A court order

Gerrymandering — the redrawing of legislative districts for partisan purposes — has been practiced by the Pennsylvania Legislature for decades.

Wednesday, the state Supreme Court said "Enough."

In a precedent-setting ruling, the court, by a vote of 4-3, threw out the state's newly reconfigured political districts and told the Legislative Redistricting Commission to come up with a new plan.

The court not only rejected the new reapportionment plan, which was necessitated by the 2010 Census, but essentially thumbed its collective nose at the 2002 plan which actually split more communities than the one the justices rejected Wednesday.

Chief Justice Ron Castille, a Republican, voted with three map. The Republicans on the court voted against rejecting the redrawn districts but even they were convinced that the court should write a "prospective guidance" opinion that would eliminate some of the brazen gerrymandering that took place this time around.

The state Constitution asserts that political subdivisions — towns, townships, counties — should not be split unless "absolutely necessary."

But there are those who argue that, in the past, "absolutely necessary" has long meant what is politically expedient, and the court has always gone along.

During oral arguments, Justice Michael Eakin of Lancaster County asked if the term "absolutely necessary" had any meaning.

Indeed, while the Legislative Redistricting Commission held public meetings, those meetings were held before any maps were drawn up. Therefore, the public did not have an opportunity to offer input into the way the Legislature was dividing communities. One small community in the state was actually split three ways in order to maintain safe districts for the lawmakers.

Furthermore, an earlier map that was drawn up by Republican leaders was rejected after it was discovered that several sitting members were reapportioned out of their existing districts.

The court's decision is a game-changer. It should force the Legislature to recognize that times have changed; that reform measures that have taken effect regarding pay hikes and pensions also apply to reapportionment.

The court's rejection of the reapportionment plan should serve as an impetus to create a non-partisan commission to craft districts based solely on population, not politics.

That would create competitive districts and eliminate many of the so-called "safe seats" that lawmakers and their staffs craft after each Census.

Drawing up districts with identical populations is not an easy task. But the blatant changes created by this commission did not pass the high court's smell test.

The court has pronounced this plan invalid. The only way to end the horse-trading that sullies this process is to turn it over to a nonpartisan commission.