The state Supreme Court’s decision Jan. 25 to nullify new legislative redistricting maps has thrown a wrench into the re-election plans of state legislators and also is causing headaches for elections officials.

Sheri Brewer, the director of Butler County Bureau of Elections, said she now must follow the existing districts that were set after the 2000 census.

The newer maps, passed by the Legislative Reapportionment Committee but rejected by the state Supreme Court, likely will not be put into effect in time for November’s general election.

The state is required to redraw legislative districts after each census to reflect changes in the population.

The decision to scrap the new maps has caused problems for many candidates who already have begun gathering signatures on petitions, Brewer said, as some of those signatures could be from constituents who no longer live in a certain candidate’s district.

“I’ve talked to other directors of elections across the state, and everyone’s just kind of waiting,” Brewer said. “We’re at the mercy of the Supreme Court at this point.”

Brewer said there are five races for the state House of Representatives and two races for the state Senate in the county, although some of those races likely will be uncontested.

Candidates have until Feb. 16 to file paperwork to get on the ballot.

State Rep. Brian Ellis, R-11th, said he was initially confused about where exactly he could get the 300 signatures needed to file re-election papers.

“I just focused in and around the areas (of his district) that are in both the new and old maps, just as a safeguard for whatever the courts decide,” he said.

Ellis added he fully expects some version of the new political districts to be in place before November’s elections and that candidates won’t be forced to run in districts from the 2000 census.

Regardless, Ellis questioned why the court would interfere so late in the petitioning process.

“If they would have ruled on this in a timely fashion, then we could have moved forward,” he said. “It’s interesting to me that there’s no urgency from the courts.”

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-12th, railed against what he said was a “haphazard” opinion by the Supreme Court to throw out the new maps.

Metcalfe said that with the state’s primary elections quickly approaching on April 24, the court’s decision creates a great deal of uncertainly for incumbents and challengers alike.

“The way this affects every Pennsylvanian is that the courts, by doing what they’ve done, have created chaos in the election process,” Metcalfe said. “The citizens of Pennsylvania are not getting the service they deserve from the Supreme Court.”

He added that it’s likely candidates will be forced to adhere to the political maps drawn from the 2000 census, maps that Metcalfe said are incredibly outdated and not representative of current populations shifts.

According to Metcalfe, his district in southern Butler County has about 9,000 more people than the average state House district, which typically has about 63,000 residents.

Metcalfe also said it could be a while until any kind of new maps are redrawn or put into affect.

“Bottom line is that it sounds like the court wants the Legislative Reapportionment Committee to start from scratch,” he said.

Another affected candidate is Beaver County Democrat Kimberly Villella, who on Jan. 24 announced her campaign for her party’s nomination to run against incumbent Sen. Elder Vogel, R-47th.

Under the new maps, the district was to expand into parts of southwestern Butler County. However, under the old maps, that district only represents Beaver County and small portions of Allegheny and Lawrence counties.

“This happened after many petitions were out and had been signed,” she said. “Now a lot of candidates might have signatures from people who are no longer in their district. I see a lot of problems created out of this.”

Villella said she’s heard it could take up to two years to sort out the fray, and added she’s approaching the campaign as if the old maps are in effect.

“I was against the new redistricting maps anyway,” she said. “They weren’t for the people and full of political motivations.”