In a 19-page request to Justice David Souter, Lt. Gov. Robert Jubelirer and House Speaker Matthew J. Ryan said the April 8 ruling by a three-judge federal court panel "has thrown the election process in Pennsylvania into chaos."

Lawmakers this week revised the 19-district map to reduce a 19-person population deviation among the districts that the panel said was too wide to a minimum deviation that Majority Leader David J. Brightbill said was "basically zero." It passed 29-21 in the Senate and 121-72 in the House.

The latest version, which now goes to Gov. Mark S. Schweiker, would shift about 90,000 of Pennsylvania's 12.3 million people into new districts from the districts in which they were placed under the rejected plan.

Mercer County is divided between the 3rd, formerly 21st, and 4th congressional districts under the bill. The bill reaffirms the split of Hermitage's southwest district that surfaced Monday night, the only local change in the map. Division 1 is in the third congressional district; Divisions 2 and 3 -- west of South Hermitage Road and south of the Shenango Valley Freeway -- are in the 4th congressional district.

GOP leaders argued in their request that enactment of a new plan within the three-week deadline "cannot be guaranteed at all."

"Meanwhile, the election process has come to a virtual standstill. Duly-filed candidates ... are hesitant to continue to expend funds in preparation for a May 21, 2002, primary, if the primary will be delayed," the filing said. Also, voters who expect to file absentee ballots would be unsure of how to proceed, according to the lawsuit.

An earlier Senate plan, however, contained a provision that would postpone the primary from May 21 to July 16.

The latest version does not call for a primary postponement. Before the Senate vote, Brightbill said that if no stay was granted by next week, lawmakers would need to pass legislation that would set a new primary date.

"I believe everyone would like to see a May 21 primary, but I think that is a question for the court to decide," he said.

Democrats have said that delaying the primary is unnecessary because the latest revisions make only minor changes to the map.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on April 8 that the Republican-drawn map was unconstitutional because new districts varied in population -- although by only up to 19 people. The court said that was too wide a deviation since a plan with little or no population difference among districts was possible.

Democrats argued the rejected map violated the constitutional principle of "one person, one vote" in which each district must have the same number of people to balance the weight that a vote carries in a congressional election. They said the new map would also be rejected because it also gives Republicans an unfair advantage. "This is a badly partisan maneuver, and hopefully it will run into the proverbial roadblock in the United States courts," said House Minority Leader H. William DeWeese, D-Greene.

Majority Leader John M. Perzel, R-Philadelphia, responded by saying that the plan consists of seven districts dominated by Republican voters, seven dominated by Democrats, and five where neither party has a majority. "I guess that the gentleman is saying is that (Democrats) can't win competitive districts, because we've made them as competitive as we can," Perzel said.