Lt. Gov. Joe Scarnati's letter to fellow Republicans on behalf of state Supreme Court candidate Joan Orie Melvin was unusually blunt.

"Control of the Supreme Court is on the ballot this year," he wrote March 3, "and you know the courts play a key role in finalizing redistricting maps that will set the political landscape for the next decade."

Except for the mild heat generated by a recent round of TV ads, the Supreme Court battle next Tuesday between Orie Melvin, a Republican, and Democrat Jack Panella has received little public notice. Turnout for the election may be the lowest in Pennsylvania in years.

But state Democratic leaders are just as frank as top Republicans in saying that to them, the court fight is all-important. It could influence the once-a-decade remapping of congressional and legislative districts after the 2010 U.S. Census.

The issue has become a focus in the battle between Orie Melvin, 53, of Wexford, near Pittsburgh, and Panella, 54, of Palmer Township, near Easton - a race that has also dealt with campaign money and judicial philosophy.

Under the state constitution, each party gets two seats at the negotiating table when district boundaries are redrawn to reflect population shifts since 2000. The court likely will be called upon to appoint an arbiter to break the tie, and that's where the election comes in.

Both parties are keenly aware that the six justices who will still be on the court next year are split 3-3 in terms of party affiliation. (The seventh justice, Jane Cutler Greenspan, was appointed to fill the seat of the late chief justice, Ralph Cappy, on condition that she not run for a full 10-year term.)

In practical partisan terms, the winner of Tuesday's election will determine the court's majority. And at redistricting time, the majority gets to pick the arbiter.

"The last time, it was the Republicans who controlled the state Supreme Court," said Abe Amoros, spokesman for the Democratic State Committee. "This year, we are looking at a 4-3 majority when Jack Panella wins, which will give us some hope at redistricting."

No one in politics is saying directly that Orie Melvin or Panella would be anything less than fair and impartial. And the candidates say, emphatically, that they won't let partisanship influence them.

Yet Orie Melvin and Panella - now colleagues on the state Superior Court, one level below the Supreme Court - are accusing each other's campaign of turning the remapping into an issue.

"It's Jack Panella who puts redistricting out front in a partisan manner . . . and he continues to do so," Orie Melvin said.

In an interview, she said Panella brought up redistricting at a Democratic State Committee meeting last winter when he was seeking party endorsement.

She said: "I am not a Republican judge; I am a judge of all the people. I have always followed the constitution - and will do so in redistricting."

Panella, in an interview, said he worries that if Orie Melvin wins, the GOP majority on the court will give an unfair edge to Republicans in the remapping process.

"That gives me a lot of concern," he said. "I believe we have to keep politics out of the Supreme Court."

Because they controlled the last redistricting process a decade ago - when they had a majority on the court - Republicans were able to move district lines in ways that benefited their candidates and hurt some Democrats.

In the state's southeastern corner, many suburban Democrats were moved into Philadelphia-based districts. This made life easier for Republicans in the suburbs, but did not affect city races that favored Democrats anyway.

Partly because of redistricting, Republicans were able to reverse the 11-10 majority that Democrats had previously held in U.S. House seats in Pennsylvania. By 2003, Republicans held 12 seats; Democrats, seven.

Redistricting is a major issue in the court race "because gerrymandering robs our citizens of the right to vote," Panella said. "Your vote is meaningless if the district has been arranged so a political party has no chance of winning."