🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the role of Congress? During another presidency of Donald Trump, it can be hard to determine. The power to initiate armed conflict, traditionally viewed as a crucial congressional authority, has become a unclear right of the presidential office in the time since September 11; Trump, in the past few months, has asserted additional of that control for himself, conducting military actions on boats in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse appears to be mostly been stripped from the legislative branch as well; currently, under the leadership of budget chief, the OMB director, a great deal of the ability to allocate government money has likewise defaulted to the presidency, with the administration claiming the ability to cancel congressionally authorized expenditures and attempting to move the money elsewhere. It’s as if they’re enacting any laws, either; almost all legislation must now be crammed into budget reconciliation bills, massive recurring essential omnibus legislation that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when those don’t pass – and increasingly, they do not – the federal government simply ceases operations. That is, large sections of the government do – and it’s not clear how many people notice. At present, the government has been shut down all month; there are little indication of it reopening in the near future. But the presidency continues operating smoothly.

And so the issue of dominance of Congress can seem somewhat moot. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a majority in a body that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

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

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s redistricting referendum that could provide five more congressional positions to the Democratic Party if it is embraced by voters in a upcoming vote in the coming weeks, has seized the political imagination of progressives across the country. In part, it is a delayed reaction to developments occurring elsewhere: GOP-led states have long embraced extreme biased redistricting while big Democratic-controlled such as the Golden State, New York and Washington create their district lines via impartial independent commissions, an asymmetry that has resulted in closely divided House control and a long-term sense, by the left, that their party is at a disadvantage. The California proposal is clearly intended as a countermove to a mid-term redistricting that was recently approved in the Lone Star State, which implemented boundaries that will give Republicans an additional five seats in the state’s House representation next year; similar redistricting moves are in progress in states such as the Show-Me State and the Hoosier State. (The left in the Old Dominion are also following California’s lead in attempting to alter districts.)

The California measure seems probable to pass, as progressive electorate respond with fear and frustration to Trump’s authoritarian centralization of power and look for methods to check his worst impulses. But Prop 50 is not without debate. Some critics caution that the move could backfire, with blue states’ attempts to change districts triggering a revenge cycle in which red states do even more to draw their districts so as to eliminate any chance of opposition party success. Different critics have questioned the measure on strictly principled democratic 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 representative: it implies, inevitably, that the influence of dissenting views is suppressed, and that the process of deliberation, discussion and persuasion that is supposed to define a healthy democratic process will be limited only to primary elections, if it happens at all.

It is worth considering each of these objections on their own terms. The initial argument, that the measure will spur conservatives to redraw their respective districts in response, fails as a logical point: it is illogical to claim that Republicans will be compelled to act 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 not needed any motivation of retaliation to redraw boundaries that guarantee long-term positions for their party: they have been ready to do this for its own sake, in the complete lack of Democratic reciprocation, for years.

The other objection, in my view, is more substantive, expressing not just a strategic difference about how to address the Republicans’ undemocratic turn, but a kind of sad desire for a distinct country than the one that the United States has turned into. It is true that in a more ideal world – in the reality that most the left, it is believed, desire and aspire to – the proposition would be unappealing to our principles, and not mandated by our situation. It is not good to pack and crack disfavored population groups; it is not good for politicians to choose their voters, instead of the reverse; it is negative that elections are rendered uncontested. That these actions have become essential in order to slow the autocratic advance of the president’s control and reduce the level of suffering he is able to cause is sad; it is a sign of how much we have fallen from something more like a representative government. But they are required. It is only after the fight against the current administration’s ideology has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has transformed us into.

If Congress fails to in practice have legislative, war making or budgetary power, what is it, exactly, that Prop 50’s additional five blue house members will be dispatched to Washington to do? One aspect that Congress still retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to investigate. Even in our era of sclerotic politics and legislative decline, it has utilized of that authority to significant impact. In 2027, if Prop 50 is approved and California’s new representatives are sworn in, they will become a part of a body with the power to investigate Trump, to televise their hearings into his conduct and to compel associates of his close advisors to testify. It’s significant, and crucially, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist