🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? During another presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to determine. The authority to declare war, traditionally viewed as a crucial congressional authority, has become a unclear right of the presidential office in the time since the 9/11 attacks; the president, in recent months, has asserted even more of that control for himself, authorizing military actions on vessels in the Caribbean.

The authority over spending appears to be largely been taken away from Congress as well; currently, under the office of management and budget director, Russell Vought, a great deal of the power to appropriate federal funds has likewise shifted to the presidency, with the administration asserting the ability to cancel congressionally authorized expenditures and seeking to redirect the funds to other uses. It’s not like they’re enacting any legislation, either; virtually all bills must currently be packed into spending packages, huge recurring essential comprehensive bills that can circumvent the filibuster. But when these fail to be approved – and increasingly, they do not – the federal government simply shuts down. That is, big parts of the administration do – and it’s not clear how many people are aware. Currently, the government has been closed for the entire month; there are no signs of it resuming operations in the near future. But the presidency continues humming along.

And so the issue of dominance of the House and Senate can appear somewhat moot. Why should U.S. citizens be concerned who holds a majority in a body that has largely abolished itself?

How ‘screw Trump’ messaging may help the state of California’s Proposition 50 prevail

And yet Prop 50, California’s redistricting referendum that could provide five more House seats to the Democrats if it is approved by voters in a special election in the coming weeks, has captured the political imagination of progressives nationwide. In part, it is a belated reaction to trends occurring in other states: GOP-led states have long embraced extreme partisan gerrymandering while big blue states such as the Golden State, the Empire State and Washington create their maps via nonpartisan independent commissions, an asymmetry that has resulted in narrowly split control of the House and a longstanding feeling, by the left, that their political group is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The state measure is explicitly intended as a countermove to a mid-term redrawing of maps that was recently approved in Texas, which implemented maps that will give Republicans an five more positions in the state’s House representation in the upcoming term; similar redistricting moves are under way in states such as Missouri and Indiana. (Democrats in the Old Dominion are likewise following the state’s lead in attempting to redistrict.)

The state measure seems likely to pass, as progressive voters react with fear and frustration to Trump’s authoritarian consolidation of authority and seek ways to restrain his worst tendencies. But the proposition is not free from debate. Some opponents warn that the action could backfire, with blue states’ efforts to redistrict triggering a revenge cycle in which Republican-controlled states do additional to design their maps so as to foreclose any possibility of opposition party success. Different critics have critiqued the measure on strictly principled democratic bases: a district that is drawn in such a way that the outcome of the election is not in question, they say, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely representative: it means, necessarily, that the influence of opposing voices is muted, and that the procedure of debate, discussion and convincing that is meant to characterize a functioning democratic process will be limited only to party primaries, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable taking each of these criticisms on their own terms. The initial argument, that the measure will spur the right to redraw their respective maps in retaliation, fails as a causal argument: it does not make sense to claim that Republicans will be compelled to act in antidemocratic ways by Democrats’ measures when they are already engaging in such behavior in the absence of those steps. The Republican party, I would observe, has not needed any incentive of retaliation to change maps that secure permanent 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 second objection, I think, is more significant, expressing not just a strategic difference about how to address the GOP’s undemocratic shift, but a sort of sad wish for a distinct nation than the one that the US has become. It is true that in a better situation – in the world that the majority of Democrats, it is believed, yearn for and aspire to – the proposition would be distasteful to our values, and not mandated by our circumstances. It is undesirable to pack and crack targeted population groups; it is harmful for politicians to select their constituents, instead of the other way around; it is negative that elections are rendered uncontested. That these actions have grown necessary in order to impede the authoritarian advance of Trump’s power and reduce the level of suffering he is capable to inflict is unfortunate; it is a indication of how far we have fallen from a state more like a representative government. But they are necessary. It is only after the fight against Trumpism has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has made us.

If Congress fails to in reality have legislative, war making or appropriations authority, what is it, precisely, that Prop 50’s additional five blue house members will be sent to Washington to do? One thing that Congress continues to retains is subpoena power, and the power to investigate. Even in our time of sclerotic government and legislative decline, it has made use of that power to significant impact. In the coming years, if the measure passes and California’s additional representatives are take office, they will become a part of a body with the authority to probe Trump, to televise their investigations into his conduct and to force members of his inner circle to testify. It’s significant, and more importantly, it’s not anything that any conservative would do.

• Moira Donegan is a Guardian US writer