Kamala Harris Calls for Expanding Supreme Court and Changing Electoral College if Democrats Regain Control of Congress

Former Vice President Kamala Harris is renewing her push for major changes to America’s political institutions, calling for additional Supreme Court justices, reforms to the Electoral College and potential statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico if Democrats regain control of Congress.

During a Tuesday appearance on the “Baby, This is Keke Palmer” podcast, Harris outlined an ambitious agenda that would significantly alter the structure of the federal government and the way presidential elections are conducted.

The former Democratic presidential nominee argued that winning back the House and Senate would give her party an opportunity to pursue institutional changes that go beyond traditional legislative priorities.

Harris specifically called for expanding the nine-member Supreme Court, arguing that additional justices are necessary to produce decisions more consistent with her interpretation of the Constitution.

She also advocated reconsidering the Electoral College, emphasizing that the national popular vote should carry greater weight in presidential elections.

Her remarks come less than three weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, when Democrats will attempt to regain control of Congress from Republicans.

The proposals have already attracted criticism from conservatives and legal experts who warn that changing the size of the Supreme Court for political reasons could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Harris defended her position by arguing that structural reforms are necessary to address what she views as problems within the country’s democratic institutions.

The Supreme Court currently has nine justices, a number established by Congress in 1869.

Although the Constitution creates the Supreme Court, it does not specify how many justices must serve on it. Congress has the authority to change the court’s size through legislation.

Expanding the court would therefore be legally possible without amending the Constitution, although doing so would require congressional approval and either presidential approval or a successful override of a veto.

That distinction is important because Democrats winning control of Congress would not automatically give them the ability to expand the court while President Trump remains in the White House.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority, reflecting appointments made by Republican presidents, including three justices nominated during Trump’s first term.

Harris and other Democrats have criticized several major decisions issued by the conservative majority, particularly those involving abortion, presidential authority and federal regulatory powers.

Supporters of court expansion argue that increasing the number of justices could address concerns about the court’s ideological composition and restore public confidence.

Opponents counter that adding seats to change the court’s ideological balance would create a precedent allowing whichever political party controls Washington to expand the judiciary whenever it disagrees with judicial decisions.

Y. David Scharf, chairman of the law firm Morrison Cohen and head of its Government Strategies and Controversies practice, criticized Harris’s proposal.

Scharf argued that changing the court’s structure in response to political disagreements could weaken judicial independence and encourage future administrations to pursue similar changes.

He also pointed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unsuccessful 1937 proposal to expand the Supreme Court, which encountered resistance even from members of Roosevelt’s own Democratic Party.

The historical comparison has become central to the debate over court expansion.

Roosevelt proposed adding justices during a period of conflict between his administration and the Supreme Court over New Deal legislation.

Critics accused him of attempting to influence judicial outcomes by changing the court’s membership rather than accepting its decisions.

The proposal ultimately failed, but it remains one of the most frequently cited examples in modern discussions of court packing.

Former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also expressed reservations about expanding the court, warning in 2019 that changing its size could make the institution appear increasingly partisan.

Harris’s latest comments revive those concerns at a time when the Supreme Court is already a major subject of political disagreement.

The former vice president also renewed her support for changes to the Electoral College, the constitutional system used to elect American presidents.

Under the current system, voters select presidential electors allocated to each state, and a candidate generally must secure at least 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Because electoral votes are distributed by state rather than awarded strictly according to the nationwide popular vote, a presidential candidate can win the White House without receiving the most votes nationally.

Harris argued that the system should be reconsidered to give greater importance to the total number of votes cast across the country.

Her proposal reflects a longstanding Democratic debate over whether the Electoral College should be replaced or modified.

Supporters of a national popular vote argue that every ballot should carry equal weight regardless of where a voter lives.

Defenders of the Electoral College maintain that the existing system preserves the role of individual states in presidential elections and encourages candidates to build geographically diverse coalitions.

Unlike expanding the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment.

Such an amendment would generally need approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

That process makes fundamental changes to the Electoral College considerably more difficult than passing ordinary federal legislation.

Harris’s comments did not establish a detailed legislative strategy for achieving the proposed changes.

The former vice president previously raised similar ideas during a July appearance at the National Urban League Conference in Nashville, Tennessee.

At that event, Harris suggested revisiting the possibility of expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices, corresponding to the number of federal judicial circuits.

She also discussed reconsidering the Electoral College and supporting statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

Her latest interview indicates that those proposals remain part of the agenda she wants Democrats to consider as they approach the midterm elections.

Harris’s position represents a shift from her 2024 presidential campaign, when she emphasized Supreme Court ethics reforms and term limits rather than directly advocating an increase in the number of justices.

During that election, she lost both the Electoral College and the national popular vote to President Trump.

Trump secured 312 electoral votes to Harris’s 226 and won the popular vote by approximately 2.3 million ballots.

The former vice president’s support for Electoral College reform has therefore attracted additional scrutiny because she is advocating changes to the system following her electoral defeat.

However, proposals to eliminate or reform the Electoral College have circulated among Democrats for decades and predate Harris’s presidential campaigns.

Harris also discussed the possibility of granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, provided the people affected support those changes.

Washington, D.C., residents currently elect a nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives but do not have voting representation in Congress.

Puerto Rico similarly elects a nonvoting resident commissioner to the House and has no voting senators.

Granting statehood to either jurisdiction would significantly change congressional representation and could affect the balance of political power in Washington.

The issue is particularly contentious because Republicans have frequently argued that Democrats support statehood partly because of its potential political consequences.

Supporters of statehood maintain that the central issue is ensuring full congressional representation for American citizens living in those jurisdictions.

Puerto Rico’s political status is also complicated by longstanding disagreements among residents over statehood, independence and other possible arrangements.

Harris framed the proposals as part of a broader effort to reconsider the structure of American government.

Despite focusing on institutional reforms, she also discussed more immediate legislative priorities.

The former vice president argued that Democrats could use congressional majorities to oppose Republican spending policies and pursue greater federal investment in affordable child care.

She criticized proposed Medicaid reductions and accused the administration of undermining medical research programs through its opposition to certain diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Harris specifically raised concerns about research involving fibroids, a medical condition that can affect women’s reproductive health.

She argued that Democratic control of Congress would provide opportunities to challenge those policies and prevent additional changes she opposes.

Her remarks come as she prepares for an expanded campaign schedule supporting Democratic candidates in several states.

Harris is expected to make appearances in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Georgia and Nevada during the final stretch before Election Day.

The campaign activity has renewed speculation about whether she intends to seek the Democratic presidential nomination again in 2028.

Harris has repeatedly declined to rule out another presidential campaign but has not announced a decision.

Her political future remains a subject of debate within the Democratic Party following her defeat to Trump in 2024.

Some Democratic strategists believe her experience as vice president and presidential nominee could provide a foundation for another campaign.

Others have questioned whether she has sufficiently distinguished herself from the Biden administration or addressed the political weaknesses that contributed to her defeat.

Recent reporting has highlighted skepticism among Democratic donors and strategists about whether Harris should become the party’s presidential nominee again.

Her renewed support for Supreme Court expansion and Electoral College reform could become an important part of that debate.

For progressive Democrats, institutional changes have become an increasingly prominent subject as the party considers how to respond to conservative judicial decisions and Republican control of the federal government.

For Republicans, the proposals raise concerns about the long-term consequences of changing constitutional institutions to address political disagreements.

The Supreme Court debate is particularly significant because expanding the judiciary could alter its ideological composition for decades.

At the same time, the Electoral College proposal raises fundamental questions about how presidential elections should balance the national popular vote with representation among individual states.

Neither proposal could be implemented simply because Democrats win a congressional majority in November.

Any Supreme Court expansion would face substantial legislative and presidential obstacles, while eliminating the Electoral College would require the much more demanding constitutional amendment process.

Nevertheless, Harris’s comments make clear that she wants Democrats to consider major structural changes alongside their economic and healthcare priorities.

With the midterm elections approaching and speculation about 2028 continuing, her proposals have placed the Supreme Court, Electoral College and potential statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico back at the center of the national political debate.