🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the role of the U.S. Congress? In the second presidency of Donald Trump, it can be hard to tell. The authority to declare war, long considered a vital congressional authority, has become a murky prerogative of the executive branch in the years since the 9/11 attacks; Trump, in recent months, has claimed additional of that control for himself, conducting military actions on boats in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse appears to be mostly been taken away from Congress as well; currently, under the leadership of budget chief, the OMB director, a great deal of the ability to allocate government money has also defaulted to the executive, with the administration asserting the authority to cancel legislatively approved spending and seeking to redirect the money elsewhere. It’s not like they’re enacting any laws, anyway; almost all legislation must now be packed into spending packages, huge recurring must-spend omnibus legislation that can circumvent the filibuster. But when these fail to be approved – and more and more, they do not – the federal government simply shuts down. At least, large sections of the government shut down – 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 continues humming along.

And so the question of dominance of Congress can seem rather irrelevant. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a controlling share in a institution that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

In what way ‘screw Trump’ rhetoric may assist California’s Prop 50 prevail

And yet Proposition 50, California’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could deliver five more House seats to the Democrats if it is approved by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has captured the attention of liberals across the country. Partly, it is a belated response to developments happening in other states: GOP-led states have long embraced extreme biased redistricting while big blue states such as California, the Empire State and the Evergreen State draw their district lines via nonpartisan redistricting panels, an imbalance that has led to narrowly split control of the House and a long-term sense, by the left, that their party is at a disadvantage. The California proposal is explicitly intended as a countermove to a mid-decade redrawing of maps that recently passed in Texas, which implemented boundaries that will provide Republicans an additional five seats in the state’s House representation next year; comparable redistricting moves are under way in states such as the Show-Me State and the Hoosier State. (Democrats in Virginia are likewise emulating California’s example in attempting to alter districts.)

The state measure seems probable to be approved, as progressive voters respond with fear and anger to the president’s autocratic centralization of power and seek methods to restrain his most extreme impulses. But the proposition is not without controversy. Some opponents warn that the action could backfire, with blue states’ attempts to redistrict triggering a revenge pattern in which red states do additional to draw their districts so as to foreclose any possibility of Democratic competitiveness. Different critics have critiqued the proposal on more purely ideological democratic grounds: a electoral area that is created in such a way that the outcome of the election is never really in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it means, 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 political system will be confined only to party primaries, if it happens at all.

It is valuable considering each of these criticisms on their merits. The initial critique, that the measure will spur the right to alter their own districts in retaliation, fails as a causal point: it is illogical to say that the GOP will be compelled to behave in undemocratic ways by the left’s measures when they are already engaging in such behavior in the absence of those actions. The GOP, I would observe, has required no any incentive of revenge to change maps that secure long-term positions 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, reflecting not just a tactical difference about how to address the GOP’s anti-democracy shift, but a sort of sad desire for a different nation than the one that the United States has turned into. It is true that in a better situation – in the world that the majority of the left, it is believed, desire and aspire to – the proposition would be unappealing to our values, and not mandated by our situation. It is not good to pack and crack disfavored population groups; it is harmful for elected officials to choose their constituents, instead of the other way around; it is not good that votes are rendered uncontested. That these actions have become essential in order to impede the autocratic creep of Trump’s power and reduce the level of harm he is able 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 necessary. It is only after the fight against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can mourn what opposing it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch fails to in practice have lawmaking, war making or budgetary authority, what is it, precisely, that the proposition’s additional five Democratic house members will be sent to the capital to do? One thing that the House and Senate still holds is subpoena power, and the ability to investigate. Even in our era of sclerotic government and legislative decline, it has utilized of that authority to significant impact. In the coming years, if Prop 50 is approved and the state’s new representatives are sworn in, they will find themselves a part of a body with the authority to probe Trump, to televise their hearings into his actions and to force members of his inner circle to give evidence. It’s significant, and more importantly, it’s not something that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a news outlet writer