🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of Congress? During another presidency of Donald Trump, it can be hard to determine. The authority to initiate armed conflict, long considered a crucial congressional authority, has turned into a unclear prerogative of the executive branch in the time since September 11; the president, in recent months, has asserted even more of that power for himself, conducting strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea.

The authority over spending seems to have mostly been stripped from the legislative branch as well; now, under the leadership of budget chief, Russell Vought, much of the power to allocate federal funds has likewise shifted to the presidency, with the White House asserting the ability to abort legislatively approved spending and seeking to redirect the funds elsewhere. It’s not like they’re passing any laws, anyway; virtually all legislation must now be packed into spending packages, massive recurring essential omnibus legislation that can bypass the filibuster. But when those don’t pass – and more and more, they do not – the federal government simply shuts down. At least, large sections of the government do – and it’s uncertain how many people notice. At present, the federal government has been closed for the entire month; there are little indication of it reopening anytime soon. But the presidency keeps on humming along.

And so the question of control of the House and Senate can appear somewhat moot. Why should Americans be concerned who has a majority in a body that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

How ‘screw Trump’ rhetoric may help the state of California’s Proposition 50 succeed

And yet Prop 50, California’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could deliver five additional House seats to the Democratic Party if it is approved by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has captured the attention of progressives nationwide. Partly, it is a delayed reaction to developments occurring in other states: GOP-led states have long adopted extreme biased redistricting while big blue states such as California, the Empire State and Washington create their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an imbalance that has resulted in narrowly split control of the House and a long-term feeling, by Democrats, that their party is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The California proposal is explicitly intended as a countermove to a mid-term redrawing of maps that recently passed in Texas, which implemented maps that will give the GOP an five more seats in the state House representation in the upcoming term; similar boundary changes are in progress in states such as the Show-Me State and the Hoosier State. (Democrats in the Old Dominion are likewise emulating California’s lead in seeking to alter districts.)

The state initiative seems probable to be approved, as progressive electorate react with fear and frustration to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of power and seek methods to check his most extreme impulses. But the proposition is not without debate. Some opponents warn that the action could have unintended consequences, with blue states’ efforts to change districts triggering a revenge cycle in which Republican-controlled states do even more to design their maps so as to eliminate any possibility of opposition party success. Others have questioned the measure on strictly ideological pro-democracy bases: a district that is drawn in such a manner that the result of the election is never really in question, they say, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely representative: it means, inevitably, that the power of opposing views is suppressed, and that the process of debate, argument and convincing that is supposed to define a healthy democratic process will be confined only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is worth taking each of these objections on their own terms. The first argument, that the measure will spur the right to redraw their own districts in retaliation, fails as a logical argument: it does not make sense to claim that the GOP will be made to act in antidemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already engaging in such behavior in the absence of those steps. The GOP, I would observe, has required no any motivation of revenge to change boundaries that guarantee long-term seats for their party: they have been ready to do this for their own benefit, in the complete absence of similar actions by the left, for a long time.

The other objection, in my view, is more significant, reflecting not just a tactical disagreement about how to confront the GOP’s undemocratic shift, but a kind of sad wish for a distinct nation than the one that the United States has turned into. It is true that in a better world – in the reality that the majority of the left, it is believed, desire and aspire to – the proposition would be distasteful to our values, and not required by our situation. It is undesirable to manipulate disfavored demographics; it is harmful for politicians to choose their constituents, instead of the other way around; it is negative that votes are rendered noncompetitive. That these measures have become essential in order to slow the autocratic creep of Trump’s control and reduce the level of suffering he is able to cause is unfortunate; it is a sign of how far we have fallen from a state more like a democracy. But they are required. It is only once the battle against the current administration’s ideology has been won that we can lament what opposing it has transformed us into.

If Congress fails to in practice have lawmaking, military or appropriations power, what is it, precisely, that the proposition’s five new blue representatives will be dispatched to Washington to do? One thing that Congress continues to retains is subpoena power, and the ability to investigate. Even in our era of sclerotic politics and legislative decline, it has made use of that power to great effect. In the coming years, if the measure is approved and the state’s new representatives are sworn in, they will find themselves a part of a institution with the power to investigate the president, to broadcast their investigations into his conduct and to force members of his close advisors to testify. It’s significant, and more importantly, it’s not something that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist