As far as invigorating the voters and fueling reforms, Pennsylvania lawmakers should be thanked for their middle-of-the-night pay-raise vote of July 7. 2005. The voter anger triggered by that vote defeated a state Supreme Court justice and ousted 17 legislative incumbents in the May primary. That voter anger and desire for change continues to motivate voters and is expected to play a role in Tuesday's election.

In the immediate aftermath of the July 2005 pay-raise scandal, many supporters of reforming Harrisburg worried that over the next 15 months voters would lose their edge of anger. But unlike the response to previous self-serving actions by the legislature, the voters have remained focused — and determined to force change.

An anti-incumbent mood is not something new, but Harrisburg lawmakers' actions in the past year-and-a-half have done more to fuel that mood than anything else in recent history. Reform notions that once seemed like tilting at windmills now are viewed as possible.

But real change is only possible if more incumbents are swept out of the General Assembly.

In addition to the 17 incumbents defeated in the May primary, a large number of state lawmakers have chosen not to run for re-election, perhaps correctly judging the mood of the voters. And if a large number of incumbents are defeated Tuesday, the time will be ripe for more change in Harrisburg.

Changing party leadership is a key to reform; a large number of independent and reform-minded freshmen and sophomore lawmakers can make that happen.

Reform would not even be a topic of discussion if party leadership had not orchestrated the infamous pay-raise vote. If state lawmakers had not voted themselves (and others) a pay raise of 34 percent to 54 percent at 2 a.m. on July 7. 2005, there would be no talk of reform and little hope for change.

The pay-raise actions angered voters on several levels. It was too much money at a time when most Pennsylvanians are struggling.

But even more than the feeling that the raise was excessive and unwarranted, it was the process that angered people.

The pay-raise vote was not preceded by any public discussion, and there was no open debate of the issue in either the House or the Senate.

It also irked people that the day after passing the controversial pay raise, lawmakers left Harrisburg for their summer break. Most lawmakers also quickly signed up to receive the additional pay through the use of "unvouchered expenses," something most people consider little more than falsified expense reports.

The bogus expense reports were used to put the extra pay in lawmakers' pockets immediately, rather than waiting until after the next election, as the state constitution mandates.

Other provisions of the constitution were violated in the pay-raise vote, including the requirement that all bills be considered in the House and Senate for three days each before a vote is taken, and that the original intent of a bill cannot be changed in its final form.

State lawmakers assumed that people would be upset about the pay-raise vote but would soon forget about it, viewing it as just more of the same from Harrisburg. But that assumption was a big mistake, as the firestorm of protest and indignation grew with each revelation of lawmakers skirting the constitution and consistently trying to keep their actions hidden from public view.

The fact that the General Assembly took almost four years to replace the lobbyist-reporting law that had been found unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court was further evidence that lawmakers didn't want the public to know what they were doing — or how much was being spent (and by whom) to entertain them. It didn't bother state lawmakers that Pennsylvania was the only state in the nation to not have lobbyist regulation and reporting laws, but it did bother voters.

The anti-incumbent mood is most intense when it comes to Harrisburg lawmakers. But, some of that energy has translated into a desire for change in local politics as well as in Washington, D.C. — something not uncommon after one party has remained in control for a number of years.

Regardless of one's party affiliation, change in politics is a healthy thing — as is the move toward greater transparency and accountability in Harrisburg.

By finally going so far over the top with the pay-raise fiasco that voters finally were awakened and energized, these lawmakers are deserving of a thank-you. An early retirement will have to do.