🔗 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 authority to declare war, traditionally viewed as a crucial legislative power, has turned into a murky prerogative of the presidential office in the time since the 9/11 attacks; Trump, in recent months, has asserted even more of that power for himself, authorizing strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea.

The authority over spending seems to have largely been stripped from the legislative branch as well; now, under the leadership of management and budget director, Russell Vought, much of the ability to allocate government money has also defaulted to the presidency, with the White House claiming the authority to abort congressionally authorized expenditures and attempting to redirect the funds to other uses. It’s as if they’re passing any legislation, anyway; virtually all bills must currently be packed into spending packages, massive recurring essential omnibus legislation that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when those don’t pass – and more and more, they don’t – the government simply ceases operations. That is, large sections of the government do – and it’s uncertain how many people notice. At present, the government has been shut down for the entire month; there are little indication of it reopening in the near future. But the presidency keeps on humming along.

And so the question of dominance of Congress can seem rather irrelevant. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a controlling share in a body that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

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

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s redistricting referendum that could deliver five additional congressional positions to the Democratic Party if it is embraced by the electorate in a special election in the coming weeks, has seized the political imagination of liberals across the country. Partly, it is a delayed reaction to trends happening in other states: Republican-controlled states have long adopted extreme biased redistricting while large Democratic-controlled such as California, New York and Washington draw their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an imbalance that has resulted in narrowly split control of the House and a long-term sense, by Democrats, that their political group is at a disadvantage. The state proposal is clearly intended as a countermove to a mid-decade redrawing of maps that was recently approved in Texas, which installed maps that will give Republicans an five more positions 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. (Democrats in the Old Dominion are also following the state’s lead in attempting to alter districts.)

The California initiative seems probable to pass, as progressive voters react with concern and anger to Trump’s authoritarian centralization of authority and look for ways to restrain his most extreme tendencies. But the proposition is not without controversy. Some opponents caution that the move could backfire, with blue states’ efforts to redistrict triggering a revenge cycle in which red states do even more to design their districts so as to eliminate any chance of Democratic competitiveness. Different critics have critiqued the measure on strictly principled pro-democracy bases: a electoral area that is drawn in such a way that the outcome of the election is not in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely representative: it means, inevitably, that the influence of dissenting views is muted, and that the process of deliberation, discussion and convincing that is supposed to define a functioning 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 first argument, that the measure will spur the right to redraw their own maps in retaliation, fails as a logical point: it is illogical to claim that the GOP will be made to behave in undemocratic ways by the left’s measures when they are already doing so without those actions. The GOP, it can be noted, has not needed any incentive of retaliation to redraw maps that secure 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 objection, I think, is more substantive, reflecting not just a strategic disagreement about how to address the GOP’s anti-democracy shift, but a sort 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 situation – in the reality that most the left, I think, yearn for and aspire to – the proposition would be distasteful to our principles, and not required by our situation. It is undesirable to manipulate targeted population groups; it is harmful for politicians to choose their constituents, instead of the other way around; it is negative that votes are rendered uncontested. That these measures have grown necessary in order to impede the autocratic advance of the president’s power and reduce the amount of suffering he is able to cause is sad; it is a indication of how far we have declined from something more like a representative government. But they are necessary. It is only once the fight against Trumpism has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has made us.

If Congress fails to in reality have legislative, military or appropriations power, what is it, precisely, that Prop 50’s additional five blue house members will be sent to Washington to do? One aspect that Congress still retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to investigate. Even in our time of stagnant government and congressional atrophy, it has made use of that power to great effect. In 2027, if Prop 50 is approved and California’s additional Democrats are take office, they will find themselves a part of a institution with the power to probe Trump, to televise their hearings into his actions and to force members of his inner circle to testify. It’s not nothing, and crucially, it’s not anything that any Republican would do.

• The columnist is a Guardian US columnist