🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? In the second Trump administration, it can be hard to tell. The power to initiate armed conflict, traditionally viewed as a vital congressional authority, has become a murky prerogative of the executive branch in the years since September 11; Trump, in the past few months, has claimed even more of that power for himself, authorizing military actions on boats in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse seems to have mostly been stripped from the legislative branch as well; now, under the office of budget chief, Russell Vought, much of the power to allocate government money has also defaulted to the presidency, with the administration asserting the ability to cancel congressionally authorized expenditures and attempting to move the funds elsewhere. It’s not like they’re enacting any legislation, either; almost all legislation must now be crammed into budget reconciliation bills, huge recurring must-spend omnibus legislation that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when those fail to be approved – and more and more, they do not – the federal government just shuts down. At least, big parts of the administration shut down – and it’s uncertain how many citizens notice. At present, the government has been shut down all month; there are no signs of it resuming operations anytime soon. But the presidency keeps on operating smoothly.

And so the question of dominance of Congress can appear rather irrelevant. Why should U.S. citizens care who holds a majority in a institution that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

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

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could deliver five more congressional positions to the Democratic Party if it is embraced by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has captured the attention of progressives across the country. In part, it is a belated reaction to trends happening elsewhere: Republican-controlled states have for a long time embraced extreme partisan gerrymandering while large blue states such as California, New York and the Evergreen State create their maps via nonpartisan independent commissions, an imbalance that has led to narrowly split control of the House and a long-term sense, by the left, that their party is at a disadvantage. The California proposal is explicitly intended as a countermove to a mid-term redistricting that was recently approved in Texas, which installed maps 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 the Show-Me State and Indiana. (Democrats in Virginia are also emulating California’s lead in seeking to alter districts.)

The state initiative seems likely to pass, as progressive electorate react with concern and frustration to the president’s autocratic centralization of power and seek methods to restrain his worst tendencies. But the proposition is not without controversy. Some critics warn that the action could backfire, with Democratic-controlled states’ efforts to change districts setting off a retaliatory pattern in which red states do even more to draw their districts so as to eliminate any chance of Democratic competitiveness. Others have questioned the proposal on strictly principled pro-democracy grounds: a electoral area that is drawn in such a manner that the result of the vote is never really in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely democratic: it means, inevitably, that the power of opposing voices is muted, and that the procedure of debate, discussion and persuasion that is meant to characterize a healthy democratic process will be limited only to party primaries, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable taking each of these criticisms on their merits. The initial argument, that the measure will spur the right to alter their own maps in response, does not hold up as a causal point: it is illogical to say that Republicans will be compelled to behave in undemocratic ways by the left’s 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 change maps that secure permanent positions for their party: they have been ready to do this for their own benefit, in the complete absence of Democratic reciprocation, for years.

The other critique, in my view, is more significant, reflecting not just a tactical disagreement about how to confront the GOP’s anti-democracy turn, but a sort of melancholic wish for a different country than the one that the United States has turned into. It is accurate that in a more ideal situation – in the world that the majority of the left, it is believed, desire and aspire to – the proposition would be distasteful to our principles, and not mandated by our circumstances. It is not good to manipulate 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 actions have grown essential in order to slow the authoritarian creep of Trump’s power and reduce the level of harm he is capable to cause is sad; it is a sign of how much we have fallen from a state more like a representative government. But they are required. Only after the fight against Trumpism has been won that we can lament what opposing it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch does not in practice have legislative, war making or budgetary power, what is it, precisely, that the proposition’s additional five blue house members will be sent to Washington to do? One thing that the House and Senate still holds is subpoena power, and the ability to examine. Even in our era of stagnant government and legislative decline, it has made use of that power to significant impact. In 2027, if the measure is approved and California’s new representatives are sworn in, they will become a part of a institution with the power to probe Trump, to televise their investigations into his actions and to compel associates of his close advisors to testify. It’s not nothing, and crucially, it’s not something that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a news outlet columnist