🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of Congress? In the second Trump administration, it is difficult to tell. The authority to declare war, long considered a vital legislative power, has turned into a unclear prerogative of the executive branch in the years since the 9/11 attacks; the president, in the past few months, has asserted even more of that control for himself, authorizing strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse seems to have largely been stripped from Congress as well; now, under the office of management and budget director, Russell Vought, a great deal of the power to allocate federal funds has likewise shifted to the presidency, with the administration claiming the authority to abort congressionally authorized expenditures and attempting to move the funds elsewhere. It’s not like they’re passing any laws, either; virtually all bills must currently be packed into spending packages, massive perennial essential comprehensive bills that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when those don’t pass – and increasingly, they do not – the federal government just ceases operations. At least, large sections of the administration do – and it’s not clear how many people notice. Currently, the government has been closed all month; there are little indication of it reopening anytime soon. But the presidency keeps on operating smoothly.

And so the issue of dominance of Congress can seem rather irrelevant. Why should U.S. citizens care who has a majority in a institution that has largely abolished itself?

In what way ‘screw Trump’ messaging may help California’s Proposition 50 prevail

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s redistricting referendum that could provide five additional House seats to the Democratic Party if it is embraced by the electorate in a upcoming vote in the coming weeks, has seized the attention of progressives across the country. Partly, it is a delayed response to developments happening in other states: GOP-led states have long embraced dramatic biased redistricting while large Democratic-controlled such as California, New York and the Evergreen State create their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an asymmetry that has led to closely divided control of the House and a long-term sense, by the left, that their political group is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The state proposal is explicitly intended as a countermove to a mid-decade redrawing of maps that recently passed in the Lone Star State, which installed boundaries that will give Republicans an five more positions in the state’s congressional delegation in the upcoming term; comparable boundary changes are in progress in states such as Missouri and the Hoosier State. (The left in the Old Dominion are also emulating the state’s example in attempting to alter districts.)

The California initiative seems likely to pass, as Democratic and liberal electorate react with fear and frustration to Trump’s authoritarian centralization of authority and look for ways to check his most extreme impulses. But Prop 50 is not without debate. Some critics caution that the move could backfire, with blue states’ efforts to change districts triggering a retaliatory pattern in which Republican-controlled states do even more to draw their maps so as to eliminate any possibility of opposition party success. Different critics have critiqued the proposal on more purely principled pro-democracy bases: a district that is created in such a way that the result of the election is never really in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it means, inevitably, that the power of opposing views is suppressed, and that the procedure of deliberation, discussion and convincing that is supposed to characterize a healthy political system will be confined only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is worth considering each of these criticisms on their merits. The initial argument, that the measure will spur the right to alter their own districts in response, does not hold up as a logical point: it does not make sense to say that Republicans will be compelled to act 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, it can be noted, has required no any motivation of revenge to change boundaries that secure long-term positions for themselves: they have been willing to do this for its own sake, in the complete lack of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The second objection, I think, is more significant, expressing not just a tactical difference about how to address the GOP’s anti-democracy shift, but a kind of sad wish for a different country than the one that the United States has become. It is accurate that in a more ideal situation – in the reality that most Democrats, I think, yearn for and hope for – the proposition would be distasteful to our values, and not mandated by our situation. It is undesirable to pack and crack disfavored demographics; it is not good for politicians to select their constituents, rather than the reverse; it is negative that votes are made uncontested. That these actions have grown necessary in order to impede the authoritarian advance of Trump’s power and lessen the level of suffering he is able to cause is sad; it is a sign of how far we have declined from a state more like a representative government. But they are required. It is only once the battle against the current administration’s ideology has been won that we can lament what opposing it has made us.

If the legislative branch fails to in reality have lawmaking, war making or appropriations power, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s additional five blue house members will be sent to Washington to do? One aspect 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 congressional atrophy, it has made use of that authority to significant impact. In the coming years, if Prop 50 passes and California’s new representatives are take office, they will find themselves a part of a institution with the authority to investigate Trump, to broadcast their investigations into his actions and to force associates of his inner circle to give evidence. It’s significant, and crucially, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• Moira Donegan is a Guardian US writer