🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the role of Congress? In the second Trump administration, it can be hard to tell. The power to initiate armed conflict, traditionally viewed as a crucial legislative power, has turned into a murky right of the executive branch in the time since the 9/11 attacks; Trump, in recent months, has asserted even more of that control for his administration, conducting military actions on vessels in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse seems to have mostly been taken away from the legislative branch too; now, under the leadership of budget chief, Russell Vought, a great deal of the power to allocate federal funds has likewise defaulted to the executive, with the administration asserting the authority to cancel legislatively approved expenditures and attempting to move the money to other uses. It’s as if they’re passing any legislation, anyway; almost all legislation must currently be packed into budget reconciliation bills, massive perennial essential comprehensive bills that can bypass the filibuster. But when these don’t pass – and increasingly, they do not – the federal government simply shuts down. That is, large sections of the administration do – and it’s uncertain how many people notice. Currently, the federal government has been shut down all month; there are little indication of it resuming operations in the near future. But the executive branch keeps on humming along.

And so the issue of control of the House and Senate can appear somewhat moot. Why should Americans care who has a controlling share in a body that has largely abolished itself?

In what way ‘oppose the president’ rhetoric could assist California’s Prop 50 prevail

And yet Proposition 50, California’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could provide five more House seats to the Democrats if it is approved by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has seized the attention of liberals nationwide. In part, it is a delayed reaction to trends occurring elsewhere: GOP-led states have long embraced extreme partisan gerrymandering while large Democratic-controlled such as California, the Empire State and Washington draw their district lines via impartial independent commissions, an asymmetry that has led to narrowly split control of the House and a long-term sense, by the left, that their political group is at a disadvantage. The California measure is explicitly designed as a response to a mid-term redistricting that was recently approved in Texas, which implemented maps that will provide Republicans an five more seats in the state House representation in the upcoming term; similar boundary changes are in progress in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (The left in Virginia are also emulating the state’s lead in seeking to redistrict.)

The state measure seems likely to be approved, as progressive electorate respond with fear and anger to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of power and look for methods to check his worst impulses. But the proposition is not free from debate. Some critics caution that the move could backfire, with Democratic-controlled states’ attempts to change districts setting off a retaliatory pattern in which red states do additional to draw their maps so as to eliminate any chance of Democratic competitiveness. Different critics have questioned the measure on strictly principled pro-democracy bases: a district that is created in such a manner that the result of the election is not in doubt, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it implies, necessarily, that the power of dissenting voices is suppressed, and that the procedure of debate, discussion and convincing that is supposed to define a healthy democratic process will be confined only to party primaries, if it happens at all.

It is valuable considering each of these objections on their merits. The initial critique, that the measure will spur conservatives to alter their respective districts in retaliation, does not hold up as a causal argument: it is illogical to claim that the GOP will be compelled to act in undemocratic ways by Democrats’ measures when they are already engaging in such behavior without those steps. The Republican party, I would observe, has required no any incentive of retaliation to redraw boundaries that secure long-term positions for their party: they have been willing to do this for its own sake, in the complete lack of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The other objection, I think, is more substantive, reflecting not just a tactical disagreement about how to address the Republicans’ undemocratic turn, but a sort of melancholic wish for a distinct nation than the one that the US has turned into. It is accurate that in a more ideal world – in the world that the majority of the left, it is believed, yearn for and aspire to – the proposition would be unappealing to our principles, and not required by our situation. It is undesirable to manipulate targeted population groups; it is harmful for elected officials to choose their constituents, rather than the reverse; it is negative that elections are made noncompetitive. That these actions have grown essential in order to impede the autocratic advance of the president’s power and reduce the amount of suffering he is capable to cause is unfortunate; it is a sign of how far we have fallen from something more like a democracy. But they are required. It is only once the battle against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can lament what fighting it has made us.

If Congress fails to in reality have legislative, military or budgetary power, what is it, precisely, that Prop 50’s five new Democratic house members will be dispatched to Washington to do? One thing that the House and Senate continues to retains is subpoena power, and the ability to investigate. Even in our era of sclerotic government and legislative decline, it has made use of that power to great effect. In 2027, if the measure passes and the state’s additional Democrats are take office, they will find themselves a member of a body with the authority to investigate the president, to televise their hearings into his actions and to compel members of his inner circle to give evidence. It’s significant, and more importantly, it’s not something that any Republican would do.

• Moira Donegan is a Guardian US writer