A lawsuit has been filed in federal district court to force Pennsylvania lawmakers to obey the law. The lawsuit, filed Thursday morning, focuses on several issues, including the Pennsylvania General Assembly's 2 a.m. July 7 pay-raise vote, lawmakers' use of stealth legislation to pass unexpected laws at the last minute with no advance public notice, and the use of "unvouchered expenses" by lawmakers to take pay increases before the next election - all clearly in defiance of the state constitution. As strong a case as the lawsuit would appear to make, it is venturing into relatively unexplored legal territory.

The reason the lawsuit is exploring new legal terrain, according to a professor at the Duquesne University Law School, is because "other state legislatures are not as corrupt as ours."

Now, there's something in which every Pennsylvanian can take pride - the nation's most corrupt state legislature.

It's a sad state of affairs to hear that assessment made by an expert on the state constitution. But despite professor Bruce Ledewitz's thoughts about the lawsuit's chances of success, the legal action is nonetheless significant.

Listed in the lawsuit as plaintiffs are Common Cause of Pennsylvania, a good-government group; the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania; Tim Potts, co-founder of Democracy Rising PA and a former aid to House Democratic leadership; and state Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware, sponsor of a bill to roll back the pay raise.

The unusual appeal to federal courts is necessary because Pennsylvania's own courts cannot be counted on to rule on the pay-raise issue impartially - and that is because our legislative leaders cleverly included pay raises for judges in their own pay-raise package and structured the deal so that the lawmakers' pay raise could not be struck down without also striking down raises for judges.

The lawsuit describes this action and argues that since the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process through a hearing before an impartial judge, the lawsuit over the pay-raise vote must move out of Pennsylvania courts, to federal court.

It has been widely reported that state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy was involved in structuring the pay-raise deal behind closed doors with legislative leaders. The lawsuit filed this week challenges the legality of back-room maneuverings featuring the head of the judicial branch and top legislative officials.

It also argues that citizens are no longer represented when a select few legislative leaders strip the original wording of a bill and substitute their own bill's wording at the last minute - at about 2 a.m. in the case of the pay raise.

Another reason for the lawsuit being filed in federal district court is that the state Supreme Court has in the past given a nod to lawmakers' use of unvouchered expenses, stealth legislation and distortion of the three-day rule - all clear violations of the intent of the state constitution.

When presented with all the facts and the exact wording of the state constitution, any reasonable citizen can recognize lawmakers' actions as unconstitutional, yet our Supreme Court cannot.

So, those wanting lawmakers in Pennsylvania to comply with the state constitution are forced to appeal to the federal court system. Asking elected officials in Harrisburg to obey the law should not require a federal lawsuit - but it does. Even then, the chances of changing the arrogant, anti-democratic, self-serving behavior in Harrisburg is not a certainty.

The lawsuit is only one of several angles of attack, hoping to restore some integrity and accountability to Harrisburg. Pennsylvania's state legislature has in recent years morphed into a sleazy system controlled by a few powerful lawmakers who use, with few exceptions, the system to suit their own wants and needs - rather than for the citizens of the commonwealth.

That must change. The federal lawsuit is one way to force change in Harrisburg. Others include the rejection by voters of most incumbents in the next election and a "no" vote for retention of Supreme Court justices.

Regardless of how it is forced on the General Assembly, change must come.