<x-flowed>   I hate to disagree with David Becker, but . . .
  In the 19th century, redistricting was regularly done once a decade, in the 1870s population equality across congressional districts approached post-Baker v. Carr levels, and partisan margins were so thin, at least in the most competitive states, that few congressmen served as many as three terms and seats turned over in massive sweeps -- particularly in 1874 and 1894.  On these matters, see the figures on pp. 41-49 of my "Colorblind Injustice" and a pathbreaking article on population equality over time in congressional districts by Micah Altman (available on his website, I think).
  On the larger issue of the amount of midterm redistricting, I agree with David.  If the Supreme Court puts its imprimatur on the Texas mid-term, I think we will have mini-redistricting again and again in nearly every state where party control makes that possible.  I think it will look more like Georgia than Texas -- small moves to win particular seats  -- but there would be absolutely nothing to prevent, for example, a DeLay from cutting every district of the opposition party in half every two years and redrawing them to cause fratricide among incumbents from the other party, or splitting every Democratic-dominated minority influence district, as the Reps did to Martin Frost's district, but again and again until the incumbent and the Democrats gave up.  The majority of the public didn't turn against the Republicans in Texas, and if DeLay had stayed farther on the side of the law, he'd still be de facto Speaker today.
  We've already started sliding down this toboggan path.  What's to stop us, Brad?
Morgan

Prof. of History and Social Science, Caltech
snail mail:  228-77 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
phone 626-395-4080
fax 626-405-9841
home page:  <http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~kousser/Kousser.html>
to order Colorblind Injustice:  http://uncpress.unc.edu/books/T-388.html
          "Peace if possible, Justice at any rate" -- Wendell Phillips


</x-flowed>