🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? In the second Trump administration, it is difficult to tell. The power to initiate armed conflict, traditionally viewed as a vital legislative power, has turned into a unclear prerogative of the presidential office in the time since September 11; Trump, in the past few months, has asserted even more of that power for himself, authorizing military actions on vessels in the Caribbean.

The authority over spending seems to have largely been taken away from the legislative branch as well; currently, under the leadership of budget chief, Russell Vought, a great deal of the ability to appropriate federal funds has likewise defaulted to the presidency, with the administration claiming the authority to abort congressionally authorized spending and seeking to redirect the funds to other uses. It’s as if they’re passing any legislation, anyway; virtually all bills must now be packed into budget reconciliation bills, massive recurring essential omnibus legislation that can bypass the senate obstruction. But when these fail to be approved – and more and more, they don’t – the federal government simply shuts down. At least, big parts of the administration shut down – and it’s uncertain how many citizens notice. At present, the federal government has been closed for the entire month; there are little indication of it reopening in the near future. But the presidency keeps on humming along.

And so the question of control of Congress can seem rather irrelevant. Why should Americans be concerned who has a majority in a institution that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

In what way ‘screw Trump’ rhetoric may help California’s Proposition 50 prevail

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could provide five more House seats to the Democratic Party if it is approved by the electorate in a upcoming vote next month, has captured the political imagination of liberals across the country. In part, it is a belated reaction to trends occurring in other states: GOP-led states have long embraced extreme biased redistricting while large Democratic-controlled such as the Golden State, the Empire State and Washington draw their district lines via impartial independent commissions, an asymmetry that has resulted in narrowly split control of the House and a longstanding feeling, by Democrats, that their political group is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The California measure is clearly designed as a countermove to a mid-term redistricting that recently passed in the Lone Star State, which implemented boundaries that will give Republicans an additional five positions in the state’s congressional delegation in the upcoming term; comparable boundary changes are in progress in states such as the Show-Me State and the Hoosier State. (The left in Virginia are also emulating California’s example in attempting to alter districts.)

The California measure seems probable to pass, as Democratic and liberal voters react with concern and anger to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of power and look for ways to check his worst tendencies. But the proposition is not without debate. Some opponents caution that the move could have unintended consequences, with blue states’ efforts to change districts triggering a revenge cycle in which red states do even more to design their districts so as to eliminate any chance of opposition party success. Others have critiqued the proposal on more purely ideological democratic grounds: a district that is drawn in such a way that the result of the election is never really in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it means, inevitably, that the power of dissenting voices is muted, and that the procedure of deliberation, argument and persuasion that is supposed to characterize a healthy democratic process will be confined only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable taking each of these criticisms on their own terms. The first critique, that Prop 50 will provoke conservatives to alter their own maps in response, does not hold up as a causal argument: it is illogical to say that the GOP will be compelled to behave in undemocratic ways by Democrats’ measures when they are already engaging in such behavior without those actions. The GOP, it can be noted, has required no any incentive of revenge to redraw maps that secure long-term seats for their party: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the total absence of similar actions by the left, for a long time.

The other critique, I think, is more significant, reflecting not just a tactical difference about how to address the Republicans’ anti-democracy turn, but a kind of melancholic wish for a different nation than the one that the United States has turned into. It is accurate that in a better world – in the reality that most the left, I think, desire and hope for – Prop 50 would be distasteful to our values, and not required by our situation. It is undesirable to pack and crack disfavored population groups; it is not good for politicians to choose their constituents, rather than the reverse; it is negative that votes are made uncontested. That these actions have become essential in order to slow the authoritarian advance of Trump’s control and lessen the amount of harm he is able to inflict is unfortunate; it is a indication of how far we have fallen from something more like a democracy. But they are required. Only after the battle against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can lament what opposing it has transformed us into.

If Congress fails to in practice have lawmaking, war making or appropriations authority, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s additional five Democratic representatives will be dispatched to Washington to do? One thing that Congress still retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to investigate. Even in our time of stagnant politics and congressional atrophy, it has utilized of that power to great effect. In 2027, if the measure passes and California’s new Democrats are take office, they will become a member of a institution with the power to probe the president, to televise their investigations into his actions and to force members of his inner circle to give evidence. It’s not nothing, and crucially, it’s not anything that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a news outlet writer