Was the Republican plan to re-district Michigan's legislative boundaries unconstitutional? And could it delay the state's Aug. 6 primary election?

The answer to both of those questions is now in the courts.

The re-drawing of legislative boundaries - or gerrymandering - takes place every 10 years after the U.S. census is taken. Michigan's House and Senate lawmakers re-drew the district lines in a process that wrapped up last year.

Democratic lawmakers, who had almost no input into the final decision on the boundaries, did what any state political party would do when they have no control over the process: they sued in federal court in an attempt to win at least a partial victory.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge David Lawson delayed the filing deadline for congressional candidates by nearly a month, to June 11. That's because the boundaries of the districts that the candidates want to represent may change, depending on the outcome of a federal judicial hearing on the boundary question on May 20. Judge Lawson is also expected to decide whether that delay also applies to candidates for scores of other state and federal offices.

Michigan Republican Party Chairman Rusty Hills told the Detroit News, "This could delay the primary. Once you start moving dates around, anything is possible."

Democrats contend that the boundaries drawn by Republicans are unfair and do not reflect the political makeup of the districts. In Michigan, Al Gore handily beat George Bush in the November 2000 presidential election, and Democrats currently control the state's congressional makeup 9-7. But the Republican plan would move boundaries to take advantage of voting patterns and very likely give Republicans a 9-6 advantage (Michigan is losing a congressional seat because population in other states have grown more rapidly).

The state's nine Congressional Democrats celebrated Judge Lawson's decision to hear the case. "We've long known the Republicans' gerrymandered map was derived from a partisan process, and we're pleased the federal court has scheduled a trial date," they wrote in a joint statement. "We welcome the opportunity to present our case and we look forward to an equitable result for all Michigan voters."

Michigan Democrats had argued in the state case that the redistricting plan was invalid because lawmakers who passed the plan last year violated 1999 redistricting rules that require the fewest possible breaks in county, city and municipal lines when redrawing districts.