🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? In the second presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to tell. The power to declare war, long considered a crucial legislative power, has turned into a murky prerogative of the executive branch in the years since September 11; Trump, in the past few months, has asserted even more of that control for his administration, conducting strikes on vessels in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse appears to be largely been taken away from the legislative branch as well; now, under the office of budget chief, Russell Vought, much of the ability to appropriate government money has likewise shifted to the presidency, with the administration claiming the ability to cancel congressionally authorized spending and seeking to redirect the funds elsewhere. It’s as if they’re passing any laws, either; virtually all bills must currently be crammed into budget reconciliation bills, huge recurring must-spend omnibus legislation that can circumvent the filibuster. But when those fail to be approved – and more and more, they do not – the federal government simply shuts down. At least, big parts of the government do – and it’s uncertain how many citizens notice. Currently, the government has been shut down all month; there are little indication of it reopening in the near future. But the presidency keeps on humming along.

And so the issue of control of the House and Senate can seem somewhat moot. Why should Americans be concerned who has a majority in a institution that has mostly abolished itself?

In what way ‘screw Trump’ messaging may help the state of California’s Prop 50 prevail

And yet Proposition 50, California’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could provide five more House seats to the Democrats if it is approved by voters in a upcoming vote in the coming weeks, has captured the political imagination of liberals nationwide. Partly, it is a belated response to developments occurring elsewhere: GOP-led states have for a long time adopted dramatic biased redistricting while large Democratic-controlled such as California, the Empire State and the Evergreen State create their district lines via nonpartisan independent commissions, an imbalance that has resulted in closely divided House control and a long-term feeling, by Democrats, that their political group is at a disadvantage. The state proposal is explicitly intended as a response to a mid-decade redrawing of maps that recently passed in Texas, which implemented boundaries that will provide the GOP an additional five positions in the state’s House representation next year; similar redistricting moves are under way in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (The left in Virginia are likewise following California’s example in attempting to redistrict.)

The state measure seems probable to pass, as Democratic and liberal voters react with fear and anger to the president’s autocratic centralization of power and seek ways to check his worst tendencies. But the proposition is not free from debate. Some critics caution that the move could have unintended consequences, with blue states’ attempts to change districts triggering a retaliatory cycle in which red states do additional to draw their districts so as to eliminate any possibility of Democratic competitiveness. Others have questioned the measure on strictly principled pro-democracy bases: a electoral area that is created in such a manner that the outcome of the vote is not in doubt, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely democratic: it means, necessarily, that the influence of opposing views is muted, and that the procedure of debate, discussion and convincing that is meant to define a healthy democratic process will be limited only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable taking each of these objections on their merits. The initial argument, that the measure will spur conservatives to alter their respective districts in response, does not hold up as a causal point: it is illogical to claim that Republicans will be made to behave in undemocratic ways by the left’s measures when they are already doing so in the absence of those actions. The GOP, it can be noted, has not needed any motivation of retaliation to redraw boundaries that guarantee long-term positions for their party: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the total absence of similar actions by the left, for years.

The second critique, I think, is more significant, reflecting not just a tactical disagreement about how to address the Republicans’ anti-democracy turn, but a kind of melancholic desire for a different nation than the one that the United States has turned into. It is true that in a more ideal situation – in the reality that the majority of the left, I think, yearn for and aspire to – the proposition would be unappealing to our values, and not required by our circumstances. It is not good to manipulate targeted demographics; it is not good for politicians to choose their constituents, rather than the other way around; it is negative that votes are rendered uncontested. That these actions have become necessary in order to slow the autocratic creep of Trump’s power and lessen the level of harm he is capable to cause is sad; it is a indication of how far we have declined from something more like a representative government. But they are necessary. It is only after the battle against the current administration’s ideology has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has transformed us into.

If Congress does not in reality have lawmaking, military or appropriations authority, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s additional five Democratic house members will be dispatched to the capital to do? One thing that the House and Senate still holds is subpoena power, and the ability to investigate. Even in our time of stagnant politics and legislative decline, it has made use of that authority to significant impact. In 2027, if Prop 50 passes and the state’s new representatives are take office, they will become a member of a institution with the authority to probe the president, to televise their investigations into his conduct and to force associates of his inner circle to testify. It’s not nothing, and more importantly, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a Guardian US writer