Two Parties, One Map
Now that the debt ceiling crisis is over and done with (for now at least), the next big legislative fight that will be taking place this year will be redistricting battles in the states.
As in mandated by the Constitution, state legislatures must redraw congressional and state legislative maps every ten years to represent the shifting population of the country. For some states, that means adding or subtracting districts if they've gained or lost people over the last decade. It sounds routine, but over the past few cycles, the process has become, for better or worse, less citizen-based and more party-based.
In the days of the Founding Fathers, redistricting was to ensure that each state was represented fairly in the House of Representatives, according to how many people the states had. Though there were certainly accusations of gerrymandering, the political culture was different, because representatives, although organized into established political parties, were more focused on the states they represented than party dogma. Any real complaints regarding redistricting were largely laments regarding the shrinking of a state's population, and thus its influence, which nobody could really do anything about.
Fast forward two hundred years to the present day, and its a whole different story. The increased political polarization of the country has made redistricting into a drawn-out affair over which party was going to benefit from a map redrawing. As the country has grown more culturally diverse, districts are now created with the sole purpose of protecting minorities, sacrificing the mandate of districts being compact and contiguous and creating oddly-shaped districts that benefit one group of people.
Read more here
As the recent 
Social Networks for YAL