Barring another appeal, the 2002 redistricting process in Kansas is over. Now’s the time to look ahead to 2010.

In all probability, a ruling on Wednesday by a panel of judges on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals closed the book on the 2002 redistricting process in Kansas.

The state won’t have to redraw the lines for another 10 years, but state lawmakers should begin immediately  while the 2002 process is fresh in their minds  to consider how this process can be improved.

The three-judge 10th Circuit panel upheld a congressional redistricting plan passed by the Kansas Legislature in the closing hours of its long-extended 2002 session. The decision was made in response to a lawsuit by the Kansas attorney general on behalf of residents of Fort Riley and Junction City.

The plaintiffs contended that the Legislature’s redistricting plan should be thrown out because it split a “community of interest” by putting Fort Riley in the 2nd District and Junction City in the 1st District. The same argument also was made on behalf of Lawrence, which is split roughly down Iowa Street between the 2nd District and the 3rd.

In its decision the court basically said it didn’t care about communities of interest: “It is not the province of this court to judge whether the legislature’s redistricting choice achieves the best possible solution for particular communities of interest.”

The court focused only on whether the principle of “one person, one vote” was satisfied. The court decided a difference of 33 people between the state’s largest and smallest congressional districts was good enough and saw no other grounds for an appeal of the Kansas map. Case closed.

What this means is that, although respect for communities of interest is touted as a key goal of the Kansas redistricting process, federal courts will do nothing to uphold that principle. If Kansans think it’s important to preserve communities of interest, they, themselves, will have to see that the state redistricting process requires it, perhaps by establishing that in state statute that could then be appealed in state court.

Communities of interest are only one aspect of what should be a comprehensive re-examination of the state’s redistricting process. The deplorable process that occurred in Kansas this year should not be allowed to happen again. Although hearings were held to discuss communities of interest and other issues, the process was driven almost entirely by political interests.

Even if you accept the idea that the majority party should hold all the cards in the redistricting process, that shouldn’t give lawmakers license to create the kind of havoc that occurred in the 2002 legislative session. More than a year after some states had finished their redistricting process, Kansas legislators still were bickering and jockeying for political advantage on redistricting. To the very end of the session the political maneuvering associated with redistricting affected the Legislature’s ability to reach agreement on the budget and other issues of far more importance to the state.

Lawrence will survive this congressional split. Although local residents would have preferred to keep the city entirely in the 3rd District with Kansas City, that is now water under the bridge. What should be a greater concern to residents of Lawrence and all Kansans is how Kansas can conduct its redistricting process in a way that minimizes conflict and creates representative districts that serve the best interests of the state.

Most lawmakers and observers would agree that after this year, the state’s redistricting process can only improve. Now, not a decade from now, is the time to attack this issue.