, without citing the source of its authority and its legal basis. Thus, the court has denied Philadelphia citizens the right to participate in decisions that directly affect the future of their neighborhoods, the value of their homes and, even, the safety of their children.

In effect, the court's decision overrides local zoning without indicating why.

Dissenting Justices Ronald Castille and Thomas Saylor argued that the law doesn't give the high court jurisdiction over the case, which translates into the court not having had any authority whatsoever to issue such an order.

The court owes the people of Philadelphia — and people across the state who are increasingly skeptical of the court's judgment — an explanation of the basis on which the referendum decision was made.

It is not necessary for the salaries of Pennsylvania's 1,000 elected judges to be tied to the salary structure of federal judges. A state Supreme Court ruling upholding such a connection was less in the public interest than it was in the judges' interests.Therefore, the state Senate's 49-1 vote Wednesday to stop judges' salaries from automatically rising when federal judges receive raises was laudable. The state House should follow the Senate's lead, and Gov. Ed Rendell should sign the measure.The only dissenting vote in the legislature's upper chamber was cast by Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, D-Phila., who said through a spokesman that he believes judges "ought to be paid more than first-year lawyers at big law firms."The judicial raise issue is a remnant of the July 2005 government pay raise law that triggered commonwealth voters' outrage — so much outrage that the legislature repealed the raises in November of that year.However, the state Supreme Court in September reinstated the portion of the law that raised judicial salaries, pointing out that repealing judges' pay raise was barred by a provision in the state constitution.The ill-fated legislative pay package, from which the high court selectively preserved only pay hikes for judges, also tied judicial raises to the salary structure of federal judges."I am not seeking to reduce judicial salaries, but rather to change the structure on which those salaries are based," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin.The bill would raise judicial salaries by $1 a year in an effort to help it withstand a potential legal challenge arguing that it cuts judicial pay, Piccola said. Judges would continue to receive annual cost-of-living increases tied to regional inflation indicators.But it would avoid, as Piccola said, "another huge pay increase for state judges when Congress raises federal judicial salaries."Piccola said correctly that it makes more sense for state officials to set the pay of state judges. Hopefully the House and Rendell will concur.

Freshman state Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-York, in January became the first Pennsylvania lawmaker to provide an expense report to his constituents.DePasquale is posting quarterly reports regarding his legislative expenses on his Web site.Since January, a handful of other lawmakers have decided to follow DePasquale's lead and that's commendable. However, no lawmakers representing Butler County have come forth with announcements that they plan to do so, and the appropriate question in response to that is, "Why?"A majority of the legislators making the expense reports on items such as per diem pay, state-paid vehicles and office rent are new lawmakers who were elected in November after campaigning on reform issues.With many of the other freshmen lawmakers also having campaigned on reform, it is puzzling why they too haven't followed DePasquale's and the others' positive example.DePasquale's decision projects the message "new people, new attitude." But a lawmaker doesn't have to be new to take this meaningful step.In the weeks ahead, Butler County voters should pay attention to whether their representatives adopt the DePasquale brand of openness to inform constitutents about how much their legislative service is costing the taxpayers.There can be no excuse that disseminating such information to thousands of constitutents would be too burdensome.