“The court’s decision opens the way for people of color to have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elections,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Dick Belin of Foley Hoag LLP.

The plaintiffs, who include the Black Political Task Force, Boston VOTE and the statewide Latino organization ¿Oiste?, filed two simultaneous suits charging that the map was biased.

One suit, alleging that lawmakers knowingly shifted district lines around to disenfranchise black voters and protect incumbents, succeeded. The other suit, alleging that lawmakers discriminated against Latinos in Chelsea and East Boston by not uniting their districts to increase Latino voting strength, failed.

“We conclude that the Redistricting Act deprives African-American voters of the rights guaranteed to them by section 2 of the [Voting Rights Act],” read the court’s decree in the case spearheaded by the Black Political Task Force.

The judges did not issue an opinion as to why they sided with the defendants in the Chelsea case.

Despite the defeat in Chelsea, the coalition of activists of color and their lawyers were jubilant, exchanging hugs, handshakes and laughter during a press conference at Suffolk University Law School.

“There is a psychology in Boston, particularly at the state level, of tight control of the political process by white politicians,” Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner told the crowd of reporters at the press conference. “What this does is I think encourage people who have become somewhat cynical about a process that many have viewed as bankrupt.”

The redistricting process is often used to protect incumbency and, as it only occurs every 10 years after the U.S. Census, it affects politics for years to come.

“Redistricting leads to more competition and will lead to more candidates,” said James Cofield of the Black Political Task Force. “So let’s get the competition going. Let’s get started.”

All state representatives, including those in the soon-to-be-redrawn districts, face elections this fall.

The plaintiffs presented a map to the House which they say would meet the demands of the judges. The plaintiffs’ map calls for changes to four districts where they say House Speaker Thomas Finneran’s hand-picked redistricting committee intentionally discriminated against voters of color.

The plaintiffs propose that Finneran’s Mattapan- and Milton-based district, which had a 70 percent black and Latino voting age population before the House plan and a 57 percent black and Latino VAP after, be brought back up to 66 percent black and Latino VAP.

The plaintiffs also propose that the 11th Suffolk, which includes parts of Roxbury, Roslindale and Jamaica Plain, be increased to 66 percent black and Latino VAP. Blacks and Latinos made up 57 percent of the voting age population under the old plan and just 44 percent under the House’s enacted plan.

Finally, the plaintiffs propose that lawmakers unpack the 6th Suffolk, represented by Marie St. Fleur, which saw its black and Latino VAP increase from 80 to 96 percent under the House plan. The plaintiffs’ map would drop the district’s black and Latino VAP to 70 percent.

The changes, say the plaintiffs, reflect the increase in Boston’s population of color over the past decade. Boston jumped to 50.5 percent non-white, according to the 2000 Census, but the House’s map reduced the number of so-called majority-minority districts from 7 to 6, out of 17 districts that include parts of Boston.

Finneran appeared disturbed but unrepentant following the court’s ruling.

“I don’t know if it’s a defeat, but it’s bothering the [expletive] out of me,” he told the Boston Globe.

The speaker, who has been accused by many of ruling the House with an iron fist and punishing dissenters, said he saw no bases for the court’s decision.

“There is no foundation for it whatsoever,” he told the Globe.

While the plaintiffs saw the ruling as just and said their goal was simple justice, some members of the press insinuated that the plaintiffs’ emphasis on race in districting could lead to discrimination.

One reporter asked the plaintiffs whether they were concerned that “the oppressed would become the oppressor” under the forthcoming map. Another reporter asked, “Isn’t using race as a [determinant] of districting divisive?”

To that, Cofield responded with apparent exasperation, “That is like asking a slave why he is fighting his master.”