🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the role of the U.S. Congress? In the second presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to tell. The authority to declare war, long considered a crucial congressional authority, has turned into a unclear prerogative of the presidential office in the time since September 11; the president, in recent months, has asserted even more of that power for himself, authorizing strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse seems to have mostly been taken away from the legislative branch as well; now, under the leadership of budget chief, the OMB director, much of the ability to allocate federal funds has likewise shifted to the presidency, with the administration asserting the authority to cancel congressionally authorized spending and attempting to redirect the money to other uses. It’s as if they’re enacting any laws, either; virtually all bills must currently be packed into spending packages, massive recurring must-spend omnibus legislation that can bypass the filibuster. But when those don’t pass – and increasingly, they do not – the federal government simply shuts down. That is, big parts of the administration do – and it’s uncertain how many people are aware. At present, the government has been closed all month; there are no signs of it reopening anytime soon. But the executive branch continues humming along.

And so the question of dominance of Congress can appear rather moot. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a controlling share in a institution that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

In what way ‘screw Trump’ rhetoric could help the state of California’s Proposition 50 prevail

And yet Prop 50, California’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could deliver five more congressional positions to the Democratic Party if it is approved by voters in a special election in the coming weeks, has seized the political imagination of liberals across the country. Partly, it is a belated response to trends occurring elsewhere: GOP-led states have long embraced extreme partisan gerrymandering while large blue states such as the Golden State, New York and the Evergreen State create their district lines via nonpartisan 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 measure is explicitly intended as a response to a mid-decade redistricting that was recently approved in Texas, which implemented boundaries that will give Republicans an five more seats in the state’s House representation next year; similar redistricting moves are under way in states such as Missouri and the Hoosier State. (The left in the Old Dominion are also emulating the state’s example in seeking to redistrict.)

The California initiative seems probable to pass, as Democratic and liberal voters react with concern and frustration to the president’s authoritarian consolidation of power and seek ways to check his most extreme tendencies. But Prop 50 is not free from debate. Some critics warn that the action could backfire, with blue states’ efforts to redistrict triggering a revenge 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 critiqued the proposal on strictly principled democratic bases: a district that is drawn in such a manner that the outcome of the election is never really in question, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it means, inevitably, that the influence of opposing views is muted, and that the process of debate, discussion and persuasion that is supposed to characterize a functioning democratic process will be confined only to party primaries, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable considering each of these criticisms on their own terms. The first argument, that Prop 50 will provoke the right to alter their respective districts in retaliation, does not hold up as a causal point: it is illogical to say that the GOP will be made to behave in antidemocratic ways by the left’s measures when they are already doing so in the absence of those steps. The Republican party, it can be noted, has not needed any incentive of retaliation to change maps that secure long-term seats for themselves: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the total absence of similar actions by the left, for a long time.

The second objection, I think, is more substantive, reflecting not just a tactical disagreement about how to confront the GOP’s undemocratic turn, but a kind of melancholic desire for a different country than the one that the US has turned into. It is true that in a more ideal world – in the world that the majority of the left, it is believed, desire and hope for – the proposition would be distasteful to our principles, and not mandated by our situation. It is not good to pack and crack targeted demographics; it is harmful for elected officials to choose their constituents, instead of the reverse; it is negative that elections are made uncontested. That these actions have become essential in order to impede the autocratic advance of Trump’s power and reduce the amount of harm he is able to cause is sad; it is a indication of how much we have declined from something more like a representative government. But they are necessary. Only after the fight against Trumpism has been won that we can lament what fighting it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch does not in reality have lawmaking, military or budgetary authority, what is it, precisely, that Prop 50’s five new Democratic house members will be dispatched to Washington to do? One thing that Congress still holds is subpoena power, and the ability to investigate. Even in our era of stagnant politics and congressional atrophy, it has utilized of that authority to significant impact. In 2027, if Prop 50 passes and the state’s new Democrats are take office, they will find themselves a member of a body with the authority to probe Trump, to broadcast their investigations into his actions and to force associates of his close advisors to testify. It’s significant, and crucially, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a news outlet columnist