🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? During another presidency of Donald Trump, it can be hard to tell. The authority to declare war, long considered a crucial legislative power, has turned into a unclear right of the presidential office in the time since September 11; Trump, in recent months, has asserted additional of that control for his administration, conducting strikes on vessels in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse seems to have largely been stripped from Congress as well; currently, under the leadership of budget chief, the OMB director, much of the power to allocate federal funds has likewise defaulted to the executive, with the White House claiming the authority to abort congressionally authorized spending and attempting to redirect the funds elsewhere. It’s not like they’re enacting any legislation, either; virtually all legislation must now be crammed into budget reconciliation bills, huge recurring must-spend comprehensive bills that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when those don’t pass – and increasingly, they do not – the government just ceases operations. At least, large sections of the government do – and it’s not clear how many people notice. At present, the federal government has been shut down all month; there are no signs of it resuming operations in the near future. But the executive branch continues operating smoothly.

And so the issue of control of Congress can seem somewhat irrelevant. Why should U.S. citizens be concerned who has a controlling share in a institution that has largely abolished itself?

How ‘oppose the president’ messaging may assist the state of California’s Proposition 50 succeed

And yet Proposition 50, the Golden State’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could provide five additional congressional positions to the Democratic Party if it is embraced by the electorate in a upcoming vote next month, has seized the attention of progressives nationwide. In part, it is a belated reaction to developments happening in other states: GOP-led states have long embraced dramatic biased redistricting while large Democratic-controlled such as California, New York and the Evergreen State create their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an asymmetry that has resulted in narrowly split House control and a long-term sense, by the left, that their party is at a disadvantage. The state measure is explicitly designed as a countermove to a mid-term redistricting that recently passed in Texas, which implemented boundaries that will provide the GOP an additional five positions in the state House representation in the upcoming term; similar boundary changes are under way in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (The left in Virginia are likewise emulating the state’s example in seeking to alter districts.)

The California initiative seems likely to be approved, as Democratic and liberal electorate respond with fear and frustration to Trump’s authoritarian centralization of power and seek methods to restrain his most extreme impulses. But the proposition is not free from controversy. Some critics warn that the move could backfire, with blue states’ attempts to change districts triggering a revenge cycle in which red states do additional to draw their districts so as to eliminate any chance of opposition party success. Different critics have questioned the proposal on strictly ideological pro-democracy bases: a district that is drawn in such a manner that the result of the vote is not in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it implies, necessarily, that the influence of opposing views is suppressed, and that the procedure of debate, discussion and persuasion that is meant to characterize a functioning democratic process will be limited only to primary elections, if it happens at all.

It is worth taking each of these criticisms on their merits. The first critique, that the measure will provoke conservatives to redraw their own districts in response, fails as a causal argument: it does not make sense to claim that Republicans will be compelled to act in antidemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already doing so without those steps. The Republican party, I would observe, has required no any incentive of retaliation to redraw boundaries that guarantee permanent seats for their party: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the complete lack of similar actions by the left, for a long time.

The second critique, in my view, is more significant, expressing not just a strategic disagreement about how to confront the GOP’s anti-democracy shift, but a kind of melancholic wish for a different nation than the one that the US has become. It is true that in a more ideal situation – in the reality that the majority of the left, it is believed, yearn for and hope for – Prop 50 would be unappealing to our principles, and not required by our situation. It is undesirable to pack and crack targeted population groups; it is harmful for politicians to select their constituents, rather than the other way around; it is not good that elections are made noncompetitive. That these measures have grown necessary in order to impede the autocratic advance of Trump’s control and reduce the level of harm he is able to inflict is unfortunate; it is a indication of how far we have declined from a state more like a representative government. But they are required. It is only once the fight against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can lament what opposing it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch does not in reality have lawmaking, war making or appropriations power, what is it, precisely, that Prop 50’s additional five Democratic house members will be dispatched to Washington to do? One aspect that Congress still holds is subpoena power, and the ability to investigate. Even in our time of stagnant government and congressional atrophy, it has utilized of that power to significant impact. In 2027, if Prop 50 is approved and California’s new Democrats are take office, they will find themselves a member of a body with the authority to investigate the president, to televise their investigations into his actions and to compel associates of his inner circle to testify. It’s not nothing, and more importantly, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a Guardian US writer