Kamala Harris Calls for Major Supreme Court Shakeup

Former Vice President Kamala Harris is calling for sweeping changes to America’s political system, including expanding the Supreme Court, reforming the Electoral College and considering statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

The proposals come just weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, as Democrats fight to regain control of Congress and challenge President Donald Trump’s agenda.

During an October 13 appearance on actress Keke Palmer’s podcast, Baby, This Is Keke Palmer, Harris argued that winning congressional majorities should be about more than stopping Republican policies. She wants Democrats to consider structural reforms that could reshape American government for generations.

“I believe that we need to expand the Supreme Court,” Harris told Palmer, arguing that additional justices could help produce a court more closely aligned with what she considers the Constitution’s underlying principles.

The proposal would represent a major departure from more than 150 years of tradition.

The Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869, although the Constitution does not specify how many judges must serve. Congress determines the size of the court through federal law.

Supporters of expansion argue that changes could address concerns about the court’s ideological balance, particularly following controversial rulings involving abortion rights, presidential immunity and federal regulatory authority.

Critics, however, warn that expanding the court for ideological reasons could encourage future presidents and congressional majorities to add their own justices, potentially undermining the court’s independence.

Harris also took aim at the Electoral College, arguing that Americans should have greater confidence that their votes matter in presidential elections.

“The popular vote has to matter,” she told Palmer.

Under the current system, presidential candidates compete for electoral votes awarded by states rather than winning office solely through the national popular vote.

That distinction has produced elections in which the candidate receiving the most votes nationwide did not win the presidency, including Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Trump.

Harris herself lost both the popular vote and Electoral College to Trump in 2024.

Changing the Electoral College system would be considerably more complicated than expanding the Supreme Court.

Because the system is established in the Constitution, replacing it with a national popular vote would generally require a constitutional amendment, approved by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Simply winning control of the House and Senate would not give Democrats enough authority to eliminate it.

Harris did not outline a detailed legislative proposal during the interview, but she made clear that she believes the issue deserves renewed attention.

The former vice president also raised the possibility of granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, provided their residents support the change.

Advocates argue that statehood would give residents fuller representation in Congress and greater influence over federal decisions affecting their lives.

Washington, D.C., residents pay federal taxes but have no voting representation in the Senate and only a nonvoting delegate in the House.

Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory whose residents are American citizens, also lacks voting representation in Congress and does not participate in presidential general elections.

Opponents of statehood have raised questions about constitutional requirements, political consequences and, in Puerto Rico’s case, the territory’s future relationship with the federal government.

Beyond constitutional reform, Harris emphasized the immediate consequences of the upcoming midterm elections.

She argued that a Democratic Congress could challenge Republican health care and spending policies, including reductions to federal Medicaid spending enacted under Trump’s administration.

Harris warned that those policies could affect families who depend on government health coverage, particularly children, older Americans and people with disabilities.

She also criticized cuts to scientific research and called for renewed investment in affordable child care.

For Harris, those concerns are closely connected to the broader question of whether Americans believe government is responding to their needs.

The former vice president argued that regaining Congress would give Democrats the ability to investigate administration decisions, exercise oversight and pursue legislation addressing household expenses.

But her proposals have already drawn criticism from conservatives.

Y. David Scharf, an attorney and chairman of Morrison Cohen LLP, warned in comments to Fox News Digital that changing the size of the Supreme Court could establish a troubling precedent.

He pointed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unsuccessful 1937 effort to expand the court, which faced opposition from members of his own Democratic Party.

Scharf also noted that the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed reservations about expanding the court, warning that doing so could make the judiciary appear partisan.

The disagreement reflects a longstanding debate over whether major changes to government institutions strengthen democratic accountability or risk making those institutions more vulnerable to political pressure.

Meanwhile, Harris is facing questions about her own political future.

The former vice president has not ruled out another presidential campaign in 2028, but she remains publicly undecided.

Her comments arrive amid reports of skepticism from some Democratic donors and strategists who believe she has not sufficiently distinguished herself from her unsuccessful 2024 campaign.

In interviews with Politico, several party insiders questioned whether Harris has developed a new political identity or offered a compelling reason for another presidential run.

Longtime Democratic strategist Doug Herman, who worked on Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, criticized her approach, arguing that she had missed opportunities to become more involved in shaping the party’s direction.

Other Democrats have defended Harris, saying her willingness to discuss Supreme Court expansion, voting reforms and statehood represents a substantive policy agenda.

Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, an adviser to Harris, has pushed back against suggestions that the former vice president lacks new ideas.

The debate underscores the challenges facing Democrats as they prepare for an election that could determine the direction of the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

Although Harris is not on the ballot, she remains an influential voice within the party and is expected to campaign for Democratic candidates in competitive races.

Her latest remarks also highlight a larger question Democrats may eventually have to answer: If they regain political power, should they focus primarily on reversing Republican policies or pursue changes to the institutions that shape how that power is exercised?

For now, Harris is making her position clear.

She wants Democrats to consider substantial reforms to the Supreme Court, presidential elections and congressional representation while addressing immediate concerns such as health care and affordability.

Whether those proposals gain sufficient political support remains uncertain, particularly given the significant legal and constitutional barriers involved.

But with the midterms approaching and the possibility of another presidential campaign still hanging over her future, Harris has once again placed herself at the center of a national debate about the direction of American democracy.