🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the role of the U.S. Congress? During another Trump administration, it is difficult to determine. The power to declare war, traditionally viewed as a vital congressional authority, has turned into a murky right of the executive branch in the time since the 9/11 attacks; Trump, in recent months, has claimed even more of that control for himself, conducting military actions on vessels in the Caribbean.

The authority over spending seems to have mostly been taken away from the legislative branch too; now, under the leadership of budget chief, the OMB director, much of the power to allocate government money has also shifted to the presidency, with the administration claiming the authority to cancel legislatively approved spending and attempting to move the money to other uses. It’s not like they’re enacting any legislation, anyway; virtually all legislation must currently be crammed into spending packages, huge perennial essential omnibus legislation that can bypass the filibuster. But when those don’t pass – and increasingly, they do not – the federal government just shuts down. That is, large sections of the government shut down – and it’s uncertain how many people are aware. Currently, the government has been shut down all month; there are no signs of it reopening in the near future. But the executive branch keeps on humming along.

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

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

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s redistricting referendum that could provide five more House seats to the Democrats if it is embraced by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has captured the political imagination of progressives across the country. In part, it is a delayed reaction to trends occurring in other states: Republican-controlled states have long embraced extreme partisan gerrymandering while large blue states such as the Golden State, New York and the Evergreen State draw their district lines via nonpartisan redistricting panels, an imbalance that has led to closely divided control of the House and a long-term sense, by Democrats, that their political group is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The state measure is clearly designed as a countermove to a mid-decade redistricting that recently passed in Texas, which implemented maps that will give the GOP an additional five positions in the state House representation next year; similar boundary changes are in progress in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (Democrats in Virginia are likewise following California’s example in seeking to alter districts.)

The state measure seems probable to pass, as progressive voters react with fear and frustration to the president’s autocratic centralization of power and seek ways to restrain his most extreme tendencies. But Prop 50 is not without controversy. Some critics warn that the move could backfire, with blue states’ efforts to redistrict triggering a revenge cycle in which Republican-controlled states do additional to design their maps so as to eliminate any possibility of opposition party success. Different critics have critiqued the proposal on more purely ideological democratic bases: a district that is created in such a way that the outcome of the election is never really in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely democratic: it implies, inevitably, that the influence of opposing views is muted, and that the procedure of deliberation, discussion 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 considering each of these criticisms on their merits. The first argument, that Prop 50 will provoke conservatives to alter their respective districts in response, does not hold up as a causal argument: it is illogical to claim that the GOP will be made to behave in undemocratic ways by the left’s 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 guarantee permanent positions for themselves: they have been ready to do this for its own sake, in the complete lack of similar actions by the left, for a long time.

The second critique, I think, is more substantive, expressing not just a strategic difference about how to confront the Republicans’ anti-democracy shift, but a sort of sad wish for a distinct country than the one that the United States has turned into. It is accurate 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 values, and not mandated by our situation. It is not good to pack and crack targeted demographics; it is harmful for politicians to select their voters, instead of the other way around; it is not good that elections are rendered uncontested. That these measures have grown necessary in order to impede the authoritarian advance of Trump’s control and lessen 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 representative government. But they are required. It is only once the fight against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can lament what fighting it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch does not in reality have lawmaking, military or appropriations power, what is it, precisely, that the proposition’s five new Democratic house members will be sent to Washington to do? One aspect that the House and Senate still retains is subpoena power, and the power to investigate. Even in our era of sclerotic government and legislative decline, it has utilized of that authority to great effect. In 2027, if the measure is approved and the state’s new representatives are sworn in, they will find themselves a member of a institution with the authority to investigate the president, to televise their investigations into his conduct and to compel members of his inner circle to give evidence. It’s significant, and more importantly, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a news outlet writer