🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the purpose of Congress? During another Trump administration, it is difficult to tell. The authority to declare war, long considered a crucial legislative power, has turned into a unclear prerogative of the presidential office in the time since the 9/11 attacks; Trump, in the past few months, has claimed even more of that power for himself, authorizing strikes on vessels in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse seems to have largely been taken away from Congress too; now, under the office of budget chief, Russell Vought, much of the power to appropriate government money has likewise shifted to the executive, with the administration asserting the authority to cancel congressionally authorized spending and attempting to move the money to other uses. It’s not like they’re enacting any legislation, either; virtually all legislation must now be crammed into spending packages, huge recurring essential comprehensive bills that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when those fail to be approved – and more and more, they don’t – the federal government simply ceases operations. That is, large sections of the government do – and it’s not clear how many citizens are aware. Currently, the federal government has been shut down all month; there are no signs of it resuming operations in the near future. But the presidency keeps on operating smoothly.

And so the issue of dominance of the House and Senate can appear somewhat moot. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a majority in a institution that has largely abolished itself?

In what way ‘oppose the president’ rhetoric may help California’s Proposition 50 prevail

And yet Proposition 50, the Golden State’s redistricting referendum that could deliver five additional congressional positions to the Democrats if it is embraced by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has seized the attention of progressives nationwide. In part, it is a belated reaction to developments occurring elsewhere: GOP-led states have long adopted extreme biased redistricting while big Democratic-controlled such as the Golden State, New York and Washington create their district lines via nonpartisan independent commissions, an asymmetry that has resulted in narrowly split House control and a long-term feeling, by the left, that their political group is at a disadvantage. The California measure is explicitly designed as a response to a mid-term redrawing of maps that recently passed in Texas, which implemented maps that will provide the GOP an additional five seats in the state congressional delegation in the upcoming term; comparable redistricting moves are under way in states such as Missouri and Indiana. (Democrats in the Old Dominion are likewise following California’s lead in seeking to alter districts.)

The state initiative seems likely to be approved, as Democratic and liberal voters respond with fear and frustration to the president’s authoritarian centralization of authority and look for ways to restrain his worst tendencies. But Prop 50 is not free from controversy. Some opponents warn that the move could have unintended consequences, with Democratic-controlled states’ attempts to change districts triggering a revenge pattern in which red states do even more to design their maps so as to eliminate any possibility of opposition party success. Different critics have critiqued the measure on strictly ideological pro-democracy bases: a district that is drawn in such a manner that the outcome of the election is not in question, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it means, necessarily, that the power of opposing views is muted, and that the procedure of debate, discussion and convincing that is supposed to characterize a functioning democratic process will be confined only to primary elections, if it happens at all.

It is valuable taking each of these criticisms on their merits. The first argument, that Prop 50 will spur conservatives to redraw their own districts in retaliation, does not hold up as a logical point: it is illogical to say that the GOP will be made to act in undemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already engaging in such behavior without those actions. The GOP, I would observe, has required no any motivation of retaliation to redraw boundaries that guarantee long-term seats for their party: they have been willing to do this for its own sake, in the total absence of Democratic reciprocation, for years.

The second critique, in my view, is more substantive, reflecting not just a tactical difference about how to confront the Republicans’ anti-democracy turn, but a sort of sad wish for a different nation than the one that the United States has become. It is true that in a better situation – in the reality that the majority of the left, I think, desire and hope for – Prop 50 would be distasteful to our principles, and not mandated by our circumstances. It is not good to pack and crack targeted population groups; it is not good for politicians to select 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 impede the autocratic creep of the president’s power and lessen the amount of harm he is capable to inflict is unfortunate; 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 successfully concluded that we can mourn what fighting it has made us.

If the legislative branch fails to in practice have lawmaking, military or appropriations power, what is it, precisely, that the proposition’s additional five blue representatives will be dispatched to Washington to do? One thing that Congress still holds is subpoena power, and the ability to examine. Even in our time of stagnant politics and legislative decline, it has made use of that power to significant impact. In 2027, if the measure is approved and California’s new Democrats are take office, they will find themselves a part of a institution with the authority to probe the president, to televise their hearings into his conduct and to compel members of his close advisors to testify. It’s significant, and more importantly, it’s not anything that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a news outlet columnist