🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the purpose 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 prerogative of the executive branch in the years since the 9/11 attacks; the president, in the past few months, has asserted additional of that control for his administration, authorizing military actions on vessels in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse appears to be mostly been taken away from Congress too; now, under the leadership of management and budget director, the OMB director, much of the power to allocate government money has likewise defaulted to the presidency, with the White House asserting the authority to cancel congressionally authorized expenditures and seeking to move the funds to other uses. It’s as if they’re enacting any legislation, either; almost all legislation must currently be packed into budget reconciliation bills, huge recurring essential comprehensive bills that can circumvent the filibuster. But when those don’t pass – and increasingly, they don’t – the government just shuts down. At least, big parts of the government shut down – and it’s not clear how many citizens are aware. Currently, the government has been closed all month; there are no signs of it resuming operations in the near future. But the executive branch keeps on humming along.

And so the issue of control of the House and Senate can seem rather irrelevant. Why should Americans be concerned who has a majority in a body that has largely abolished itself?

How ‘screw Trump’ messaging may assist the state of California’s Proposition 50 succeed

And yet Prop 50, California’s redistricting referendum that could deliver five additional congressional positions to the Democrats if it is embraced by the electorate in a upcoming vote next month, has captured the attention of liberals nationwide. In part, it is a delayed reaction to trends occurring in other states: GOP-led states have long embraced dramatic partisan gerrymandering while large blue states such as California, the Empire State and Washington create their maps via impartial independent commissions, an asymmetry that has resulted in narrowly split control of the House and a longstanding feeling, by Democrats, that their party is at a disadvantage. The California measure is clearly designed as a countermove to a mid-decade redistricting that recently passed in the Lone Star State, which installed boundaries that will provide Republicans an additional five positions in the state’s House representation next year; similar redistricting moves are in progress in states such as Missouri and Indiana. (Democrats in Virginia are likewise emulating the state’s lead in seeking to alter districts.)

The state initiative seems likely to pass, as progressive voters respond with fear and frustration to Trump’s authoritarian consolidation of authority and look for ways to check his most extreme impulses. But Prop 50 is not free from debate. Some critics warn that the move could backfire, with Democratic-controlled states’ efforts to redistrict setting off a revenge pattern in which Republican-controlled states do even more to draw their maps so as to eliminate any chance of opposition party success. Others have critiqued the proposal on strictly ideological democratic grounds: a district 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 representative: it implies, necessarily, that the influence of dissenting views is suppressed, and that the procedure of deliberation, discussion and convincing that is supposed to characterize a healthy democratic process will be confined only to party primaries, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable considering each of these criticisms on their merits. The first argument, that Prop 50 will spur the right to redraw their respective maps in response, fails as a causal argument: it is illogical to claim that Republicans will be made to act in undemocratic ways by Democrats’ actions when they are already engaging in such behavior without those actions. The GOP, I would observe, has required no any motivation of retaliation to change maps that secure permanent seats for their party: 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 substantive, expressing not just a tactical disagreement about how to address the GOP’s undemocratic shift, but a sort of melancholic desire for a distinct nation than the one that the US has become. It is accurate that in a more ideal world – in the reality that most Democrats, I think, desire and aspire to – Prop 50 would be distasteful to our principles, and not required by our situation. It is not good to pack and crack disfavored demographics; it is harmful for elected officials to select their constituents, instead of the reverse; it is negative that elections are rendered noncompetitive. That these actions have grown essential in order to slow the autocratic advance of Trump’s power and reduce the level of harm he is capable to cause is sad; it is a indication of how much we have declined from a state more like a representative government. But they are required. It is only after the fight against the current administration’s ideology has been successfully concluded that we can lament what fighting it has made us.

If Congress fails to in reality have lawmaking, military or budgetary power, what is it, precisely, that the proposition’s additional five Democratic representatives will be sent to the capital to do? One aspect that the House and Senate still retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the power to examine. Even in our time 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 California’s additional representatives are sworn in, they will become a part of a body with the power to probe the president, to televise their investigations into his conduct and to force associates of his close advisors to testify. It’s not nothing, and more importantly, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• Moira Donegan is a Guardian US writer