Like the mythical village of Brigadoon, newly apportioned legislative districts appear out of the mists every 10 years. This follows the taking of the census and is done to reflect changes in population. As in past redistricting years, the new congressional and state legislative districts generated considerable partisan disagreement and debate. In fact, challenges to the redrawn state districts were argued last week before the state Supreme Court, which listened to reason and tossed out the new map.

The subject, and process behind it, is enough to make the eyes of the average citizen glaze over. However, we all have an interest in the outcome.

So let's take a quick stroll through that process so we all have a better idea of what is required, what is being done in our names -- and what we will have to live with for the next decade. Reapportionment does not end with congressional and state legislative districts. New districts for both Allegheny County Council and Pittsburgh City Council will be on the drawing board and ready for the next elections to those bodies in 2013.

Districts must have near equal populations. Allegheny County contains 1,223,348 people. Therefore, each of the 13 county council districts has a goal of including 94,104 persons, or 7.7 percent of the population. The population of the city of Pittsburgh is 305,704; hence, the nine city council districts aim to have 33,967 persons, or 11.1 percent of the population.

The population of each district should be adjusted to within 2 percent above or below these figures. So, this affords a possible range of between 92,222 and 95,986 constituents per county council district and between 33,299 and 34,635 constituents per city council district.

In addition, each district must be geographically compact and contiguous. In other words, parts of a district cannot be divided from each other and it should not be unwieldy. Also, there should be as little disruption done to existing districts as possible.

Finally, it is important that municipal integrity be maintained as much as possible. In short, each municipality should be located within a single district when feasible. These criteria are designed to make sure that districts have some rational reason for being drawn as they are and are not used solely to achieve partisan advantage.

You might have noticed in the news that the Mon Valley-based 45th state Senate District was slated to be moved to Monroe County, clear on the other side of Pennsylvania! This and the failure to preserve county and municipal borders in some state legislative districts were the biggest violations under the initial plan and were the core of the argument against the new state legislative district maps. We are still waiting for the reason behind the Supreme Court's decision this past Wednesday to send the state legislative maps back to be redrawn by the reapportionment commission.

The loss of population in Western Pennsylvania means that changes in legislative districts are unavoidable. However, moving the 45th District would be a drastic measure -- the perfect illustration of how bad decisions in the reapportionment process can be harmful to communities with common interests and the people living there.

As you can see, meeting these goals is not always possible. Nonetheless, past efforts in Allegheny County show that it is not necessarily impossible.

After the 1980 and 1990 censuses, municipalities were left intact at the state Senate and congressional district levels. Only after the 2000 census were municipalities divided between multiple districts in these two bodies.

At the county council district level, municipalities must be represented by a single district. This requirement was overlooked during the first attempt at reapportionment after the 2000 census. The courts subsequently ordered that the districts be brought into compliance.

As illustrated here, my proposed county council map places each municipality -- except the city of Pittsburgh -- entirely within a single district.

With a population over three times greater than the single-district constituent goal, Pittsburgh's wards cannot be placed in one district. Thus, it remains divided among four different districts. Overall, 177,668 persons (15 percent of the county) residing in 27 municipalities and wards (17 percent of the total) have been moved from one district to another. Of these, 12 municipalities (7 percent) with a population of 83,416 (7 percent of the county) have been moved into districts within which they were previously located.

So, while it is impossible to leave all municipalities and wards in their current districts, great efforts have been made to minimize disruption.

At the Pittsburgh City Council level, the need to have near-equal populations makes it impossible to keep each ward within a single district.

As such, 25,415 (8 percent) people residing in 34 voting precincts (8 percent), within 13 wards (41 percent), have been moved from one district to another. In this proposal, eight wards (25 percent) have been divided between multiple districts. Six are divided between two districts and two are apportioned between three districts. Nonetheless, this represents a significant improvement over the number of wards that are currently represented by more than one district. At present, there are 13 wards (41 percent) apportioned between multiple districts. Ten are divided between two districts and three are apportioned between three districts.

Now, look at these proposed council districts for Allegheny County and Pittsburgh. They are a first stab at how these councils might look next year, offered as examples of how this can be done rationally and with less disruption. They meet all of the requirements. Above all, they provide more communities with common interests a better opportunity to work together.

PROPOSED ALLEGHENY COUNTY COUNCIL DISTRICTS

Municipalities: Avalon, Ben Avon, Ben Avon Heights, Coraopolis, Crescent, Edgeworth, Emsworth, Glenfield, Haysville, Kilbuck, Leet, Leetsdale, Moon, Ohio, Osborne, Ross, Sewickley and West View

Population: 94,319 (7.7 percent)

Municipalities: Aleppo, Bell Acres, Bradford Woods, Franklin Park, Hampton, Marshall, McCandless, Pine, Richland, Sewickley Heights and Sewickley Hills.

Population: 95,726 (7.8 percent)

Municipalities: Aspinwall, Blawnox, Brackenridge, Etna, Fawn, Fox Chapel, Harrison, Indiana, Millvale, O'Hara, Shaler, Sharpsburg and West Deer.

Population: 92,547 (7.6 percent)

Municipalities: Carnegie, Collier, Crafton, Findlay, Heidelberg, Kennedy, McDonald, McKees Rocks, Neville, North Fayette, Oakdale, Pennsbury Village, Robinson, Scott, Stowe and Thornburg.

Population: 95,799 (7.8 percent)

Municipalities: Bethel Park, Bridgeville, Jefferson Hills, South Fayette, South Park, Upper St. Clair and West Elizabeth.

Population: 95,659 (7 percent)

Municipalities: Baldwin Borough, Baldwin Township, Brentwood, Castle Shannon, Mt. Lebanon, Pleasant Hills and Whitehall.

Population: 95,067 (7.8 percent)

Municipalities: Cheswick, East Deer, Frazer, Harmar, Oakmont, Penn Hills, Plum, Springdale Borough, Springdale Township, Tarentum and Verona.

Population: 95,127 (7.8 percent)

Municipalities: Braddock, Braddock Hills, Chalfant, Churchill, East McKeesport, East Pittsburgh, Edgewood, Forest Hills, Monroeville, North Braddock, North Versailles, Pitcairn, Rankin, Swissvale, Trafford, Turtle Creek, Wall, Wilkins and Wilmerding.

Population: 93,842 (7.7 percent)

Municipalities: Clairton, Dravosburg, Duquesne, Elizabeth Borough, Elizabeth Township, Forward, Glassport, Liberty, Lincoln, McKeesport, Port Vue, South Versailles, Versailles, West Mifflin and White Oak.

Population: 93,969 (7.7 percent)

Municipalities: Pittsburgh (Wards 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13) and Wilkinsburg.

Population: 92,858 (7.6 percent)

Municipalities: Homestead, Munhall, Pittsburgh (Wards 4, 14, 15 and 31), West Homestead and Whitaker.

Population: 92,437 (7.6 percent)

Municipalities: Dormont, Greentree, Ingram, Mt. Oliver, Pittsburgh (Wards 19, 20, 28, 29, 30 and 32) and Rosslyn Farms.

Population: 92,234 (7.5 percent)

Municipalities: Bellevue, Pittsburgh (Wards 1, 2, 6, 9, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) and Reserve.

Population: 93,764 (7.7 percent)

Inset shows city wards that would be part of county council districts:

PROPOSED PITTSBURGH CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS

Voting districts within wards shown in brackets

Wards: 23 [2 and 3], 24, 25, 26 and 27.

Population: 34,013 (11 percent)

Wards: 19 [1 - 11, 13, 14 and 28], 20 and 28.

Population: 34,115 (11 percent)

Wards: 4 [7, 8, 14, 15 and 17], 16, 17, 18 and 30.

Population: 34,268 (11 percent)

Wards: 19 [12, 15 - 27 and 29 - 38], 29 and 32.

Population: 34,185 (11 percent)

Wards: 14 [23 - 41], 15 and 31.

Population: 33,466 (11 percent)

Wards: 1, 2, 3, 4 [1 - 6, 16, 18 and 19], 5 [1 - 8 and 10 - 18], 21, 22 and 23 [1].

Population: 34,304 (11 percent)

Wards: 5 [9], 6, 8 [1 - 11], 9, 10 [1 - 11] and 11 [1 and 7 - 13].

Population: 33,760 (11 percent)

Wards: 4 [9 - 13], 7 and 14 [1 - 11, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22].

Population: 33,596 (11 percent)

Wards: 8 [12 and 13], 10 [12 - 19], 11 [2 - 6 and 14 - 18], 12, 13 and 14 [12 - 15, 18 and 19].

Population: 33,933 (11 percent)