Senate President Joseph Montalbano and his lawyer Max Wistow may be right in contending that the state Constitution bars legislators from being punished for votes they cast.

But I hate to think so. And I hate to imagine what would happen if Montalbano and Wistow get the courts to agree with them.

I applaud the Ethics Commission for rejecting arguments that a constitutional provision to protect lawmakers’ freedom of speech in debate means that the panel can’t prosecute them for votes that may benefit them or their employers. Montalbano is accused of a conflict for voting to support legislation for a West Warwick casino while doing legal work for the town involving land abutting the proposed site.

The commission plans a trial-like hearing in six weeks, but Wistow wants a court to block it. If a trial is held, look for post-trial appeals. I’ll be on Medicare when this case ends.

Even under his view about votes themselves being off limits, Wistow says you could still prosecute a legislator if, for instance, you could show he agreed to take a bribe. But, I asked after Tuesday’s commission session, suppose he hadn’t plotted with anyone? Suppose he sought to make a buck by, say, voting to sell the state a building he owns?

Wistow said the solution is for voters to throw the guy out in the next election. Or delete the Constitution’s speech-in-debate provision, something I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting to happen. Legislators certainly aren’t going to propose it. And having a constitutional convention to deal with it would only invite mischief on any number of other issues.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Jason Gramitt, who is prosecuting the case along with fellow commission lawyer Dianne Leyden, argued that a 1986 constitutional amendment empowers the commission to go after legislators for their votes. Over two decades, he said, many lawmakers, including top leaders, have been hauled before the commission. And, he said, until now, in the case of Montalbano and a case involving former Senate President William Irons, no one raised the speech-in-debate immunity argument. He deemed it absurd to think they and their lawyers were “mistaken or ignorant.”

Wistow said he’s not responsible for the failure of others to raise issues.

The case puts Wistow, Gramitt and Leyden on the front lines.

Wistow, 64, has represented the Republican Party and later the Democratic Party in high-profile disputes. He also has been in the news for representing victims in The Station fire case. As for his image of aggressiveness, he says, “If it means protecting my clients’ rights, aggressive is the way to be.”

Gramitt, 40, grew up in Ohio, came here to go to Roger Williams Law School, and then worked for the Supreme Court and a private firm. While Wistow was grousing that the commission had given short shrift to his arguments, Gramitt was feeling good Tuesday. “We prevailed on every issue,” he said.

You may not know Leyden, also 40, who once was a special assistant attorney general handling child molestation cases, but you likely know her family. For openers, her father, John T. Leyden Jr., was a top state police official; her brother, John T. Leyden III, is on the force now; a cousin, John J. Leyden, was U.S. marshal.

Ms. Leyden is a marathon runner, and she says I could learn to do marathons, too. “You need strength, you need perseverance, you need to have a strong mind.”

Those certainly would be useful qualities for anyone intending to track this case to the finish.

M. Charles Bakst is The Journal’s political columnist.

mbakst@projo.com