The thin state Supreme Court majority seeking to force a new Congressional map for the looming 2018 election cycle backed its controversial order with a Pennsylvania-proud flourish Wednesday.

But the immediate impact of the 139-page opinion didn't seem to bring warring sides any closer to resolution of an intensely partisan, pre-election battle that has begun drawing national attention.

The four justices in the majority said the current map - in effect for U.S. House elections here since 2012 - violated the "free and equal elections" clause of the state Constitution by "diluting" the power of Democrats' votes.

The plaintiffs in the case, which only applies to the 18 House seats, are a group of registered Democratic voters from around the state.

"A diluted vote is not an equal vote, as all voters do not have an equal opportunity to translate their votes into representation," the opinion penned by Justice Debra Todd stated. "This is the antithesis of a healthy representative democracy."

The majority also said it had no problem getting to that result despite the fact that most federal courts, to date, have thus far not been able to define how much partisan gerrymandering is too much.

Opting for an admittedly broad interpretation of the state elections clause, the justices found that any suppression of equal participation by voters in elections is a violation of the clause.

And from there, they concluded, that is exactly what has happened with Pennsylvania's Information Age gerrymandering.

Grabbing from pictures on the page and the new troves of data developed by political scientists that tend to prove how effective the culling of voters along party lines was, Todd wrote:

"Such a plan, aimed at achieving unfair partisan gain [in the state's Congressional delegation], undermines voters' ability to exercise their vote in free and 'equal' elections if the term is to be interpreted in any credible way."

Instead, the court said, factors like geographic compactness, keeping cities with their surrounding metro areas and minimizing splits of counties and municipalities into multiple districts are neutral benchmarks that can not be subordinate to other factors like protection of incumbents.

The arrival of the opinion, albeit 17 days after the initial 4-3 order requiring a new map was issued, clears one barrier that Republican legislative leaders who control the General Assembly's agenda had complained was impairing their ability to act.

It may also give them a little more time, should they need it.

The original court order asked the General Assembly to send a plan to Gov. Tom Wolf by Feb. 9, with the governor then having until Feb. 15 to sign or reject the bill.

If no map comes through the legislative process, the majority has said, it would impose a map itself.

Wednesday's opinion, however, emphasized the latter date, stating the court would act only "if the General Assembly and the governor did not enact a remedial plan by Feb. 15."

Another way that the court's initial timeline could be extended, if all parties agreed, would be a change in the May 15 primary date.

Wolf Administration officials had previously said the election date could be pushed back several weeks without affecting preparations for the November general election.

But agreement was hard to find Wednesday.

"Because of the reckless delay of this opinion it will be very difficult to have a piece of legislation completed before Friday," Drew Crompton, chief of staff to Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, said via email.

"I would never have fathomed that the Court would give the General Assembly 18 days to finish its assignment all the while holding its opinion for 16 of them.

We will continue to review the opinions to determine whether there is a viable federal court action in light of the court's position and the proposed remedy."

Another option being considered, he told The Associated Press, was having Scarnati and House Speaker Mike Turzai submit a map to Wolf directly - one that would not go through the normal legislative process.

It was not immediately clear what that would accomplish, though it might presage an attempt to reach a negotiated map that could be presented to the court as a preferred solution. Attempts to reach other GOP leadership sources were not successful.

Democrats at the state Capitol, meanwhile, said Wednesday that they had not received any fresh overtures from GOP leadership to talk about the Congressional map.

"We're certainly willing to talk with whoever wants to talk about maps," said Paul Parsells, chief of staff to House Minority Leader Frank Dermody, D-Allegheny County.

"And we're prepared to offer maps [to the court], if necessary."

A bill that could provide the template for new boundaries for the state's 18 House districts is in the state House, and at least two session days away from getting a final passage vote.

Language describing the corrective map would have to be added in by amendment.

Thursday's civic celebration of the Philadelphia Eagles' first NFL championship since 1960 is also complicating schedules, so it was unclear last night if either chamber would be reconvening this week.

All in all, there was a change in tone from Tuesday, when it seemed like there was some momentum for an attempt to produce a bill in compliance with the court's order.

The case arose from a lawsuit filed last summer by 18 registered Democrat voters and the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, who alleged that partisan cutting of the Congressional lines after the 2010 census amounted to "viewpoint discrimination" against Democratic voters.

In a December trial, they presented evidence that a series of 500 maps built on traditional redistricting principles and past vote counts never replicated the current 13 Republican. five Democrat split in Pennsylvania's Congressional delegation.

Defenders of the 2011 map - drafted by a Republican-controlled General Assembly and then-Gov. Tom Corbett - have said it checks all Constitutional requirements, and argued the Democrat plaintiffs are simply seeking guarantees of proportional representation that do not exist.

The court's majority, however, held Wednesday that far from making a reckless power grab, they were honoring Pennsylvania's longstanding tradition of representative democracy.

"The people of this commonwealth should never lose sight of the fact that, in its protection of our essential rights, our founding document is the ancestor, not the offspring, of the federal Constitution," wrote Justice Todd, who also noted that the state's elections clause has no direct parallel in the federal document.

She was joined in the majority by Justices Christine Donahue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht. Notable, all were elected to the courts as Democrats.

Justice Max Baer joined in the finding of unconstitutionality on the current maps, but dissented on the proposed remedy, arguing in part, "Respectfully, the circumstances at present do not make it 'necessary' for this court to formulate a redistricting plan for the impending 2018 elections.

"Instead, the unambiguous grant of redistricting authority to the state legislature under... the federal constitution mandates judicial restraint to allow a legislature a reasonable period of time - which should be measured in months rather than weeks - to redistrict following a determination of unconstitutionality by a court."

Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and Justice Sally Mundy, both elected as Republicans, dissented on both the finding of unconstitutionality and the order to remedy in 2018.