The U.S. Supreme Court last week heard arguments in a pivotal, if not potentially landmark, case involving gerrymandering, the decennial process whereby a state’s lawmakers draw up boundaries for state and federal legislative districts for the next decade in accordance with changes in population.

The case, Gill vs. Whitford, arises in Wisconsin, but its implications could trickle far from the Badger State. We in Florida, which fought a long and bitter battle to reach a somewhat equitable way to configure our legislative and congressional districts, should hope the Supreme Court rejects this challenge.

At issue are claims by Wisconsin Democrats that the Republican-led assembly there drew legislative boundaries in such a fashion so as to render their votes meaningless. Thus, we’re now hearing the term “efficiency gap,” a mathematical formula which supposedly measures how one party achieves dominance by concentrating or diffusing the opposition’s voters across districts. The effect, according to those challenging the Wisconsin’s redistricting process, can be best understood by looking at the results since the Wisconsin legislature finished the process after the 2010 census. In the three elections since then, Democratic candidates for the state Assembly have garnered more votes than Republicans in the aggregate, yet face a nearly 2-1 deficit in seats.

Anti-gerrymander forces charge that such a process radically and unfairly undermines our nation’s one-man-one-vote principle.

Yet Chief Justice John Roberts is more on point when he refers to this view as “sociological gobbledygook,” which is just one reason why the high court should give this case a thumbs down.

For one thing, those arguing for overhauling Wisconsin’s system ignore basic living arrangements across the country, in which Democratic voters tend to cluster in urban areas while Republicans spread out in suburbs and rural areas. That alone could account for tipping the scales in either direction.

Another aspect is that if the Wisconsin model is struck down the courts, and not the voters, will become the final arbiters of who wins. Thus, instead of convincing 50-percent-plus-one of the voters, the losers would only have to convince a handful of federal judges.

That, in turn, violates the Constitution’s very clear provision of delegating to the states and to the elected representatives therein the process of drawing boundaries for such districts. It also turns an admittedly messy and partisan political process, as decided by elections, and into a legal one, decided by lawyers and judges.

One Wisconsin election scholar says as many as 20 states could be affected if the petitioners prevail at the Supreme Court. It’s unclear if Florida is among them. The hope is that our fight over redistricting since the adoption of the Fair Districts Amendments in 2010 — which declared that districts would be compact, connect communities of interest and follow natural political and geographical markers — would insulate us from the fallout.

In 1992 Florida operated under what the political website Ballotpedia calls a “trifecta” — that is, one party controlled the House, the Senate and the governor’s office. At that time Florida Democrats owned the trifecta.

Yet the GOP chipped away. Within six years, the trifecta was flipped to the Republicans, who have controlled the show in Tallahassee for the last 18 years.

The GOP, however, did not get there through the courts. It took control of state government and the congressional delegation by winning at the ballot box.

A few years ago, some became annoyed at such winning, believing Florida Republicans, much like those in Wisconsin, were building an impervious majority through gerrymandering. Thus, reformers championed the Fair Districts Amendments, which overwhelmingly passed in 2010. After court battles and the revelation of some underhanded swamp-like behavior in some of the mapping, the courts in late 2015 and early 2016 finally settled our boundaries through 2020. The effect remains to be seen. In 2010, Republicans held 102 of the Legislature’s 160 seats; today, they hold 99.

The “efficiency gap” sounds fair. But it is severely flawed because it forces judges to decide what ratio is fair, dismantles the idea that states and their voters control their own elections and tinkers with introducing into American politics the European idea of proportional representation.

Elections should be about ideas and policies. Complaining about gerrymandering seems like a loser’s errand. Those on the losing end — in Wisconsin, Florida, or wherever — should perhaps consider a retooled platform instead of whining to judges.