On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as expected. The justices granted the stay sought by Ohio Republicans, meaning the state does not have to produce a redrawn map of U.S. House districts by June 14. A panel of three federal judges set that deadline earlier this month in finding the current districts unconstitutional because of the excessive partisanship at work.

The Supreme Court already has heard arguments in two redistricting cases, involving North Carolina and Maryland. Rulings will arrive next month. So it follows, especially given past practice, that the justices would set aside the Ohio case, and another concerning Michigan, pending the coming decisions.

That isn’t to say the high court should lose sight of the Ohio matter. The ruling of the bipartisan panel of judges was emphatic. It recounted in rich detail how Republicans maneuvered to a draw a map that would deliver “predetermined” outcomes in congressional races. It found the district map “extreme, compared to historical plans across the United States and to other possible configurations that could have been adopted in Ohio.”

It added that the map “minimizes responsiveness and competition, rendering one consistent result no matter the particularities of the election cycle.” It concluded: “[T]his partisan gerrymander was intentional and effective and that no legitimate justification accounts for its extremity.”

Now judges in a handful of such redistricting cases have rendered similar judgments. It long has been held, and understandably, that redistricting is an inherently political process. The argument typically goes: Leave it to the politicians, with the exception of the courts closely policing racial gerrymandering. Yet, as Ohioans have learned, pols today are equipped with such sophisticated software they essentially can remove the views of voters from elections.

That capacity brings perspective to a point made by Ohio Republicans in favoring the stay. They stressed that the state legislature should not have to “waste its time” devising a new map with the high court soon to rule. State Sen. Kristina Roegner, a Hudson Republican, called the deadline “very inequitable.” Yet the argument can be made that currently, Ohio voters waste their time engaging in U.S. House elections, the map set up for a permanent 12-4 Republican advantage in seats.

How inequitable is that result? The Associated Press conducted an analysis of the 2018 congressional races across the country. In Ohio, it found a dramatic 10.4 percentage-point shift from Republican to Democratic candidates, Republicans slipping to 52 percent of the overall vote. Still, the party kept its three-quarters of the seats. The AP further calculated that with more fairly drawn districts, the result would have been nine for Republicans and seven for Democrats.

To their credit, Statehouse Republicans and Democrats have achieved a much-improved process for redrawing U.S. House districts, not to mention legislative district lines. Yet that regimen does not take effect until after the 2020 census. So the state is poised to conduct one more election cycle under House districts deemed unconstitutional by a panel of federal judges (nominated by Republicans and Democratic presidents) and rejected overwhelmingly by Ohio voters.

Practically everyone gets the reluctance of Supreme Court justices to dive into the partisan fray of redistricting. Hard to overlook is the mounting judicial consensus about partisans going too far. (In Maryland, Democrats are the offenders.) Then there is the reality of the technology growing more sophisticated, the gerrymandering certain to reach new levels of excess. That’s why the court has reason to define what is too partisan, setting in motion the drawing of new district lines in Ohio for the 2020 elections.