BECAUSE LEGISLATIVE map makers left it joined at the ankle with Baltimore, Dundalk and the city now command the rapt attention of Maryland's Court of Appeals.
In these two disparate bits of landscape, the complexity of the court's new map-making dilemma comes into sharp focus. Making Dundalk happy could cost Baltimore raw political power -- the loss of a senator or two in the General Assembly.
That feared outcome may be inevitable, depending on conclusions reached by the court in an array of problems similar to that of Dundalk-Baltimore. Inevitable, perhaps, but certainly regrettable nonetheless.
Other linkages between other counties will challenge the court to find ways of fixing problems without creating new ones: Every move in this process requires another.
Does "due regard" for county lines mean they must be honored at all costs? Is strict adherence even possible in the effort to balance population in the 47 senatorial districts? What flexibility is reasonable? All these questions -- and the consequences of the answers -- are now on the docket.
Having thrown out Gov. Parris N. Glendening's district map, the court must decide how to draw a new one that meets its interpretation of the state constitution, the federal Voting Rights Act and Maryland's charmingly varied geography. A lawsuit is already pending in U.S. District Court and could be revived if the new map offends some party or other.
Much is at stake here. The reasonable sensibilities of Dundalkians, of course. But the political power and status of Baltimore in Maryland politics ride on the deliberations as well. If Baltimore and Dundalk are separated -- if the city loses the population lent to it by Baltimore County via the map makers -- the city will lose even more of its voice in Annapolis.
Ten years ago, Democratic Party officials decided to shore up political power in a shrinking city by linking it to Baltimore County in the form of shared senatorial districts. Several districts, once entirely contained by the city limits, now reach across into the county. That linkage has served both jurisdictions and the state well.
The court may well conclude that the Democrats and Governor Glendening traveled a political bridge too far. Perhaps, though, it can find a way to rearrange the crossings so that communities of interest are maintained and no geographical boundaries are ignored.
Democrats were wise a decade ago to keep the city in legislative councils, and their political excesses this year ought not to cancel that progressive achievement. And though it expressed concerns about the process 10 years ago, the court allowed the map to stand. After solving egregious problems, it ought to do so again.
When the judges find their way to the end of this maze, the court and the General Assembly would do well to explore ways to make this process more rational.