HARRISBURG -- In the wake of last week's Supreme Court decision reinstating judicial pay raises, a state legislator from Cranberry has come up with a new tactic to try to reduce judges' pay.

And, in light of the court's criticism of legislators who took raises last year by calling them "unvouchered expenses,'' a Harrisburg activist is demanding repayment of such expense money by any lawmaker who hasn't done so yet.

At this point, neither initiative appears to have high odds for success.

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, said yesterday he is seeking co-sponsors for a bill that would reduce a judge's salary to July 2005 levels after he or she wins a 10-year judicial retention election. It would take up to 10 years to reduce the salaries of all 1,045 judges, he acknowledged.

Last week, the Supreme Court said the state constitution bars the Legislature from reducing a judge's pay in midterm. The idea is to protect judges' independence and let them make unpopular or controversial decisions without fear of legislative retaliation.

Mr. Metcalfe contended the Supreme Court went too far in protecting its own salaries and those of Superior, Commonwealth, Common Pleas and magisterial district judges.

Last Nov. 16, the Legislature approved Act 72, which was intended to rescind the raises approved through passage of Act 44 on July 7, 2005. The pay-raise repeal applied to all three branches of government -- legislators, judges and members of Gov. Ed Rendell's cabinet.

"It's outrageous'' that the justices selectively reinstated judicial raises but left the raises for the other two branches struck down, Mr. Metcalfe said.

He acknowledged the Legislature can't cut a judge's pay in midterm. But he contended he wasn't violating the constitution by lowering a judge's salary after a 10-year retention election.

A judge would know ahead of time that his salary will be reduced to July 1, 2005, levels if he or she keeps his seat by winning re-election, he added.

Duquesne University constitutional law professor Ken Gormley criticized Mr. Metcalfe's bill and predicted that if it is enacted, one or more sitting judges would sue and probably win.

"This bill accomplishes the same result -- lowering a judge's salary -- but simply attaches a longer deadline before the trigger is pulled,'' Mr. Gormley said.

Eric Epstein, leader of Rock the Capital, a citizens group that sprang up to fight the July 7, 2005, pay raises, said he didn't like last week's Supreme Court decision either. But he said legislators should focus first on reforming their own procedures before worrying about judges.

Mr. Epstein urged the Legislature to demand that any member who hasn't returned the unvouchered expense money they got from July to November 2005 do so immediately.

There are still 60 House members and nine senators who haven't repaid the money, he said. Any legislator who refuses to repay should be barred from leadership posts or committee chairmanships in the new term that starts in January, he added.

"The Legislature should get its own house in order before it takes punitive action against the judiciary,'' Mr. Epstein said, adding that the entire compensation system for state officials "is a broken wheel and should be fixed'' by the Legislature.

Stephen MacNett, counsel to Senate Republicans, said he doesn't see legislators ordering the repayment of expense money.

The high court did rule that legislators shouldn't have taken their pay raises from July to November last year by calling it expense money.

But, Mr. MacNett said, the court agreed that those legislators "relied in good faith on previous Supreme Court decisions'' from the 1980s and 1990s, which had said unvouchered expenses were permissible. The court didn't order legislators to repay the expense money.

"To censure legislators for doing what the Supreme Court said in the past they could do makes no sense,'' Mr. MacNett said. "This is just another case of Mr. Epstein making outrageous suggestions, sufficiently outrageous that none of them can be done.''