On Tuesday, the Legislature will convene a special session to consider competing congressional redistricting plans for Maine, or face court intervention.

It could be a quick session.

Republicans, who control the State House, are threatening to pass their plan by majority vote, shutting out the Democrats. If they do, that would bump up against Article IV of the Maine Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote of members of each legislative body on a redistricting plan. And, it would fly in the face of a long-standing tradition for Maine lawmakers to observe that guideline.

The Republicans’ tough-guy approach would be a radical move to pass a radical plan.

When Republican Rep. Dennis Keschl recently recommended a deadline change in the reapportionment language of the Constitution, he retained the language requiring a two-thirds vote, so obviously he supports two-thirds approval.

Keschl’s proposal passed in the House in early June and, after Republican Sen. Richard Rosen salvaged it from the Appropriations Committee table, it passed later that month in the Senate.

So, the resolve carried Republican support in both chambers, which makes it difficult to align Republicans’ zeal to move forward with a majority vote now while supporting a two-thirds vote for future legislators.

Additionally, Keschl’s Republican-supported resolve maintained language requiring the Legislature to craft congressional districts “of contiguous and compact territory” that “shall cross political subdivision lines in the least number of times necessary.”

The Republican plan — at least the plan that has been made public to date — does not follow the very resolve the party supports.

The Republican plan creates orphan towns that are not contiguous to the whole and crisscrosses political subdivisions in the most — not the least — number of times possible.

Why in the world would Maine lawmakers want to make redistricting any more complicated than it absolutely has to be?

The Democrats’ plan is simple. It shifts fewer than 20,000 residents in seven towns between districts.

Done.

Finished.

Special session over.

This cannot be a political party tussle. It must be a solution that reduces unnecessary upheaval.

Republicans have represented both districts more than twice as long as Democrats since the early 1800s. So it’s not like the party needs to prove anything.

Let’s take a look at the history of the 1st Congressional District, after the initial Federalist and Jacksonian parties controlled it in the early 1800s.

In 1835, Democrat John Fairfield of Saco held the seat. He resigned two and a half years later when he was elected governor, and the seat remained Democratic for the next 17 years, until Republican John M. Wood of Portland won it.

It stayed Republican for eight years, went to the Dems for two years and swayed back to the Republicans for the next 70 years.

In the past 175½ years through several redistricting efforts, Democrats have held the 1st District seat for 55½ years. Republicans have held it for 120 years.

Looking at the 2nd District seat, again, after the Federalist and Jacksonian eras, Democrat John Anderson — a former Jacksonian — was elected from Portland in 1837. The seat stayed Democratic until 1841 when Whig William Pitt Fessenden won the seat, but two years later it returned to the Dems, who held it for the next 12 years.

In 1855, Opposition Party member John Perry won the seat, retained it for two years, and lost it to Republican Charles Gilman in 1857, the first Republican to hold that seat.

In the past 174 years, Democrats have held the 2nd District seat for 54 years. Republicans have held it for 116 years.

A purely mathematical look at the combined districts shows, over time, an overwhelming Republican stronghold.

That doesn’t really tell us anything, though, since the parties swapped philosophies over the years.

There was a time in this country when Republicans were the liberals and Democrats the conservatives, so the familiar party affiliations of those elected to serve in our congressional districts is not representative of the politics of all of the men and women elected to serve.

What it does tell us, though, is that parties and beliefs shift no matter how the districts are split, so there’s no need to overwork or overthink the current redistricting.

We implore legislators to adopt the plan with cleaner lines. Not because the Democrats designed it, but because simplicity makes sense.

[email protected]

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and editorial board.