🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the role of Congress? During another presidency of Donald Trump, it can be hard to tell. The authority to declare war, traditionally viewed as a vital legislative power, has turned into a unclear right of the executive branch in the years since September 11; Trump, in the past few months, has claimed even more of that control for himself, authorizing military actions on vessels in the Caribbean Sea.

The authority over spending seems to have mostly been stripped from Congress as well; now, under the leadership of management and budget director, Russell Vought, much of the power to appropriate government money has likewise shifted to the executive, with the White House claiming the ability to abort legislatively approved spending and seeking to redirect the money elsewhere. It’s as if they’re passing any legislation, either; virtually all bills must now be crammed into budget reconciliation bills, huge recurring essential comprehensive bills that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when these don’t pass – and more and more, they do not – the federal government simply ceases operations. That is, big parts of the administration shut down – and it’s uncertain how many people notice. Currently, the federal government has been shut down for the entire month; there are no signs of it resuming operations anytime soon. But the executive branch keeps on operating smoothly.

And so the issue of control of Congress can seem rather irrelevant. Why should Americans be concerned who has a controlling share in a institution that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

How ‘screw Trump’ messaging could help California’s Proposition 50 succeed

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could provide five more congressional positions to the Democratic Party if it is approved by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has seized the attention of progressives nationwide. Partly, it is a delayed response to trends happening in other states: Republican-controlled states have for a long time adopted extreme biased redistricting while big blue states such as California, New York and Washington draw their district lines via nonpartisan independent commissions, an asymmetry that has resulted in narrowly split House control and a longstanding feeling, by the left, that their party is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The state proposal is clearly intended as a countermove to a mid-decade redrawing of maps that was recently approved in the Lone Star State, which implemented boundaries that will provide Republicans an five more seats in the state congressional delegation next year; comparable redistricting moves are in progress in states such as Missouri and the Hoosier State. (Democrats in Virginia are likewise following the state’s example in attempting to alter districts.)

The California measure seems likely to be approved, as progressive electorate react with fear and frustration to Trump’s authoritarian centralization of authority and look for methods to check his most extreme impulses. But Prop 50 is not without controversy. Some opponents warn that the action could backfire, with blue states’ efforts to change districts triggering a retaliatory cycle in which red states do additional to draw their districts so as to foreclose any chance of opposition party success. Different critics have critiqued the proposal on more purely ideological democratic bases: a district that is drawn in such a manner that the outcome of the election is never really in question, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely democratic: it implies, inevitably, that the influence of opposing voices is muted, and that the procedure of deliberation, discussion and persuasion that is meant to define a healthy democratic process will be limited only to party primaries, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable taking each of these objections on their merits. The first argument, that the measure will provoke the right to redraw their respective maps in retaliation, does not hold up as a causal point: it is illogical to claim that the GOP will be made to act in undemocratic ways by Democrats’ measures when they are already engaging in such behavior without those actions. The Republican party, it can be noted, has required no any motivation of revenge to redraw maps that guarantee permanent positions for their party: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the total lack of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The other critique, in my view, is more substantive, expressing not just a tactical disagreement about how to confront the Republicans’ undemocratic turn, but a sort of sad wish for a distinct nation than the one that the US has become. It is true that in a better world – in the world that the majority of Democrats, I think, desire and hope for – Prop 50 would be distasteful to our values, and not mandated by our circumstances. It is undesirable to pack and crack targeted demographics; it is not good for elected officials to choose their constituents, rather than the other way around; it is negative that elections are rendered uncontested. That these actions have grown necessary in order to slow the authoritarian advance of Trump’s power and lessen the amount of harm he is able to cause is unfortunate; it is a sign 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 lament what fighting it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch fails to in practice have legislative, war making or budgetary power, what is it, precisely, that Prop 50’s five new blue house members will be sent to the capital to do? One thing that Congress continues to retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to examine. Even in our era of sclerotic politics and legislative decline, it has utilized of that power to great effect. In the coming years, if the measure is approved and California’s additional Democrats are sworn in, they will find themselves a member of a body with the power to probe Trump, to televise their hearings into his conduct and to compel associates of his inner circle to give evidence. It’s significant, and crucially, it’s not anything that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist