The latest set of state legislative maps arrived Tuesday at the Ohio Supreme Court, with hopes that these maps will be approved at lightning speed with enough time to salvage the quickly approaching May 3 primary election.

Until now, every set of maps submitted by the commission charged with redrawing legislative boundaries has been deemed unconstitutional and rejected by the high court.

That included three sets of Ohio House and Senate maps drawn by the panel, ruling in a 4-3 vote each time that the plans were unconstitutionally gerrymandered to unduly favor Republicans.

Ohioans overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment that mandated the redistricting commission at least attempt to avoid partisan favoritism and to distribute districts proportionally to reflect Ohio’s 54 percent Republican, 46 percent Democratic split.

The maps approved Monday night do come closer to the 54 percent to 46 percent target by decreasing the number of competitive districts that favor Democrats, the Associated Press reported.

The latest maps haven’t adjusted much, if at all, the Mahoning Valley legislative districts compared to previously drawn districts.

While we aren’t sure whether the court will approve this latest submission, some have raised doubt because the state’s political mapmaking body created them from a previously rejected set of maps.

In another matter, new and still-disputed congressional maps likely will stay in place for the May 3 primary, under a schedule for hearing arguments in that case established by the state Supreme Court on Tuesday morning. Arguments and counterarguments were scheduled well past the primary.

So, as we wait for the final word, we again reiterate our argument that, no matter the Ohio Supreme Court decision, our legislators must maintain one primary election this spring — even if it means delaying the date of the primary election.

Indeed, we realize such a suggestion is unpopular among candidates who, if implemented, would be forced to campaign longer and harder, spending more campaign funds leading into a delayed primary election. Undoubtedly, such a decision to delay the election could change the trajectory of political campaigns.

Frankly, however, this isn’t about what the candidates or sitting elected officials might desire. This is about what is best for the electorate as a whole.

Few would argue the electorate would favor astronomical cost increases associated with two primary elections. Secretary of State Frank LaRose said having two primaries would cost $20 million to $25 million. The Ohio Legislature already recently approved $9.2 million in additional money to boards of elections to prepare for the May 3 primary.

Additionally, few would argue voters will favor going to the polls on two different occasions this spring — once to vote for statewide or county-wide races and a second time to vote for state or congressional legislators in newly drawn districts.

Such a decision likely would not only confuse voters, but ultimately, drive down already traditionally low voter turnout for critically important election decisions.

Finally, the entire scenario is unfair to the local boards of elections who now are being forced to deal with unreasonable deadlines to turn around election ballots and possibly hire already hard-to-find poll workers for not one, but two elections.

Our legislators have sole control over changes to election schedules. That’s why we urge these legislators to make a decision now based on what’s best for the voters. That decision should be to either delay the primary election, possibly until June or, as is being debated currently, keep election day the same, but pare down the period typically allotted for early voting.

At the end of the day, the right answer is simply to keep all the races and issues together on one ballot and one primary election.

To consider any other option is simply unreasonable.

editorial@vindy.com