🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? During another Trump administration, it is difficult to tell. The power to declare war, long considered a vital congressional authority, has turned into a unclear prerogative of the executive branch in the years since the 9/11 attacks; Trump, in recent months, has asserted additional of that power for himself, authorizing military actions on vessels in the Caribbean Sea.

The authority over spending appears to be mostly been taken away from the legislative branch too; currently, under the leadership of budget chief, the OMB director, much of the ability to appropriate federal funds has also defaulted to the presidency, with the White House asserting the ability to abort legislatively approved expenditures and attempting to redirect the funds to other uses. It’s as if they’re passing any legislation, anyway; virtually all bills must currently be packed into spending packages, huge recurring essential comprehensive bills that can circumvent the filibuster. But when those don’t pass – and increasingly, they do not – the government just ceases operations. At least, big parts of the administration shut down – and it’s uncertain how many people notice. Currently, the federal government has been closed all month; there are little indication of it reopening in the near future. But the presidency keeps on operating smoothly.

And so the issue of control of the House and Senate can seem somewhat moot. Why should U.S. citizens be concerned who holds a controlling share in a body that has largely rendered itself powerless?

In what way ‘oppose the president’ messaging may assist California’s Proposition 50 prevail

And yet Proposition 50, California’s redistricting referendum that could deliver five additional congressional positions to the Democrats if it is approved by voters in a special election in the coming weeks, has seized the attention of liberals nationwide. In part, it is a belated reaction to developments happening in other states: Republican-controlled states have for a long time adopted extreme partisan gerrymandering while large Democratic-controlled such as California, the Empire State and Washington create their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an asymmetry that has resulted in narrowly split control of the House and a long-term sense, by the left, that their political group is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The state measure is clearly intended as a response to a mid-term redrawing of maps that was recently approved in Texas, which implemented boundaries that will give the GOP an additional five positions in the state congressional delegation next year; comparable redistricting moves are in progress in states such as Missouri and the Hoosier State. (Democrats in Virginia are likewise following the state’s lead in attempting to alter districts.)

The California initiative seems likely to be approved, as Democratic and liberal voters react with concern and anger to the president’s authoritarian consolidation of power and look for methods to restrain his worst impulses. But Prop 50 is not without debate. Some critics warn that the move could have unintended consequences, with blue states’ attempts to change districts triggering a revenge cycle in which Republican-controlled states do even more to draw their maps so as to foreclose any chance of opposition party success. Others have critiqued the measure on more purely ideological democratic bases: a electoral area that is drawn in such a way that the outcome of the vote is never really in doubt, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly democratic: it implies, necessarily, that the influence of opposing voices is muted, and that the process of deliberation, argument and convincing that is meant to characterize a healthy political system will be limited only to party primaries, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable taking each of these criticisms on their own terms. The first argument, that Prop 50 will provoke conservatives to alter their own maps in retaliation, fails as a logical argument: it is illogical to claim that the GOP will be compelled to behave in antidemocratic ways by the left’s measures when they are already doing so in the absence of those actions. The GOP, I would observe, has not needed any motivation of revenge to redraw maps that secure permanent positions for their party: they have been ready to do this for their own benefit, in the complete absence of similar actions by the left, for years.

The other objection, I think, is more substantive, expressing not just a tactical disagreement about how to confront the Republicans’ anti-democracy turn, but a sort of sad wish for a distinct nation than the one that the United States has become. It is true that in a more ideal world – in the world that the majority of the left, I think, desire and hope for – Prop 50 would be unappealing to our principles, and not mandated by our situation. It is not good to pack and crack targeted population groups; it is not good for politicians to choose their voters, instead of the other way around; it is not good that elections are rendered noncompetitive. That these actions have grown necessary in order to slow the autocratic advance of the president’s power and reduce the amount of suffering he is capable to cause is unfortunate; it is a sign of how much we have fallen from something more like a democracy. But they are required. It is only after the battle against Trumpism has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has made us.

If Congress fails to in reality have legislative, war making or budgetary authority, what is it, exactly, that Prop 50’s five new blue house members will be sent to Washington to do? One aspect that Congress continues to retains is subpoena power, and the power to investigate. Even in our era of stagnant government and legislative decline, it has made use of that authority to significant impact. In 2027, if Prop 50 passes and California’s additional Democrats are sworn in, they will become a part of a body with the authority to probe Trump, to televise their investigations into his actions and to force members of his close advisors to testify. It’s not nothing, and crucially, it’s not anything that any Republican would do.

• The columnist is a news outlet columnist