🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the role of the U.S. Congress? During another Trump administration, it can be hard to determine. The authority to declare war, traditionally viewed as a vital congressional authority, has turned into 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 control for himself, conducting strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

The authority over spending seems to have largely been taken away from Congress too; now, under the leadership of budget chief, the OMB director, a great deal of the power to appropriate government money has likewise shifted to the executive, with the administration claiming the authority to cancel congressionally authorized expenditures and attempting to redirect the money elsewhere. It’s as if they’re passing any legislation, anyway; almost all legislation must now be packed into budget reconciliation bills, massive perennial must-spend comprehensive bills that can bypass the senate obstruction. But when these don’t pass – and increasingly, they don’t – the federal government simply shuts down. At least, large sections of the administration shut down – and it’s uncertain how many citizens notice. Currently, the federal government has been shut down for the entire month; there are little indication of it reopening in the near future. But the presidency continues operating smoothly.

And so the question of dominance of Congress can seem somewhat moot. Why should Americans be concerned who has a controlling share in a institution that has largely abolished itself?

In what way ‘oppose the president’ rhetoric could help the state of California’s Prop 50 succeed

And yet Prop 50, California’s redistricting referendum that could deliver five additional congressional positions to the Democratic Party if it is approved by the electorate in a special election next month, has captured the attention of progressives nationwide. Partly, it is a belated reaction to developments occurring elsewhere: GOP-led states have for a long time adopted extreme partisan gerrymandering while large blue states such as California, the Empire State and Washington create their district lines via impartial redistricting panels, an imbalance that has led to narrowly split control of the House and a long-term feeling, by Democrats, that their party is at a disadvantage. The California proposal is explicitly intended as a response to a mid-decade redistricting that recently passed in Texas, which implemented boundaries that will provide the GOP an five more seats in the state’s congressional delegation in the upcoming term; comparable redistricting moves are under way in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (The left in Virginia are also following the state’s example in attempting to alter districts.)

The state initiative seems likely to be approved, as progressive electorate respond with fear and anger to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of power and seek ways to restrain his most extreme impulses. But the proposition is not without controversy. Some opponents warn that the action could backfire, with Democratic-controlled states’ attempts to redistrict setting off a revenge cycle in which red states do even more to draw their maps so as to foreclose any chance of opposition party success. Different critics have critiqued the proposal on more purely principled pro-democracy bases: a electoral area that is drawn in such a manner that the result of the election is never really in doubt, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely representative: it means, necessarily, that the power of opposing views is suppressed, and that the procedure of debate, argument and convincing that is supposed to define a healthy democratic process will be limited only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable considering each of these criticisms on their merits. The initial argument, that Prop 50 will provoke the right to redraw their own districts in retaliation, does not hold up as a logical argument: it is illogical to say that Republicans will be compelled to act in undemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already doing so without those actions. The Republican party, it can be noted, has required no any motivation of retaliation to change maps that guarantee permanent positions for their party: they have been ready to do this for their own benefit, in the total absence of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The other objection, I think, is more substantive, reflecting not just a strategic difference about how to address the Republicans’ undemocratic turn, but a kind of melancholic desire for a different nation than the one that the United States has turned into. It is accurate that in a more ideal situation – in the reality that most Democrats, I think, yearn for and aspire to – Prop 50 would be unappealing to our principles, and not mandated by our situation. It is undesirable to manipulate targeted population groups; it is harmful for elected officials to select their voters, rather than the other way around; it is negative that votes are rendered noncompetitive. That these actions have grown essential in order to slow the autocratic creep of Trump’s power and reduce the level of harm he is able to cause is sad; it is a sign of how far we have declined from something more like a representative government. But they are necessary. It is only after the fight against the current administration’s ideology has been won that we can mourn what fighting it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch fails to in practice have lawmaking, military or budgetary authority, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s five new blue representatives will be dispatched to Washington to do? One aspect that Congress continues to holds is subpoena power, and the ability to investigate. Even in our era of stagnant politics and legislative decline, it has made use of that power to significant impact. In the coming years, if the measure is approved and the state’s new Democrats are take office, they will become a part of a body with the power to investigate Trump, to televise their investigations into his conduct and to force associates of his inner circle to testify. It’s not nothing, and crucially, it’s not something that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist