The Supreme Court issued their last rulings of the season yesterday, and I thought one ruling kind of got short shrift by the media. Granted, there were other big rulings on the same day (the court usually saves their biggest cases for last, but this year they actually released the two biggest decisions last week) involving E.P.A. regulations and the death penalty, but the redistricting case -- to me, at least -- was more important.

I have to admit I'm biased, because I live in California. While the case before the high court only directly involved Arizona, California likely would have been affected soon after. Which is why I'm breathing a sigh of relief that the court ruled the way it did. California has a similar system as the one in question in the Arizona case, and I both voted for it and strongly support it.

At the heart of the case was a voter revolt over gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is, of course, the practice of cleverly drawing districting lines so that your political party benefits, far out of proportion to actual voter support. Pennsylvania, for instance, voted for President Obama twice -- by 55 percent in 2008 and 52 percent in 2012. The state has voted for Democrats in all six of the past presidential elections, in fact. But their delegation to the House of Representatives is composed of 13 Republicans and only five Democrats. That's pretty lopsided, and doesn't even come close to representing the state's partisan divide. If the state's voters accurately reflected their House delegation, 72 percent of Pennsylvania's voters would have voted Republican.

I don't mean to single the Keystone State out. There are plenty of other examples to choose from, because both parties gerrymander whenever they can -- with absolute abandon in most cases. In the recent Supreme Court case the Arizona Republicans were the ones who sued to overturn a law. But in California, Democrats are in the majority. Gerrymandering isn't confined to one party, in other words.

What happened in both California and Arizona is that the voters got fed up with the practice. So they passed referenda to take the power of redistricting out of the hands of the state-level politicians. In California, a special board was created with the mandate to draw House district boundaries (every 10 years, after the Census) so that they make sense geographically and demographically. They are also banned from even considering the partisan fallout from drawing any district's lines, or how any decision will affect either major political party. Arizona did a similar thing, as 11 other states have also done (some give the state legislatures more power in the decisions, but they all are intended to de-politicize the process).

In California, the legislature (and both political parties) were strongly against the ballot initiative to create the new nonpartisan board. In Arizona, the state legislature sued to overturn the law as unconstitutional, since "the legislature" is given the power over elections in the U.S. Constitution. At heart, these new laws are a power grab, which is what the Arizona lawmakers were complaining about. But unlike normal power grabs in the political world, this wasn't a fight between branches (Congress and the president struggling over an issue, for example). This was a power grab by the people, who took it away from the politicians. The Supreme Court just ruled that ultimately, the government is the people, so they're allowed to decide things like this.

The decision is important because it does not turn back the tide. If more and more states decide to try to stop blatant gerrymandering then the House of Representatives will truly live up to its name and become honestly representative of each state's electorate. I support this movement even though it weakened the Democrats' position in my own state. Ending gerrymandering has to happen on both sides of the aisle. These days, drawing an electoral district would be easy enough to do by computer software, even allowing for revisions if the first draft might initially split a town or other community in two. I'd much prefer this to happen by nonpartisan boards than in state legislatures. Even Democratic ones.

Redistricting only happens once every 10 years. It's an important shift in our national government. Some states add House members, others lose them. Even in states that don't change their total number, the districts are redrawn to reflect shifting populations. Gerrymandering is a longstanding tradition (the practice was named for Elbridge Gerry, the governor of Massachusetts in the early 1800s), but that doesn't mean we have to put up with it forever. Thirteen states have moved towards a more rational and fair system, and the Supreme Court has now put its stamp of approval on the reform effort. That's important, because other states are now free to follow the same path.

I realize that gerrymandering is a pretty esoteric political issue. It only happens once a decade, and most people don't even notice it when it does happen. Plus, election reform is a snoozer of a subject for most. The death penalty is a much easier issue to report on -- I get that. But personally I think the Arizona case was important enough to bring to the public's attention. When state delegations to the House of Representatives can be so wildly out of whack with the partisan makeup of the state's voters, then the people should be able to take that power away from the gerrymander artists in the statehouse. When only 44 percent of a state's voters support the Republican for president, it is patently unfair to have a House delegation that is 72 percent Republican just because you creatively drew the districts to guarantee that outcome. And, yes, it would be just as unfair if you substitute "Democrat" into that sentence. Which is why I'm glad nonpartisan redistricting will continue in my own state, even if it means a few more California Republicans seated in the House. Gerrymandering reform can only work if voters from both parties demand it. Which, thankfully, the Supreme Court just ruled is entirely constitutional.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant