🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the role of Congress? During another Trump administration, it can be hard to determine. The power to declare war, traditionally viewed as a vital congressional authority, has turned into a murky prerogative of the executive branch in the years since September 11; Trump, in recent months, has asserted additional of that power for his administration, authorizing strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

The authority over spending appears to be largely been taken away from Congress too; now, under the office of management and budget director, Russell Vought, a great deal of the ability to allocate federal funds has also defaulted to the executive, with the White House asserting the ability to abort congressionally authorized expenditures and attempting to redirect the money elsewhere. It’s not like they’re enacting any laws, either; almost all legislation must now be packed into budget reconciliation bills, huge recurring essential comprehensive bills that can bypass the senate obstruction. But when these don’t pass – and more and more, they don’t – the federal government simply shuts down. At least, large sections of the administration do – and it’s uncertain how many citizens notice. At present, the federal government has been shut down all month; there are little indication of it reopening anytime soon. But the presidency continues humming along.

And so the issue of dominance of the House and Senate can seem somewhat moot. Why should U.S. citizens be concerned who holds a majority in a body that has largely rendered itself powerless?

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

And yet Proposition 50, the Golden State’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could provide five more congressional positions to the Democrats if it is embraced by the electorate in a upcoming vote in the coming weeks, has captured the attention of progressives across the country. Partly, it is a delayed response to trends occurring in other states: GOP-led states have for a long time embraced extreme partisan gerrymandering while big blue states such as the Golden State, the Empire State and the Evergreen State create their maps via nonpartisan redistricting panels, an asymmetry that has led to narrowly split control of the House and a long-term sense, by Democrats, that their political group is at a disadvantage. The California measure is clearly intended as a response to a mid-term redrawing of maps that was recently approved in the Lone Star State, which implemented maps that will give the GOP an additional five seats in the state congressional delegation next year; similar boundary changes are in progress in states such as the Show-Me State and the Hoosier State. (Democrats in the Old Dominion are also emulating California’s example in seeking to redistrict.)

The California initiative seems likely to pass, as progressive voters react with fear and anger to Trump’s autocratic centralization of power and look for ways to check his worst impulses. But Prop 50 is not without controversy. Some critics caution that the move could backfire, with Democratic-controlled states’ attempts to change districts triggering a revenge pattern in which Republican-controlled states do additional to design their maps so as to eliminate any chance of Democratic competitiveness. Others have questioned the proposal on more purely principled pro-democracy grounds: a district that is drawn in such a way that the outcome of the election is not in doubt, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it implies, necessarily, that the influence of opposing voices is muted, and that the process of debate, discussion and persuasion that is supposed to characterize a functioning democratic process will be confined only to primary elections, if it occurs at all.

It is worth taking each of these objections on their own terms. The first critique, that the measure will spur the right to alter their respective districts in response, fails as a logical point: it is illogical to claim that Republicans will be compelled to act in antidemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already engaging in such behavior in the absence of those steps. The Republican party, I would observe, has not needed any motivation of revenge to redraw maps that secure long-term positions for themselves: they have been ready to do this for its own sake, in the complete lack of similar actions by the left, for years.

The second objection, I think, is more significant, reflecting not just a tactical disagreement about how to confront the Republicans’ anti-democracy shift, but a sort of melancholic wish for a distinct nation than the one that the United States has become. It is true that in a more ideal world – in the reality that the majority of the left, it is believed, yearn for and aspire to – the proposition would be distasteful to our principles, and not required by our situation. It is undesirable to pack and crack targeted demographics; it is not good for elected officials to select their constituents, instead of the reverse; it is not good that elections are rendered uncontested. That these measures have become essential in order to impede the autocratic creep of Trump’s control and reduce the level of suffering he is capable to inflict is sad; it is a indication of how much we have declined from a state more like a democracy. But they are necessary. It is only once the battle against the current administration’s ideology has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has made us.

If Congress fails to in reality have legislative, military or budgetary power, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s five new Democratic representatives will be dispatched to the capital to do? One thing that the House and Senate continues to holds is subpoena power, and the ability to examine. Even in our era of sclerotic government and legislative decline, it has utilized of that power to great effect. In 2027, if the measure is approved and the state’s additional Democrats are sworn in, they will become a member of a institution with the power to probe the president, to televise their investigations into his conduct and to force members of his inner circle to testify. It’s significant, and more importantly, it’s not something that any Republican would do.

• The columnist is a news outlet writer