🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of Congress? During another Trump administration, it can be hard to determine. The authority to declare war, long considered a crucial legislative power, has become a murky prerogative of the presidential office in the time since September 11; the president, in the past few months, has claimed even more of that power for his administration, conducting strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse appears to be mostly been taken away from the legislative branch as well; now, under the office of budget chief, the OMB director, a great deal of the power to allocate federal funds has also shifted to the presidency, with the White House claiming the authority to cancel congressionally authorized spending and seeking to redirect the money to other uses. It’s not like they’re passing any laws, anyway; virtually all legislation must now be crammed into spending packages, huge perennial must-spend comprehensive bills that can bypass the filibuster. But when these fail to be approved – and increasingly, they don’t – the government just shuts down. That is, big parts of the government do – and it’s not clear how many citizens notice. At present, the federal government has been closed all month; there are little indication of it resuming operations in the near future. But the presidency keeps on humming along.

And so the issue of control of Congress can appear somewhat moot. Why should U.S. citizens be concerned who has a controlling share in a body that has mostly abolished itself?

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

And yet Prop 50, California’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could provide five more House seats to the Democrats if it is embraced by the electorate in a special election next month, has captured the political imagination of progressives across the country. Partly, it is a belated response to developments occurring elsewhere: GOP-led states have long embraced extreme partisan gerrymandering while large Democratic-controlled such as the Golden State, the Empire State and the Evergreen State create their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an asymmetry that has resulted in narrowly split control of the House and a longstanding feeling, by Democrats, that their political group is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The state measure is clearly intended as a countermove to a mid-term redistricting that recently passed in Texas, which implemented boundaries that will give the GOP an five more positions in the state’s congressional delegation next year; similar boundary changes are under way in states such as Missouri and Indiana. (Democrats in the Old Dominion are also following the state’s example in seeking to alter districts.)

The state initiative seems likely to be approved, as progressive electorate respond with fear and frustration to Trump’s autocratic centralization of power and look for methods to check his worst tendencies. But the proposition is not without controversy. Some critics warn that the move could have unintended consequences, with blue states’ efforts to change districts triggering a retaliatory pattern in which Republican-controlled states do additional to design their maps so as to foreclose any possibility of opposition party success. Different critics have questioned the measure on more purely principled pro-democracy grounds: a district that is drawn in such a way that the result of the election is never really in question, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it means, necessarily, that the influence of opposing views is suppressed, and that the procedure of debate, discussion and persuasion that is meant to define a functioning political system will be confined only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable considering each of these objections on their own terms. The initial argument, that Prop 50 will spur the right to alter their respective districts in retaliation, does not hold up as a logical point: it is illogical to claim that the GOP will be compelled to behave in undemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already engaging in such behavior without those steps. The Republican party, it can be noted, has required no any motivation of revenge to change maps that guarantee long-term seats for themselves: they have been ready to do this for their own benefit, in the total lack of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The other critique, I think, is more significant, reflecting not just a strategic difference about how to address the Republicans’ undemocratic shift, but a kind of sad wish for a distinct country than the one that the United States has turned into. It is accurate that in a better situation – in the reality that most Democrats, I think, yearn for and aspire to – Prop 50 would be distasteful to our values, and not required by our situation. It is undesirable to pack and crack targeted demographics; it is harmful for elected officials to choose their constituents, instead of the other way around; it is not good that elections are made noncompetitive. That these actions have grown necessary in order to slow the autocratic advance of Trump’s control and lessen the level of harm he is capable to inflict is sad; it is a sign of how far we have declined from a state more like a representative government. But they are required. Only after the battle against the current administration’s ideology has been successfully concluded that we can mourn what opposing it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch does not in reality have lawmaking, war making or budgetary power, what is it, precisely, that Prop 50’s five new blue house members will be dispatched to the capital to do? One thing that Congress continues to retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to investigate. Even in our time of sclerotic politics and congressional atrophy, it has utilized of that power to significant impact. In 2027, if the measure passes and the state’s new representatives are take office, they will find themselves a member of a institution with the authority to probe Trump, to televise their hearings into his actions and to force associates of his inner circle to testify. It’s significant, and crucially, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• Moira Donegan is a news outlet writer