🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the role of the U.S. Congress? During another presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to tell. 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; the president, in the past few months, has asserted even more of that control for himself, authorizing military actions on boats in the Caribbean Sea.

The power of the purse appears to be mostly been stripped from the legislative branch as well; currently, under the office of budget chief, Russell Vought, much of the ability to allocate government money has also shifted to the presidency, with the administration claiming the authority to abort congressionally authorized expenditures and seeking to move the money elsewhere. It’s not like they’re enacting any legislation, either; almost all bills must currently be packed into spending packages, huge perennial essential comprehensive bills that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when these fail to be approved – and more and more, they do not – the government just ceases operations. At least, large sections of the administration do – and it’s not clear how many citizens notice. At present, the government has been closed all month; there are no signs of it reopening in the near future. But the executive branch continues operating smoothly.

And so the question of dominance of the House and Senate can seem rather moot. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a controlling share in a institution that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

How ‘oppose the president’ messaging may help the state of California’s Prop 50 prevail

And yet Proposition 50, California’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could deliver five more congressional positions to the Democratic Party if it is embraced by voters in a upcoming vote in the coming weeks, has seized the attention of progressives across the country. In part, it is a belated response to developments happening in other states: GOP-led states have for a long time embraced dramatic partisan gerrymandering while large blue states such as the Golden State, New York and the Evergreen State create their district lines via impartial redistricting panels, an asymmetry that has led to narrowly split House control and a long-term sense, by Democrats, that their party is at a disadvantage. The California proposal is clearly intended as a countermove to a mid-decade redistricting that was recently approved in the Lone Star State, which implemented boundaries that will provide Republicans an additional five seats in the state’s House representation in the upcoming term; similar redistricting moves are in progress in states such as Missouri and Indiana. (The left in Virginia are likewise following the state’s example in seeking to redistrict.)

The California initiative seems probable to pass, as Democratic and liberal voters respond with concern and frustration to the president’s authoritarian centralization of authority and look for methods to check his worst tendencies. But the proposition is not free from controversy. Some critics caution that the move could backfire, with Democratic-controlled states’ efforts to redistrict triggering a revenge cycle in which red states do additional to draw their maps so as to foreclose any chance of Democratic competitiveness. Others have questioned the measure on strictly principled pro-democracy grounds: a district that is drawn in such a way that the result of the vote is not in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be truly democratic: it means, inevitably, that the power of dissenting voices is muted, and that the procedure of debate, discussion and persuasion that is supposed to define a healthy democratic process 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 initial critique, that Prop 50 will provoke conservatives to alter their respective districts in response, does not hold up as a causal point: it is illogical to say that Republicans will be made to act in antidemocratic ways by Democrats’ measures when they are already engaging in such behavior without those steps. The Republican party, I would observe, has not needed any incentive of revenge to change maps that secure permanent seats for themselves: they have been willing to do this for its own sake, in the total absence of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The second objection, I think, is more significant, reflecting not just a tactical disagreement about how to address the GOP’s undemocratic turn, but a kind of sad desire for a different country than the one that the US has turned into. It is true that in a more ideal world – in the reality that most Democrats, it is believed, desire and aspire to – the proposition would be unappealing to our values, and not required by our circumstances. It is not good to pack and crack targeted population groups; it is not good for elected officials to select their voters, rather than the reverse; it is negative that votes are made uncontested. That these measures have become necessary in order to slow the autocratic advance of the president’s control and reduce the amount of suffering he is capable to cause is sad; it is a indication of how much we have fallen from something more like a democracy. But they are necessary. It is only once the battle against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can lament what fighting it has made us.

If Congress does not in reality have legislative, military or budgetary authority, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s additional five blue house members will be dispatched to the capital to do? One thing that the House and Senate still holds is the authority to compel testimony, and the power to examine. Even in our time of stagnant politics and congressional atrophy, it has utilized of that power to significant impact. In 2027, if the measure passes and the state’s new Democrats are sworn in, they will find themselves a member of a body with the authority to investigate the president, to broadcast their investigations into his conduct and to compel members of his close advisors to give evidence. It’s not nothing, and crucially, it’s not anything that any conservative would do.

• Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist