HARRISBURG -- Some critics of the General Assembly call it a "bait-and-switch" tactic. Others refer to it as "gut and replace."

But they agree that a recent Commonwealth Court ruling should be a step toward halting the Legislature's occasional practice of inserting new language, just before a crucial vote late in a session, that has little to do with a bill's original purpose.

"It was a good court decision,'' said Matthew Brouillette, president of the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative think tank based here. "Unfortunately, controversial legislation is often rammed through the legislative process in an unconstitutional manner."

He, along with Common Cause/Pennsylvania Executive Director Barry Kauffman, Democracy Rising PA co-founder Tim Potts and others, said Article 3 of the state constitution is clear -- amendments or replacement language "must be germane to the original purpose of a bill."

Also, they said, once a bill is gutted and new language inserted, the revised bill must be considered on three separate days in both the House and the Senate, even if the original bill had already been subjected to the three-day requirement. The added days of study usually don't happen with the revised bill, they complained.

The three most important bills this practice was used on in recent years were Act 71 of July 2004, the law bringing 14 slots casinos to the state; the legislative/judicial pay raise of July 2005; and Act 44 of July 2007, the $950 million-a-year transportation funding bill that seeks to impose first-time tolls on Interstate 80.

The General Assembly's leading critic of slots, Rep. Paul Clymer, said he'd like to challenge the slots law based on the gut-and-replace tactic. But with more than three years having elapsed and six casinos up and operating, too much time has gone by and challenges are "unlikely."

The pay raise law started out as a one-page bill limiting the salaries of officials in the executive branch to no more than the $164,000 a year that the governor earns, said Russ Diamond of PA Clean Sweep, a citizens protest group. But the bill was amended by a House-Senate conference committee late one night in early July 2005 into a 22-page bill with hefty raises for legislators, more than 1,000 judges and some cabinet officers.

The law was challenged in court by Gene Stilp of Taxpayers and Ratepayers United, but because of public pressure, the Legislature repealed it in November 2005. When some judges then sued to get their raises restored, the state Supreme Court gave itself and 1,000 other judges the raises back in September 2006.

Act 44, the I-80 toll measure, continues to stir up opposition, especially from two Republican Congressmen from northwestern Pennsylvania, John Peterson and Phil English. There are growing rumblings at the state Capitol that a lawsuit will be filed to overturn Act 44 based on the way it was adopted.

The original bill, which did deal with the subject of fixing roads, bridges and mass transit, was just 69 pages long when it under consideration in the House. The proposal to put tolls on Interstate 80 was added by the House in late June.

"The amended bill did not get a full vetting in public before it was adopted in July," complained Mr. Brouillette.

The gut-and-replace tactic also has been used before with some major legislation, say General Assembly observers. Usually it happens in July, when legislators are hurrying to recess for the summer, or in the three-week, post-election lame duck sessions in November of even years, when legislators face a Nov. 30 deadline for ending a session.

One classic case of gut and replace happened in November 1996, a lame-duck session, when legislators approved a major bill on electric deregulation.

"It was an 84-page bill and it was amended into a one-paragraph bill that pertained to regulation of taxi cabs in Philadelphia," recalled Gary Tuma, an aide to Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia.

He said that only a few lobbyists, legislators and members of then-Gov. Tom Ridge's staff were in on the revised bill.

"We really did get bad public policy from a bill that very few people saw until it was jammed through the Legislature,'' he contended. "It contained a huge windfall for electric utility companies with no requirement that savings been passed on to consumers."

Mr. Kauffman recalled another case from 1997, when a bill that required owners of motor homes to register their vehicles was turned into an increase in the state gasoline tax, the last time that's been raised.

The law that was nullified by Commonwealth Court on Nov. 15 was enacted in 2002 outlawing hate crimes. The bill used as a legislative "vehicle" had dealt with agricultural crimes. Even though they both dealt with the subject of crime, the revised legislation didn't have enough resemblance to the original bill, the court said.

"No matter how salutary the purpose of a bill may be, it still must comport with constitutionally mandated requirements for passage," said Judge James Gardner Colins in his ruling.

"It's a warning to the Legislature that even they have to obey the state constitution," said Mr. Kauffman.

Christopher Borick, a political science professor and pollster at Muhlenberg College, said this latest ruling -- unless the state Supreme Court overturns it -- could stop the practice.

The ruling "is clearly a slap on the wrist for the Legislature, saying the practice of gut and replace improperly stretches the limits of their power," Mr. Borick said. "It's like taking out the innards of a bill and putting all new ones in.''

Stephen MacNett, counsel to Senate Republicans, said the Legislature has 30 days to decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.

He said there is something good about this process, because it gives legislators greater "flexibility" in developing a bill and allows them to alter the bill when concerns or new issues arise. He said that some legislators' ideas, which can't get a hearing in a legislative committee, have a chance to be considered and perhaps enacted when a bill comes up on the Senate floor.

Restricting amendments "will make it harder for members to bring an issue to the floor, once it fails to advance through the regular committee process," he said.

But Mr. Clymer said the process is too often abused, such as happened with the slots law. It started out as House Bill 2330, a measure requiring state police to do criminal background checks for trainers, jockeys and others in thoroughbred and harness racing. Legislators said it had to do with racing, and seven of the new casinos are at racetracks, so in their view the new subject matter of slots was germane.

Mr. Clymer said the original bill was less than two pages long, but was amended shortly before passage into a 146-page bill authorizing one of the most wide-ranging social changes in state history.

"The final casino bill had nothing to do with state police doing background checks on people," said Mr. Clymer. "It was a clear violation of the constitution, from my perspective."

Mr. Tuma, a staffer for Mr. Fumo, who was a main author of the slots bill, said House Bill 2330 wasn't actually gutted, since the original language about background checks for horsemen wasn't removed.

Mr. Tuma also rebutted the claim by some legislators that the final slots bill was a surprise. He said the subject of slots was discussed in detail over a full year. He said the Senate approved the first version of a slots bill, by Sen. Robert Tomlinson, R-Bucks, in the summer of 2003, and the subject was debated thoroughly for the next 12 months, before Act 71 was finally approved in early July 2004.

Also, at Mr. Fumo's request, a detailed study was done by The Innovation Group of New Orleans that suggested the best places to put Pennsylvania's 14 casinos -- the locations that would attract the most gamblers and produce the most gross terminal revenue for the state.

"I don't think it's fair to call that a gut-and-replace bill or 'sneak' legislation. The public was well aware of what was being considered."

Some General Assembly critics are hoping the state Supreme Court will review the lower court's new ruling throwing out the hate crimes bill. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, that should put an end to last-minute slash and burn amendments by legislators, the critics said.