🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? During another Trump administration, it is difficult to tell. The authority to declare war, traditionally viewed as a vital congressional authority, has turned into a unclear right of the presidential office in the time since September 11; Trump, in recent months, has claimed even more of that power for his administration, conducting military actions on vessels in the Caribbean.

The authority over spending seems to have mostly been taken away from Congress as well; now, under the leadership of budget chief, the OMB director, much of the ability to allocate government money has also shifted to the executive, with the administration claiming the authority to cancel congressionally authorized spending and attempting to move the funds elsewhere. It’s as if they’re passing any laws, anyway; virtually all bills must now be packed into budget reconciliation bills, massive perennial essential comprehensive bills that can circumvent the filibuster. But when those fail to be approved – and more and more, they don’t – the federal government just shuts down. That is, big parts of the administration shut down – and it’s uncertain how many citizens are aware. Currently, the federal government has been shut down all month; there are little indication of it resuming operations anytime soon. But the executive branch keeps on operating smoothly.

And so the issue of dominance of Congress can appear rather irrelevant. Why should U.S. citizens be concerned who holds a majority in a institution that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

In what way ‘screw Trump’ rhetoric may assist California’s Proposition 50 succeed

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s redistricting referendum that could deliver five more House seats to the Democratic Party if it is embraced by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has captured the attention of progressives nationwide. Partly, it is a belated reaction to developments happening in other states: GOP-led states have for a long time embraced extreme partisan gerrymandering while large blue states such as California, the Empire State and Washington create their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an imbalance that has led to closely divided control of the House and a long-term feeling, by Democrats, that their party is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The California measure is clearly intended as a response to a mid-decade redistricting that was recently approved in Texas, which implemented maps that will provide Republicans an additional five seats in the state House representation next year; comparable redistricting moves are under way in states such as Missouri and the Hoosier State. (Democrats in the Old Dominion are likewise emulating California’s lead in attempting to redistrict.)

The California measure seems likely to be approved, as Democratic and liberal electorate react with concern and frustration to Trump’s authoritarian consolidation of authority and seek ways to restrain his worst impulses. But Prop 50 is not free from debate. Some critics caution that the move could have unintended consequences, with Democratic-controlled states’ efforts to change districts setting off a revenge pattern in which red states do even more to draw their maps so as to eliminate any possibility of Democratic competitiveness. Different critics have critiqued the proposal on strictly principled pro-democracy bases: a district that is created in such a manner that the result of the vote is never really in question, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly democratic: it implies, necessarily, that the influence of dissenting voices is suppressed, and that the procedure of deliberation, argument and convincing that is meant to define a healthy democratic process will be confined only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable taking each of these criticisms on their merits. The first critique, that the measure will provoke conservatives to alter their own maps in retaliation, fails as a logical point: it does not make sense to claim that the GOP will be compelled to act in undemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already doing so without those steps. The Republican party, it can be noted, has required no any motivation of revenge to redraw maps that guarantee long-term 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 years.

The other objection, I think, is more substantive, expressing not just a tactical disagreement about how to confront the Republicans’ undemocratic turn, but a kind of sad wish for a different nation than the one that the US has become. It is accurate that in a better situation – in the reality that the majority of Democrats, I think, yearn for and hope for – the proposition would be distasteful to our principles, and not required by our circumstances. It is undesirable to pack and crack targeted population groups; it is harmful for elected officials to choose their constituents, rather than the reverse; it is not good that elections are rendered noncompetitive. That these actions have grown essential in order to impede the autocratic creep of Trump’s control and lessen the amount of harm he is able to inflict is sad; it is a sign of how much we have declined from something more like a democracy. But they are necessary. It is only once the fight against the current administration’s ideology has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch does not in practice have lawmaking, military or budgetary power, what is it, precisely, that Prop 50’s additional five blue house members will be dispatched to the capital to do? One thing that the House and Senate still retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to investigate. Even in our era of stagnant government and legislative decline, it has made use of that authority to significant impact. In the coming years, if Prop 50 passes and the state’s additional Democrats are take office, they will find themselves a part of a body with the power to investigate the president, to broadcast 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 Republican would do.

• The columnist is a Guardian US columnist