🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the purpose of Congress? During another presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to determine. The authority to initiate armed conflict, long considered a crucial congressional authority, has turned into a murky right of the executive branch in the years since September 11; Trump, in the past few months, has claimed additional of that control for his administration, authorizing military actions on vessels in the Caribbean Sea.

The authority over spending seems to have largely been taken away from the legislative branch too; now, under the leadership of management and budget director, Russell Vought, much of the power to appropriate government money has likewise shifted to the executive, with the White House asserting the ability to cancel congressionally authorized spending and seeking to redirect the funds to other uses. It’s as if they’re enacting any laws, either; virtually all legislation must now be packed into budget reconciliation bills, huge recurring must-spend omnibus legislation that can bypass the filibuster. But when these don’t pass – and increasingly, they do not – the federal government just shuts down. At least, large sections of the administration do – and it’s uncertain how many citizens notice. At present, the federal government has been shut down for the entire month; there are little indication of it resuming operations anytime soon. But the presidency continues humming along.

And so the issue of dominance of the House and Senate can appear somewhat moot. Why should Americans care who holds a majority in a institution that has largely rendered itself powerless?

In what way ‘screw Trump’ messaging could assist California’s Proposition 50 succeed

And yet Proposition 50, California’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could provide 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 across the country. In part, it is a belated response to developments occurring elsewhere: GOP-led states have long adopted extreme biased redistricting while big Democratic-controlled such as California, New York and Washington draw their maps via impartial independent commissions, an asymmetry that has led to closely divided control of the House and a long-term feeling, by the left, that their political group is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The state measure is clearly intended as a response to a mid-decade redistricting that was recently approved in the Lone Star State, which implemented boundaries that will give Republicans an additional five positions in the state House representation in the upcoming term; comparable redistricting moves are under way in states such as Missouri and Indiana. (Democrats in the Old Dominion are also following California’s example in attempting to alter districts.)

The California initiative seems likely to pass, as Democratic and liberal electorate respond with fear and anger to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of authority and seek ways to restrain his most extreme impulses. But the proposition is not free from debate. Some critics warn that the action could have unintended consequences, with Democratic-controlled states’ attempts to change districts triggering a retaliatory pattern in which Republican-controlled states do additional to design their maps so as to foreclose any chance of Democratic competitiveness. Different critics have questioned the measure on strictly principled pro-democracy grounds: a district that is drawn in such a way that the result of the election is never really in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely representative: it means, inevitably, that the influence of opposing voices is suppressed, and that the process of deliberation, discussion and convincing that is meant to define a healthy political system will be limited only to party primaries, if it happens at all.

It is worth considering each of these criticisms on their own terms. The first argument, that Prop 50 will provoke the right to alter their respective districts in response, does not hold up as a logical point: it is illogical to claim that Republicans will be compelled to act in undemocratic ways by the left’s measures when they are already doing so without those steps. The Republican party, it can be noted, has required no any motivation of retaliation to change maps that secure long-term seats for their party: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the total absence of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The other critique, in my view, is more significant, expressing not just a strategic disagreement about how to confront the GOP’s undemocratic turn, but a kind of sad desire for a distinct nation than the one that the US has become. It is true that in a better world – in the reality that most Democrats, it is believed, yearn for and hope for – the proposition would be unappealing to our values, and not required by our situation. It is undesirable to pack and crack disfavored population groups; it is harmful for elected officials to select their voters, instead of the reverse; it is negative that elections are rendered noncompetitive. That these actions have become essential in order to slow the autocratic advance of Trump’s power and reduce the level of suffering he is capable to cause is unfortunate; it is a indication of how far we have declined from a state more like a representative government. But they are required. It is only once the fight against the current administration’s ideology has been won that we can mourn what fighting it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch fails to in reality have legislative, military or budgetary authority, what is it, precisely, that the proposition’s additional five blue representatives will be sent to Washington to do? One thing that the House and Senate continues to retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to examine. Even in our era of sclerotic government and legislative decline, it has made use of that power to significant impact. In 2027, if Prop 50 is approved and California’s new representatives are sworn in, they will find themselves a member of a institution with the authority to probe the president, to televise their hearings into his conduct and to force members of his close advisors to give evidence. It’s not nothing, and more importantly, it’s not something that any Republican would do.

• The columnist is a news outlet writer