🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the role of the U.S. Congress? In the second Trump administration, it can be hard to determine. The power to initiate armed conflict, traditionally viewed as a crucial congressional authority, has turned into a murky prerogative of the presidential office in the years since the 9/11 attacks; Trump, in the past few months, has claimed even more of that control for himself, conducting strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse seems to have mostly been stripped from the legislative branch too; now, under the leadership of management and budget director, Russell Vought, much of the ability to allocate federal funds has also shifted to the presidency, with the White House asserting the ability to cancel congressionally authorized expenditures and attempting to redirect the money elsewhere. It’s not like they’re enacting any legislation, either; almost all legislation must currently be crammed into budget reconciliation bills, huge perennial essential omnibus legislation that can circumvent the filibuster. But when these fail to be approved – and more and more, they do not – the government simply ceases operations. That is, large sections of the administration shut down – and it’s uncertain how many citizens notice. Currently, the federal government has been closed for the entire month; there are little indication of it reopening in the near future. But the executive branch keeps on humming along.

And so the issue of control of the House and Senate can appear somewhat moot. Why should U.S. citizens care who holds a controlling share in a institution that has largely abolished itself?

How ‘oppose the president’ rhetoric could help the state of California’s Proposition 50 succeed

And yet Proposition 50, the Golden State’s redistricting referendum that could provide five more House seats to the Democratic Party if it is approved by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has captured the political imagination of progressives across the country. Partly, it is a delayed reaction to developments happening in other states: Republican-controlled states have long embraced dramatic biased redistricting while large Democratic-controlled such as California, the Empire State and Washington create their district lines via impartial redistricting panels, an imbalance that has led to closely divided House control and a long-term feeling, by Democrats, that their party is at a disadvantage. The California measure is explicitly designed as a countermove to a mid-decade redrawing of maps that recently passed in Texas, which implemented boundaries that will give the GOP an additional five seats in the state’s congressional delegation next year; comparable redistricting moves are in progress in states such as Missouri and the Hoosier State. (Democrats in the Old Dominion are also following the state’s lead in attempting to redistrict.)

The state initiative seems probable to pass, as Democratic and liberal voters react with concern and anger to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of authority and seek ways to restrain his worst tendencies. But Prop 50 is not without debate. Some critics warn that the action could backfire, with blue states’ attempts to change districts setting off a revenge pattern in which Republican-controlled states do even more to design their districts so as to eliminate any possibility of opposition party success. Different critics have questioned the proposal on more purely principled democratic grounds: a district that is drawn in such a way that the outcome of the election is not in question, they say, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it implies, inevitably, that the power of dissenting views is muted, and that the procedure of debate, argument and convincing that is meant to characterize a functioning democratic process will be confined only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is worth taking each of these objections on their own terms. The initial critique, that Prop 50 will spur conservatives to redraw their own districts in retaliation, does not hold up as a causal point: it is illogical to claim that Republicans will be made to act in undemocratic ways by Democrats’ measures when they are already engaging in such behavior in the absence of those actions. The GOP, I would observe, has required no any motivation of retaliation to redraw maps that secure long-term positions for their party: they have been ready to do this for their own benefit, in the complete lack of similar actions by the left, for a long time.

The second critique, I think, is more significant, expressing not just a strategic difference about how to address the Republicans’ undemocratic shift, but a sort of sad desire for a different country than the one that the US has become. It is true that in a better situation – in the world that most Democrats, I think, desire and aspire to – Prop 50 would be unappealing to our principles, and not required by our situation. It is undesirable to pack and crack targeted demographics; it is harmful for politicians to choose their voters, rather than the reverse; it is negative that votes are rendered noncompetitive. That these measures have grown essential in order to slow the autocratic advance of the president’s control and lessen the level of harm he is capable to cause is sad; it is a indication of how much we have fallen from something more like a representative government. But they are necessary. Only once the battle against the current administration’s ideology has been successfully concluded that we can mourn what fighting it has made us.

If Congress fails to in reality have lawmaking, war making or appropriations power, what is it, exactly, that Prop 50’s additional five Democratic representatives will be sent to Washington to do? One aspect that Congress continues to holds is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to examine. Even in our time of sclerotic government and congressional atrophy, it has utilized of that power to great effect. In 2027, if Prop 50 passes and California’s new Democrats are take office, they will find themselves a member of a institution with the power to investigate Trump, to televise their investigations into his conduct and to compel associates of his close advisors to testify. It’s significant, and more importantly, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a Guardian US columnist