The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the practice of "gerrymandering," in which political districts are drawn in such a way as to favor one party, are beyond the scope of the courts.

That does not mean, as some pundits have theorized, that the court is sanctioning the practice. In its majority opinion it acknowledged that "the districting plans at issue here are highly partisan, by any measure." The question was: Did that make them constitutionally impermissible? The court's conservative wing, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, said no. "We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."

Such a decision is a blow to those who have become accustomed to the high court as final arbiter of nearly every political question. But this is a new court, stocked with constructionists who take a dim view of second-guessing lawmakers on such matters. And not all on the court agreed with the ruling. Justice Elena Kagan said the majority was wrong because the practices deployed were so grievous that they "imperil our system of government." The court's role, she said, is to defend the foundations of democracy, and chief among those are "free and fair elections."

Partisans should keep in mind that Roberts did not sanction gerrymandering. "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust." And yet, he noted, the courts do not have the authority or competence to judge when political lines have been crossed. "To hold that legislators cannot take any partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers' decision to entrust districting to political entities," he wrote.

So what are we left with? Naked exercises of partisan power as one party or another makes maximum use of its ability to favor itself? Republicans have had some of the most egregious examples of late, but gerrymandering has never been the province of one party. The practice of one party making rules to its benefit and its opponents' detriment is as old as the republic.

The real takeaway from Thursday's decision is that Americans who care about fairness and integrity must become more engaged and ensure that discipline is imposed — by law — on what has become a renegade process.

Better examples abound. Some states use bipartisan commissions. They impose rules on themselves. One intriguing model is as close as the Iowa border. Iowa, alone among the 50 states, has for a generation entrusted nonpartisan legislative staff to draw district lines. Since 1980, the Legislative Services Agency has created districts, observing a ban on using partisan data as it does so. It may not consider political affiliations of registered voters, incumbents' addresses, previous election results or most demographics. Every decade a new advisory committee guides it, and holds at least three public hearings on the resulting maps. The plan is voted on by the Iowa General Assembly. Clear, transparent and accountable.

Iowans didn't need a court to tell them to do this. They imposed this discipline on themselves by statute. They could repeal it anytime, but they never have. Adopting a transparent, nonpartisan approach, with rules in statute, is one way for voters to make it known that they won't stand for partisan manipulations of their districts every 10 years. Minnesotans should take note.

This approach requires more effort, certainly, than sitting back and letting the courts make the tough decisions. Agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's conclusion, the justices have made it clear that political decisions are back in the voters' court.