🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the role of the U.S. Congress? In the second Trump administration, it is difficult to determine. The authority to declare war, traditionally viewed as a crucial congressional authority, has turned into a murky prerogative of the executive branch in the time since the 9/11 attacks; Trump, in the past few months, has asserted additional of that control for his administration, authorizing strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea.

The power of the purse seems to have largely been taken away from Congress as well; currently, under the office of budget chief, Russell Vought, much of the power to appropriate government money has likewise shifted to the presidency, with the White House asserting the ability to cancel legislatively approved spending and attempting to redirect the funds elsewhere. It’s not like they’re enacting any legislation, either; virtually all legislation must currently be crammed into budget reconciliation bills, huge perennial essential omnibus legislation that can bypass the senate obstruction. But when those fail to be approved – and increasingly, they don’t – the federal government just shuts down. That is, big parts of the government do – and it’s uncertain how many citizens notice. Currently, the federal government has been shut down for the entire month; there are no signs of it resuming operations in the near future. But the executive branch continues operating smoothly.

And so the issue of dominance of Congress can seem rather irrelevant. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a majority in a body 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 redistricting referendum that could provide five more congressional positions to the Democrats if it is embraced by voters in a special election next month, has seized the political imagination of liberals across the country. Partly, it is a belated response to developments occurring elsewhere: GOP-led states have for a long time adopted extreme biased redistricting while big Democratic-controlled such as the Golden State, New York and Washington create their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an imbalance that has resulted in closely divided control of the House and a long-term sense, by the left, that their party is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The state measure is explicitly designed as a response to a mid-decade redistricting that recently passed in Texas, which installed maps that will give Republicans an five more seats in the state’s House representation next year; comparable boundary changes are under way in states such as the Show-Me State and the Hoosier State. (The left in Virginia are likewise emulating the state’s example in seeking to redistrict.)

The California initiative seems probable to be approved, as progressive electorate respond with fear and anger to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of power and seek ways to restrain his worst impulses. But the proposition is not free from controversy. Some critics caution that the move could have unintended consequences, with blue states’ efforts to redistrict setting off a revenge pattern 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 pro-democracy bases: a district 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 democratic: it implies, inevitably, that the power of dissenting views is suppressed, and that the procedure of deliberation, discussion and convincing that is meant to define a functioning political system will be confined only to primary elections, if it happens at all.

It is valuable taking each of these criticisms on their own terms. The first argument, that the measure will provoke the right to redraw their respective districts in response, fails as a causal point: it does not make sense to say that Republicans will be made to behave in antidemocratic ways by Democrats’ measures when they are already doing so without those steps. The Republican party, I would observe, has not needed any motivation of retaliation to redraw maps that guarantee permanent seats for their party: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the complete lack of similar actions by the left, for a long time.

The second objection, in my view, is more substantive, reflecting not just a strategic difference about how to confront the GOP’s anti-democracy turn, but a kind of sad wish for a distinct nation than the one that the US has turned into. It is accurate that in a more ideal world – in the world that the majority of the left, I think, yearn for and hope for – the proposition would be unappealing to our values, and not required by our circumstances. It is undesirable to pack and crack targeted population groups; it is harmful for elected officials to select their constituents, instead of the reverse; it is not good that votes are rendered noncompetitive. That these measures have grown essential in order to slow the authoritarian creep of the president’s power and lessen the level of harm he is able to inflict is unfortunate; it is a sign of how far we have fallen from something more like a democracy. But they are required. It is only after the fight against Trumpism has been won that we can lament what opposing it has transformed us into.

If Congress does not in reality have lawmaking, military or appropriations power, what is it, precisely, that the proposition’s additional five blue representatives will be sent to the capital to do? One aspect that Congress still holds is subpoena power, and the ability to examine. Even in our era of stagnant politics and legislative decline, it has utilized of that authority to significant impact. In 2027, if the measure passes and the state’s new representatives are sworn in, they will become a member of a body with the power to investigate the president, to televise their hearings into his conduct and to force associates of his close advisors to give evidence. It’s not nothing, and crucially, it’s not anything that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a Guardian US writer