In 2002, the Republicans rammed through a re-districting in Texas for Congressional seats. This had the effect (surprise, surprise) of increasing the number of Republican seats for Texas. One of the representatives who was de-elected was my local representative, Martin Frost (D) who was replaced by Pete Sessions (R).
Now, it seems that the Justice Department had actually warned in advance that the re-districting plan was probably illegal, but was overruled on the issue.
While this raises all sorts of issues about the honesty and integrity of the Republican administration, this further confirms my basic philosophy that allowing an incumbent political party any influence over electoral district definition is exactly analagous to handing the fox the keys to the henhouse because he asserted "I've gone vegetarian, honest". The long-term result of partisan political control over district boundaries is gerrymandering.
The only durable long-term solution is to create independent commissions comprised of eminent persons who do not have any current political roles. This would mean that the US has to move away from its current attachment to electing governance officials at all levels; however, how anybody can assert that the current system leads to equitable outcomes is beyond me. Proof can be found in studies that show that the number and percentage of truly "open" races continues to decline. Most seats are probably not worth contesting, since incumbents generally hold an unassailable advantage. This article discusses some of the negative outcomes of the current system.