🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? In the second Trump administration, it is difficult to tell. The power to declare war, traditionally viewed as a vital legislative power, has turned into a unclear right of the executive branch in the years since September 11; the president, in recent months, has claimed even more of that control for himself, authorizing military actions on boats in the Caribbean.

The authority over spending seems to have mostly been stripped from the legislative branch as well; currently, under the leadership of management and budget director, Russell Vought, much of the power to allocate federal funds has likewise defaulted to the presidency, with the administration asserting the ability to cancel legislatively approved expenditures and seeking to move the funds elsewhere. It’s as if they’re passing any laws, either; virtually all bills must now be packed into budget reconciliation bills, huge perennial essential comprehensive bills that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when those don’t pass – and increasingly, they do not – the government simply ceases operations. At least, large sections of the administration do – and it’s uncertain how many citizens are aware. At present, the government has been closed all month; there are no signs of it resuming operations in the near future. But the presidency continues operating smoothly.

And so the question of control of Congress can appear rather moot. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a controlling share in a body that has largely abolished itself?

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

And yet Proposition 50, California’s redistricting referendum that could deliver five more House seats to the Democratic Party if it is approved by the electorate in a upcoming vote in the coming weeks, has seized the attention of progressives across the country. Partly, it is a belated response to trends occurring elsewhere: Republican-controlled states have for a long time adopted dramatic biased redistricting while large blue states such as California, New York and the Evergreen State create their district lines via impartial independent commissions, an imbalance that has led to closely divided control of the House and a long-term feeling, by the left, that their party is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The state proposal is explicitly intended as a response to a mid-term redistricting that was recently approved in the Lone Star State, which implemented boundaries that will give Republicans an additional five seats in the state House representation next year; comparable boundary changes are in progress in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (Democrats in Virginia are likewise emulating the state’s example in seeking to alter districts.)

The state initiative seems likely to be approved, as progressive electorate react with fear and anger to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of authority and look for ways to check his worst impulses. But the proposition is not free from controversy. Some opponents warn that the move could have unintended consequences, with blue states’ attempts to change districts triggering a revenge cycle in which Republican-controlled states do even more to design their districts so as to foreclose any chance of Democratic competitiveness. Others have critiqued the measure on strictly ideological pro-democracy bases: a district that is created in such a way that the outcome of the vote is never really in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely democratic: it means, inevitably, that the influence of dissenting voices is muted, and that the procedure of debate, discussion and convincing that is meant to characterize a healthy democratic process will be limited 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 the measure will spur the right to alter their respective maps in retaliation, does not hold up as a logical point: it is illogical to say that the GOP will be made to behave in antidemocratic ways by Democrats’ measures when they are already doing so without those actions. The Republican party, it can be noted, has not needed any motivation of revenge to redraw maps that secure long-term positions for their party: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the complete lack of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The other critique, in my view, is more significant, reflecting not just a strategic difference about how to address the Republicans’ undemocratic shift, but a sort of sad wish for a distinct nation than the one that the United States has become. It is true that in a more ideal situation – in the world that the majority of Democrats, it is believed, yearn for and hope for – the proposition would be distasteful to our principles, and not required by our situation. It is undesirable to manipulate disfavored population groups; it is not good for elected officials to select their constituents, rather than the other way around; it is negative that elections are made uncontested. That these actions have grown essential in order to slow the autocratic creep of Trump’s control and lessen the amount of suffering he is able to inflict is sad; it is a sign of how far we have declined from something more like a democracy. But they are necessary. It is only after the fight against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can mourn what fighting it has transformed us into.

If Congress fails to in reality have legislative, war making or appropriations authority, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s five new blue representatives will be dispatched to Washington to do? One thing that the House and Senate still holds is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to examine. Even in our era of sclerotic government and congressional atrophy, it has made use of that authority to significant impact. In 2027, if the measure is approved and the state’s new representatives are take office, they will become a member of a body with the power to investigate the president, to broadcast their investigations into his conduct and to force associates of his close advisors to testify. It’s not nothing, and more importantly, it’s not anything that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist