🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? In the second presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to tell. The power to declare war, traditionally viewed as a crucial legislative power, has turned into a murky prerogative of the presidential office in the time since the 9/11 attacks; Trump, in recent months, has claimed additional of that control for his administration, authorizing military actions on vessels in the Caribbean Sea.

The power of the purse seems to have mostly been stripped from Congress too; currently, under the leadership of management and budget director, the OMB director, a great deal of the ability to allocate government money has likewise shifted to the presidency, with the administration claiming the ability to cancel congressionally authorized expenditures and seeking to redirect the money elsewhere. It’s as if they’re enacting any laws, either; almost all legislation must currently be crammed into budget reconciliation bills, huge recurring must-spend comprehensive bills that can bypass the filibuster. But when these don’t pass – and increasingly, they don’t – the government simply shuts down. That is, large sections of the government do – 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 presidency keeps on humming along.

And so the issue of dominance of the House and Senate can seem somewhat moot. Why should U.S. citizens be concerned who has a controlling share in a institution that has largely abolished itself?

In what way ‘screw Trump’ rhetoric may assist the state of California’s Prop 50 prevail

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could provide five more congressional positions to the Democrats if it is approved by voters in a special election next month, has captured the attention of liberals across the country. Partly, it is a belated reaction to developments happening in other states: Republican-controlled states have for a long time embraced extreme biased redistricting while large blue states such as California, the Empire State and the Evergreen State create their district lines via nonpartisan independent commissions, an imbalance that has led to narrowly split control of the House and a longstanding feeling, by Democrats, that their political group is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The California measure is clearly designed as a countermove to a mid-decade redrawing of maps that was recently approved in Texas, which implemented maps that will provide Republicans an five more seats in the state’s congressional delegation next year; similar boundary changes are under way in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (The left in the Old Dominion are also following the state’s lead in seeking to alter districts.)

The state initiative seems likely to pass, as progressive electorate respond with fear and frustration to the president’s autocratic consolidation of power and look for ways to restrain his worst impulses. But Prop 50 is not free from debate. Some opponents warn that the action could backfire, with Democratic-controlled states’ efforts to redistrict triggering a revenge pattern in which Republican-controlled states do additional to draw their districts so as to eliminate any possibility of opposition party success. Different critics have critiqued the measure on more purely principled pro-democracy grounds: a district that is created in such a way that the outcome of the vote is never really in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it means, necessarily, that the power of opposing views is suppressed, and that the procedure of debate, argument and convincing that is meant to characterize a functioning political system will be limited only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is worth considering each of these objections on their merits. The initial argument, that Prop 50 will spur conservatives to redraw their respective districts in retaliation, does not hold up as a logical point: it is illogical to say that Republicans will be compelled to behave in undemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already doing so without those actions. The Republican party, I would observe, has not needed any incentive of revenge to change boundaries that secure permanent positions for themselves: they have been ready to do this for their own benefit, in the complete lack of Democratic reciprocation, for years.

The other critique, I think, is more substantive, reflecting not just a strategic disagreement about how to confront the GOP’s undemocratic turn, but a sort of melancholic desire for a distinct country than the one that the United States has turned into. It is accurate that in a better world – in the world that the majority of Democrats, I think, desire and aspire to – the proposition would be unappealing to our principles, and not mandated by our situation. It is not good to pack and crack disfavored demographics; it is harmful for elected officials to select their voters, rather than the other way around; it is negative that votes are made noncompetitive. That these actions have become necessary in order to impede the authoritarian creep of the president’s control and reduce the amount of harm he is capable to inflict is sad; it is a sign of how far we have declined from a state more like a democracy. But they are necessary. It is only once the fight against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can mourn what opposing it has made us.

If the legislative branch fails to in reality have lawmaking, war making or budgetary power, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s additional five blue house members will be dispatched to Washington to do? One aspect that Congress continues to holds is subpoena power, and the ability to examine. Even in our era of stagnant politics and congressional atrophy, it has utilized of that authority to significant impact. In 2027, if Prop 50 passes and the state’s new Democrats are sworn in, they will become a member of a institution with the power to probe the president, to televise their investigations into his actions and to force associates of his close advisors to give evidence. It’s significant, and more importantly, it’s not anything that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a news outlet columnist