Earlier this year, we went through a wrenching few months as the congressional redistricting plan that was put into place in 2011 was successfully challenged as having been gerrymandered.

“Gerrymandering” means to manipulate the boundaries of a political division so as to favor one party over another — in Pennsylvania’s case, it was the Republicans who benefited by the 2011 map. Although Democrats hold a voter registration edge of nearly 1 million in the state, Republicans hold a 12-6 ratio in the congressional delegation.

When voters go the polls during the May 15 primaries and again during the Nov. 6 general election, they will be casting ballots in new districts approved earlier this year by the state Supreme Court.

The process that got us from there to here was controversial to be sure, but most nonpartisan observers see this redrawn map with its more conventional boundaries as better, if not perfect.

Republicans, who stand to lose the most in this reconfigured map, fought the new proposal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — twice, in fact — and lost.

Next, we will want to know what happens after the 2020 decennial census when the state map will have to be redrawn once again to conform to the new population figures and the likelihood that Pennsylvania will lose one member of Congress — going from 18 to 17.

This means that one incumbent might be out of a job, or two incumbents might have to fight it out for one seat. Of course, there is the possibility that a member in the affected district might just decide to retire, which would make the task much simpler.

The issue at the heart of what we just went through is who will make the tough decisions that go with redrawing congressional lines. Will it still be the partisan method that brought us to this sorry state in the first place, or is this the perfect opportunity to make a much-needed change that will take some of the political cancer out of the process?

As it stands now, the General Assembly (the state House of Representatives and the state Senate) decides congressional redistricting, subject to gubernatorial veto.

This is a different setup compared to how state legislative district lines are drawn. Established in 1968, a five-member commission makes the decision: the majority and minority leaders of the state Senate appoint one member each, and so do the majority and minority members of the state House of Representatives. Usually, each of these members appoints himself or herself.

Then, the four appoint a fifth member to serve as the commission’s chair. If the four can’t reach consensus on the chair, the state Supreme Court appoints a chair. The governor has no veto power on the state redistricting plan.

The state constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous (border each other) and compact. It also says the selection should respect county and municipal boundaries as much as possible, but this recommendation has been frequently disregarded.

None of these requirements exists in the drawing of congressional districts, which is why we wound up with some of the absurdly drawn lines such as the Goofy kicking Donald Duck district in southeastern Pennsylvania under the 2011 plan.

Almost a year ago, long before the redistricting battle came to a head, state Rep. Steve Samuelson, D-Northampton, introduced House Bill 722 that would set up an 11-member independent congressional redistricting commission that would take the process out of the hands of the state Legislature.

Four of the members would come from the state’s largest party of registered voters — at the moment, these are the Democrats; four would come from the party with the second highest number of registered voters — right now, the Republicans — and the remaining three would come from minor parties.

Despite the fact that a majority of the 203 members of the state House signed on to the bill as co-sponsors, the bill had languished in the House’s State Government Committee.

Last week, Samuelson had had enough of the committee’s stonewalling, so he called for a rare legislative procedure called a “discharge resolution” to force the bill out of committee.

This is where our suspicions of political chicanery become all too obvious. Committee Chair Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, called a committee meeting but did not say why. Word got out that the committee was going to take up a gutted version of Samuelson’s bill, and this revised monstrosity passed 15-11. Rep. Jerry Knowles, R-Schuylkill-Carbon, is the only local member of the committee. Samuelson assailed the Metcalfe maneuvering as “shifty.”

Despite committee passage, the proposal is far from a done deal. It will require a constitutional amendment, meaning that the full Legislature will have to pass it during two consecutive sessions; then it must be approved by the voters.

The Metcalfe-sponsored proposal calls for creation of a six-member congressional commission — four from the majority parties of both houses and two from the minority party of both houses. Five of the six would have to approve a plan for it to pass.

The plan and the way it was rammed through took considerable heat from good government advocates across the state as they booed and chanted at the blatant political spectacle unfolding before them. Metcalfe insisted, however, that “there is no greater citizens’ commission than the General Assembly of this state.”

Pardon me while I scream.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com