🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the role of the U.S. Congress? During another presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to determine. The authority to declare war, traditionally viewed as a vital congressional authority, has become a unclear prerogative of the executive branch in the time since the 9/11 attacks; Trump, in recent months, has claimed even more of that control for his administration, authorizing strikes on vessels in the Caribbean.

The authority over spending seems to have largely been taken away from the legislative branch too; currently, under the leadership of management and budget director, Russell Vought, much of the power to appropriate government money has also shifted to the executive, with the administration claiming the ability to cancel congressionally authorized expenditures and attempting to move the money elsewhere. It’s not like they’re passing any legislation, either; almost all bills must currently be packed into spending packages, huge perennial essential comprehensive bills that can bypass the senate obstruction. But when these don’t pass – and more and more, they do not – the federal government simply shuts down. At least, big parts of the administration shut down – and it’s uncertain how many people are aware. At present, the federal government has been shut down all month; there are little indication of it reopening in the near future. But the executive branch continues humming along.

And so the question of dominance of Congress can appear rather moot. Why should Americans care who has a controlling share in a institution that has mostly abolished itself?

In what way ‘screw Trump’ rhetoric could help California’s Proposition 50 succeed

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could deliver five more House seats to the Democrats if it is embraced by the electorate in a upcoming vote in the coming weeks, has captured the attention of liberals nationwide. In part, it is a delayed reaction to trends occurring elsewhere: GOP-led states have long embraced extreme biased redistricting while large Democratic-controlled such as the Golden State, New York and Washington draw their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an asymmetry that has resulted in narrowly split control of the House and a longstanding feeling, by the left, that their party is at a disadvantage. The state proposal is explicitly intended as a countermove to a mid-decade redrawing of maps that recently passed in Texas, which installed boundaries that will provide the GOP an five more positions in the state’s congressional delegation next year; comparable boundary changes are in progress in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (The left in Virginia are also emulating the state’s lead in attempting to redistrict.)

The California measure seems probable to pass, as progressive voters react with concern and anger to Trump’s autocratic centralization of authority and seek ways to check his most extreme tendencies. But the proposition is not without controversy. Some opponents warn that the action could have unintended consequences, with Democratic-controlled states’ efforts to redistrict triggering a revenge cycle in which Republican-controlled states do even more to draw their districts so as to eliminate any possibility of opposition party success. Different critics have critiqued the measure on strictly ideological democratic bases: a district that is created in such a manner that the result of the election is not in doubt, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly democratic: it implies, inevitably, that the power of dissenting views is suppressed, and that the process of deliberation, discussion and persuasion that is meant to define a functioning democratic process will be limited only to primary elections, if it happens at all.

It is worth considering each of these objections on their merits. The first critique, that Prop 50 will provoke the right to alter their own maps in response, does not hold up as a causal point: it is illogical to claim that Republicans will be made to behave in antidemocratic ways by the left’s measures when they are already engaging in such behavior without those steps. The GOP, it can be noted, has required no any incentive of retaliation to change maps that secure permanent seats for themselves: they have been ready to do this for its own sake, in the total lack of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The second critique, in my view, is more substantive, reflecting not just a tactical disagreement about how to address the Republicans’ undemocratic turn, but a sort of melancholic wish for a distinct country than the one that the United States has become. It is accurate that in a better world – in the world that the majority of Democrats, 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 voters, rather than the other way around; it is negative that elections are rendered uncontested. That these measures have become essential in order to slow the authoritarian creep of the president’s power and reduce the amount of suffering he is able to inflict is sad; it is a sign of how much we have declined from a state more like a democracy. But they are necessary. It is only after the fight against the current administration’s ideology has been successfully concluded that we can mourn what opposing it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch fails to in practice have lawmaking, military or appropriations power, what is it, exactly, that Prop 50’s five new blue house members will be dispatched to the capital to do? One aspect that Congress still holds is the authority to compel testimony, and the power to investigate. Even in our time of sclerotic government and legislative decline, it has made use of that power to significant impact. In 2027, if Prop 50 passes and the state’s additional Democrats are take office, they will become a part of a institution with the authority to investigate Trump, to televise their hearings into his actions and to compel members of his close advisors to give evidence. It’s significant, and more importantly, it’s not anything that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a news outlet columnist