🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of Congress? During another presidency of Donald Trump, it can be hard to tell. The authority to declare war, traditionally viewed as a vital congressional authority, has become a murky prerogative of the executive branch in the time since the 9/11 attacks; the president, in recent months, has asserted even more of that power for himself, conducting military actions on vessels in the Caribbean Sea.

The power of the purse appears to be largely been stripped from Congress too; currently, under the leadership of budget chief, Russell Vought, a great deal of the ability to appropriate federal funds has also shifted to the presidency, with the administration claiming the ability to cancel legislatively approved spending and attempting to redirect the money elsewhere. It’s as if they’re passing any laws, anyway; almost all bills must now be crammed into spending packages, massive perennial must-spend omnibus legislation that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when those don’t pass – and more and more, they don’t – the government simply shuts down. At least, large sections of the government do – and it’s uncertain how many people are aware. At present, the federal government has been closed for the entire month; there are no signs of it resuming operations in the near future. But the executive branch continues operating smoothly.

And so the issue of dominance of the House and Senate can seem somewhat moot. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a controlling share in a body that has largely abolished itself?

How ‘oppose the president’ rhetoric could help the state of California’s Prop 50 succeed

And yet Prop 50, California’s redistricting referendum that could provide five additional congressional positions to the Democratic Party if it is approved by voters in a upcoming vote in the coming weeks, has seized the attention of liberals across the country. Partly, it is a delayed reaction to trends occurring elsewhere: Republican-controlled states have long embraced dramatic biased redistricting while big Democratic-controlled such as the Golden State, the Empire State and the Evergreen State draw their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an asymmetry that has led to narrowly split House control and a longstanding sense, by the left, that their party is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The California proposal is explicitly designed as a countermove to a mid-term redistricting that was recently approved in Texas, which installed boundaries that will give Republicans an five more positions in the state House representation in the upcoming term; comparable boundary changes are in progress in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (The left in Virginia are also following the state’s lead in seeking to redistrict.)

The California initiative seems likely to pass, as progressive electorate react with fear and anger to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of power and look for methods to check his worst impulses. But the proposition is not without controversy. Some opponents warn that the action could have unintended consequences, with Democratic-controlled states’ attempts to change districts setting off a retaliatory cycle in which Republican-controlled states do even more to draw their districts so as to eliminate any chance of opposition party success. Different critics have questioned the proposal on more purely principled democratic bases: a electoral area that is drawn in such a way that the outcome of the election is not in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely representative: it implies, inevitably, that the influence of opposing views is muted, and that the procedure of debate, argument and persuasion that is meant to define a functioning political system will be limited only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable taking each of these criticisms on their own terms. The initial critique, that the measure will spur the right to redraw their respective maps in response, does not hold up as a logical point: it is illogical to claim that Republicans will be compelled to behave in undemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already engaging in such behavior in the absence of those steps. The Republican party, I would observe, has not needed any motivation of retaliation to change maps that guarantee permanent seats for their party: they have been ready to do this for its own sake, in the complete lack of similar actions by the left, for a long time.

The other objection, in my view, is more substantive, expressing not just a strategic difference about how to address the Republicans’ undemocratic turn, but a sort of sad desire for a distinct country than the one that the United States has become. It is accurate that in a better world – in the reality that the majority of the left, I think, desire and aspire to – Prop 50 would be unappealing to our principles, and not required by our circumstances. It is undesirable to pack and crack targeted demographics; it is harmful for politicians to select their voters, rather than the other way around; it is not good that votes are rendered noncompetitive. That these actions have grown essential in order to impede the authoritarian creep of Trump’s control and lessen the amount of suffering he is able to cause 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 after the fight against the current administration’s ideology has been successfully concluded that we can lament what fighting it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch fails to in reality have legislative, military or appropriations power, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s additional five blue representatives will be dispatched to Washington to do? One thing 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 authority to great effect. In the coming years, if Prop 50 passes and California’s new representatives are sworn in, they will become a part of a institution with the authority to investigate Trump, to televise their hearings into his conduct and to force members of his close advisors to give evidence. It’s significant, and crucially, it’s not something that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a news outlet columnist