Normally, a lawsuit filed against a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court would not be taken seriously. At another time or in another state, the lawsuit filed against former Chief Justice Ralph Cappy alleging collusion between the state Supreme Court and state lawmakers regarding the slot machine gambling law and the now infamous pay-raise vote of 2005 would be, as Cappy calls it, "preposterous."

But to most observers, the lawsuit Cappy calls "preposterous" is more accurately described as troubling, and serious — and overdue.

For several reasons, this lawsuit cannot be written off as a case of some crackpot suing a court with an impeccable record of ethics and consistent service to the interests of the citizens of the commonwealth.

The first element that distinguishes this lawsuit is that it has been filed by the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters, which has a reputation for being serious, nonpartisan and staunchly pro-democracy.

The League surely understands there are risks to its reputation if this lawsuit is perceived as frivolous. And that fact gives the lawsuit immediate credibility. The group's reputation would not be harmed, however, if it eventually lost the lawsuit, so long as the case — and the evidence presented — is consequential and serious.

The federal lawsuit alleges actions that have been widely suspected and whispered about for several years — that there was some level of collusion or cooperation between the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the General Assembly over the issue of a pay raise for judges, lawmakers and other state officials.

The second element of the lawsuit that does not fit the "preposterous"label applied by Cappy is that it alleges behavior not very far removed from what Cappy himself has publicly described.

Soon after the 2 a.m. pay-raise vote in 2005, but before the firestorm of public outrage had fully erupted, Cappy wrote an op-ed piece for newspapers across the state defending the pay raise and describing how lawmakers supported his linkage of state judicial pay with pay rates for federal judges.Former House Speaker and current state Rep. John Perzel, R-Phila., was quoted as saying that Cappy held numerous meetings with legislative leaders over the pay-raise plan.

The lawsuit alleges not actual collusion, but a more nebulous relationship in which Cappy's efforts on behalf of the pay raise for judges was made clear to lawmakers in a way that the two separate branches of government were working in concert and with an unspoken, but understood, agreement to support each other's interests — pay raises for judges and a court rejection of legal challenges to the slot machine gambling law.

Questions about the state Supreme Court and its relationship with state lawmakers were also raised when the court rejected challenges to lawmakers' use — and some would say abuse — of unvouchered expenses.

The League of Women Voters' lawsuit cannot be dismissed as frivolous, but Cappy and other critics rightly question allegations brought by unnamed lawmakers. And that is one of the reasons why the federal court should accept the case and allow the discovery phase of the trial to proceed and testimony to be heard.

Pennsylvanians deserve to know more about how their state Supreme Court has been operating, and the relationship it and its former chief justice have had with legislative leaders. By accepting the case, the federal courts can help Pennsylvanians ensure that the state's highest court is not above the law, and that separation of powers is preserved and protected.