COEUR d'ALENE - Forget the new legislative districts, forget the new voter precincts.

It's time for a redo.

The Idaho Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 4-1 in favor of a lawsuit filed by several counties and cities, Kootenai County included, challenging the recently reapportioned legislative districts.

Finding the map's splitting of 12 counties to fit populations into districts was more than necessary, the court ruled that the new legislative districting Plan L 87 violates the Idaho Constitution and is invalid.

The court ordered the six-member Idaho Redistricting Commission to reconvene and adopt a revised plan.

"I think they made the right decision in taking another look at this," said Commissioner Jai Nelson on Wednesday afternoon. "We felt we had a pretty good argument going in, because it did appear on face value that it did violate the Idaho Constitution."

Kootenai County had jumped on Twin Falls County's suit against the citizen commission and the Idaho Secretary of State last November, following the map's creation in October, with several other entities, including Owyhee and Teton counties, and the cities of Twin Falls, Hansen, Filer and Buhl.

Most municipalities were concerned with counties being split gratuitously into different districts.

Kootenai interests had worried over how the county, previously fit into three districts, had been divided into four, with 5,000 county residents lumped into a new district that spanned several hundred miles, which some worried would strain communication between lawmakers and constituents.

"It's clear to us that Kootenai County could be whole within three districts, and that's been our goal," Nelson said.

She acknowledged that another round of redistricting will bring some pressure on the county, which will have to readjust the newly tweaked voter precinct boundaries to accommodate the new legislative districts.

Counties must also record all the registered voters in each legislative district before the next election.

"I'm sure the pressure is going to be on this (reapportionment) commission, since every county is going to be in the same boat," Nelson said, adding that it should help that the March election doesn't involve precincts, but school districts. "Then do we need to move the lines (of precincts) significantly, or slightly? That's going to be the question for everyone, going into the primary."

The Supreme Court decision states that Plan L 87 did meet the constitutional requirement of deviating less than 10 percent in population among each district.

But it failed to meet the standard of dividing counties only to the extent necessary to comply with the federal constitution.

"Because Plan L 87 divides more counties than is required to do so, it violates Article III, section 5 of the Idaho Constitution and is therefore invalid," the decision reads.

The ruling did not delve into statutory issues the plaintiffs had raised over the redistricting, since the commission will have to adopt a revised plan.

The court also declined the petitioners' request for an injunction on the implementation of plan L 87 and to issue a court order establishing new legislative districts.

"We have no reason to believe that the commission will not perform its duty to adopt a plan that complies with mandatory constitutional and statutory provisions," the decision reads.

Tim Hurst, chief deputy with the Secretary of State's Office, said the reapportionment commission members are being contacted and will likely reconvene next week.

"It shouldn't take them very long to do that," Hurst predicted of adopting a new plan. "If you take a look at what the Supreme Court said, there's a finite number of plans, and I think they should be able to do it by the end of the month."

Justice Jim Jones cast the lone dissenting vote in the Supreme Court ruling.

The petitioners, Jones wrote in his dissenting opinion, failed to present any competent evidence to cast doubt on the commission's findings.

He also refuted the alternate plan the petitioners offered, which he criticized as not explaining its criteria of certain splits, or the criteria considered.

Jones also contended that the quality of reapportionment should not be determined solely by the number of county splits, but should take into account preserving traditional communities and avoiding gerrymandering.

"If this court imposes a strict requirement that the commission adopt whatever plan meets the 10 percent population deviation and produces the lowest possible number of county splits, the commission's discretion will be limited to the point that it will have no realistic function," Jones wrote.