🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the role of Congress? In the second 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 prerogative of the executive branch in the years since September 11; Trump, in the past few months, has claimed even more of that power for his administration, authorizing strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse appears to be mostly been taken away from Congress as well; currently, under the leadership of management and budget director, the OMB director, much of the ability to allocate federal funds has also shifted to the executive, with the administration asserting the authority to cancel congressionally authorized spending and attempting to move the money elsewhere. It’s as if they’re passing any legislation, anyway; virtually all legislation must now be crammed into budget reconciliation bills, huge recurring must-spend omnibus legislation that can circumvent the filibuster. But when those don’t pass – and more and more, they don’t – the federal government just ceases operations. At least, large sections of the government do – and it’s not clear how many people are aware. At present, the government has been shut down all month; there are little indication of it resuming operations anytime soon. But the presidency continues operating smoothly.

And so the question of control of the House and Senate can seem rather irrelevant. Why should Americans care who holds a controlling share in a institution that has largely rendered itself powerless?

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

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could deliver five more congressional positions to the Democrats if it is approved by the electorate in a special election next month, has captured the political imagination of progressives across the country. In part, it is a belated response to trends happening in other states: GOP-led states have long adopted dramatic biased redistricting while large blue states such as California, New York and the Evergreen State create their district lines via nonpartisan redistricting panels, an asymmetry that has resulted in closely divided House control and a longstanding sense, by the left, that their political group is at a disadvantage. The California proposal is clearly designed as a countermove to a mid-decade redistricting that was recently approved in Texas, which implemented boundaries that will give Republicans an five more positions in the state’s congressional delegation in the upcoming term; comparable redistricting moves are in progress in states such as Missouri and the Hoosier State. (Democrats in the Old Dominion are also following the state’s example in attempting to alter districts.)

The state measure seems likely to pass, as progressive electorate react with fear and anger to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of authority and look for ways to restrain his worst tendencies. But the proposition is not free from controversy. Some critics caution that the action could backfire, with blue states’ efforts to change districts setting off a revenge pattern in which red states do additional to draw their districts so as to foreclose any chance of opposition party success. Different critics have questioned the proposal on strictly principled pro-democracy bases: a electoral area that is drawn in such a way that the outcome of the vote is not in question, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly democratic: it implies, inevitably, that the influence of opposing voices is suppressed, and that the procedure of deliberation, argument and persuasion that is meant to characterize a functioning political system will be confined 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 spur the right to redraw their own maps in response, fails as a causal point: it is illogical to claim that Republicans will be compelled to act in antidemocratic ways by the left’s measures when they are already doing so without those steps. The GOP, it can be noted, has not needed any incentive of retaliation to change maps that guarantee long-term seats for themselves: they have been ready to do this for its own sake, in the complete absence of Democratic reciprocation, for years.

The second critique, I think, is more significant, reflecting not just a strategic difference about how to address the Republicans’ undemocratic turn, but a sort of melancholic desire for a distinct nation than the one that the US has become. It is true that in a more ideal situation – in the reality that most Democrats, I think, yearn for 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 disfavored population groups; it is not good for elected officials to select their constituents, rather than the reverse; it is negative that elections are rendered uncontested. That these measures have grown essential in order to slow the autocratic creep of the president’s power and reduce the amount of harm 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 required. It is only after the fight against Trumpism has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has made us.

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 the capital to do? One aspect that Congress continues to holds is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to investigate. Even in our era of sclerotic politics and legislative decline, it has utilized of that power to significant impact. In 2027, if Prop 50 passes and California’s new Democrats are sworn in, they will become a part of a body with the authority to investigate Trump, to televise their hearings into his actions and to force members of his close advisors to give evidence. It’s significant, and crucially, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a news outlet writer