🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the purpose of Congress? In the second presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to tell. The power to initiate armed conflict, long considered a crucial congressional authority, has turned into 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 his administration, authorizing military actions on boats in the Caribbean Sea.

The authority over spending seems to have mostly been taken away from Congress as well; currently, under the office of budget chief, the OMB director, a great deal of the power to appropriate government money has also defaulted to the executive, with the administration asserting the authority to cancel congressionally authorized expenditures and attempting to redirect the money elsewhere. It’s not like they’re enacting any laws, anyway; almost all legislation must now be packed into budget reconciliation bills, massive recurring must-spend omnibus legislation that can bypass the filibuster. But when those fail to be approved – and increasingly, they do not – the federal government just ceases operations. That is, large sections of the administration do – and it’s uncertain how many citizens are aware. Currently, the federal government has been closed all month; there are little indication of it resuming operations anytime soon. But the presidency continues humming along.

And so the question of control of Congress can seem somewhat irrelevant. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a majority in a body that has largely abolished itself?

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

And yet Prop 50, California’s redistricting referendum that could provide five more congressional positions to the Democrats if it is embraced by the electorate in a special election in the coming weeks, has seized the attention of progressives nationwide. In part, it is a delayed response to developments occurring in other states: GOP-led states have long adopted extreme partisan gerrymandering while big Democratic-controlled such as the Golden State, the Empire State and Washington draw their maps via nonpartisan independent commissions, an asymmetry that has led to narrowly split House control and a longstanding sense, by the left, that their political group is at a disadvantage. The state proposal is explicitly intended as a countermove to a mid-decade redistricting that recently passed in Texas, which implemented boundaries that will provide the GOP an additional five seats in the state House representation in the upcoming term; similar boundary changes are under way in states such as the Show-Me State and the Hoosier State. (Democrats in Virginia are likewise following the state’s lead in seeking to alter districts.)

The state measure seems probable to be approved, as Democratic and liberal voters respond with fear and frustration to Trump’s autocratic centralization of authority and seek ways to check his most extreme tendencies. But the proposition is not without controversy. Some opponents warn that the action could backfire, with blue states’ efforts to change districts triggering a retaliatory cycle in which red states do additional to draw their maps so as to eliminate any chance of opposition party success. Different critics have questioned the proposal on strictly principled pro-democracy grounds: a electoral area that is created 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 democratic: it means, necessarily, that the influence of dissenting voices is muted, and that the process of debate, discussion and convincing that is meant to characterize a healthy political system will be confined only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is worth taking each of these criticisms on their merits. The first argument, that the measure will spur the right to alter their respective districts in response, does not hold up as a logical point: it is illogical to claim that the GOP will be compelled to behave in antidemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already engaging in such behavior without those steps. The Republican party, it can be noted, has required no any motivation of retaliation to redraw maps that secure long-term seats for themselves: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the complete lack of similar actions by the left, for years.

The second critique, I think, is more substantive, reflecting not just a strategic disagreement about how to address the GOP’s undemocratic shift, but a kind of sad desire for a distinct country than the one that the United States has turned into. It is accurate that in a more ideal world – in the world that the majority of Democrats, I think, yearn for and aspire to – Prop 50 would be distasteful to our values, and not mandated by our circumstances. It is not good to manipulate disfavored demographics; it is harmful for elected officials to select their constituents, rather than the reverse; it is negative that votes are rendered noncompetitive. That these actions have become necessary in order to slow the autocratic creep of the president’s power and reduce the level of harm he is capable to inflict is unfortunate; 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 once the fight against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can mourn what opposing it has made us.

If Congress does not in reality have lawmaking, war making or appropriations authority, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s five new Democratic house members will be sent to the capital to do? One aspect that the House and Senate continues to retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the power to examine. Even in our time of sclerotic government and legislative decline, it has utilized of that power to significant impact. In 2027, if the measure passes and California’s new Democrats are take office, they will find themselves a member of a institution with the authority to investigate the president, to broadcast their hearings into his actions and to force associates of his inner circle to give evidence. It’s not nothing, and crucially, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• Moira Donegan is a news outlet writer