🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? During another Trump administration, it is difficult to tell. The power to declare war, traditionally viewed as a crucial congressional authority, has turned into a unclear prerogative of the executive branch in the time since September 11; the president, in the past few months, has claimed additional of that control for his administration, conducting strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea.

The authority over spending seems to have largely been taken away from Congress as well; now, under the leadership of budget chief, the OMB director, much of the ability to allocate federal funds has also defaulted to the presidency, with the administration asserting the ability to abort legislatively approved spending and seeking to redirect the funds elsewhere. It’s not like they’re enacting any legislation, either; almost all bills must now be packed into spending packages, massive recurring must-spend omnibus legislation that can bypass the filibuster. But when these fail to be approved – and more and more, they don’t – the federal government simply shuts down. That is, big parts of the administration shut down – and it’s uncertain how many citizens notice. Currently, the government has been closed all month; there are no signs of it resuming operations anytime soon. But the executive branch keeps on operating smoothly.

And so the issue of control of Congress can appear rather moot. Why should Americans care who has a majority in a institution that has mostly abolished itself?

In what way ‘oppose the president’ messaging may help the state of California’s Prop 50 prevail

And yet Proposition 50, the Golden State’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could deliver five additional House seats to the Democrats if it is embraced by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has captured the attention of liberals nationwide. Partly, it is a belated response to trends happening in other states: GOP-led states have long adopted dramatic biased redistricting while large Democratic-controlled 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 closely divided control of the House and a longstanding sense, by Democrats, that their party is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The California proposal is clearly intended as a countermove to a mid-term redistricting that was recently approved in Texas, which installed maps that will provide the GOP an five more positions in the state congressional delegation in the upcoming term; comparable boundary changes are under way in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (The left in the Old Dominion are likewise following the state’s example in attempting to alter districts.)

The state initiative seems probable to pass, as progressive voters react with fear and frustration to Trump’s authoritarian centralization of authority and seek methods to restrain his worst impulses. But the proposition is not free from controversy. Some opponents caution that the action could have unintended consequences, with Democratic-controlled states’ efforts to redistrict setting off a retaliatory pattern in which red states do additional to design their maps so as to eliminate any chance of Democratic competitiveness. Others have questioned the proposal on strictly principled pro-democracy bases: a district that is drawn in such a manner that the result of the vote is not in doubt, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly democratic: it means, necessarily, that the power of dissenting views is suppressed, and that the procedure of deliberation, discussion and persuasion that is meant to characterize a healthy political system will be confined only to party primaries, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable taking each of these objections on their own terms. The first argument, that Prop 50 will spur conservatives to redraw their own districts in retaliation, fails as a logical argument: it does not make sense to say that Republicans will be compelled to act in antidemocratic ways by Democrats’ measures when they are already engaging in such behavior without those actions. The GOP, it can be noted, has not needed any incentive of revenge to redraw maps that guarantee long-term seats for themselves: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the total absence of similar actions by the left, for a long time.

The other objection, I think, is more substantive, expressing not just a tactical disagreement about how to confront the Republicans’ anti-democracy shift, but a sort of sad desire for a distinct country than the one that the US has become. It is accurate that in a more ideal situation – in the reality that the majority of Democrats, I think, desire and hope for – the proposition would be distasteful to our values, and not required by our circumstances. It is undesirable to manipulate targeted population groups; it is harmful for politicians to select their constituents, rather than the reverse; it is not good that votes are rendered uncontested. 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 sad; it is a indication of how far we have declined from a state more like a representative government. But they are required. Only once the battle against the current administration’s ideology has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has transformed us into.

If Congress does not in reality have lawmaking, military or appropriations authority, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s five new blue representatives will be sent to the capital to do? One thing that Congress continues to retains is subpoena power, and the ability to investigate. Even in our time of sclerotic politics and congressional atrophy, it has made use of that authority to significant impact. In 2027, if the measure passes and California’s additional representatives are take office, they will find themselves a part of a body with the authority to investigate the president, to broadcast their investigations into his conduct and to force members of his close advisors to give evidence. It’s not nothing, and crucially, it’s not something that any Republican would do.

• The columnist is a Guardian US writer