On the Baby, This is Keke Palmer podcast, Harris said the high court needs more justices so it “actually reinforces the spirit and principles behind the Constitution.” She also said the popular vote “has to matter,” backed statehood pushes for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico if residents want them, and left her 2028 plans open while stressing the 2026 midterms.
Newsweek reported the remarks as Harris returned to structural changes that would alter how justices are seated and how presidents are chosen. The Constitution does not lock the Court at nine seats. Congress has changed the size before. Nine justices have sat since 1869. Newly created seats would be filled by presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.
Harris tied the project to Democrats winning back Congress. She did not lay out a detailed map for replacing the Electoral College. She did make clear she wants the national popular vote to carry more weight and wants D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood on the table if their people support it. Statehood would change representation and electoral votes. By itself it would not make the national popular vote decide the presidency.
Harris says more justices would “reinforce” the Constitution
Harris left little ambiguity on the Court.
She told Palmer:
“I believe that we need to expand the Supreme Court.”
And she added:
“We need more justices on the Supreme Court so that we can have a court that actually reinforces the spirit and principles behind the Constitution of the United States.”
The Court now holds a 6-3 conservative majority after President Donald Trump’s first-term confirmations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. That bench has issued major rulings on abortion, voting rights, presidential power, and other issues. Calls for expansion and term limits have come primarily from some Democrats. A resolution from Black, Hispanic, and progressive caucus chairs has included “enacting structural changes” to the court.
Fox News reported the same podcast push and noted expert pushback. Critic Y. David Scharf warned the proposal sets a dangerous precedent, pointing to the nine-justice standard since 1869 and past opposition that included Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Scharf said Harris claims she wants to defend democracy but offers to revise its rules when Democrats dislike the results.
In July, Trump posted on Truth Social that Democrats were openly stating plans to expand the Supreme Court, linking a Politico piece on the caucus resolution. He framed the issue as a warning to Republicans months ahead of the midterms.
Readers tracking earlier coverage of Harris’s court-packing and Electoral College proposals will recognize the same structural agenda returning in the Palmer interview.
Popular vote “has to matter,” Harris says
Harris did not outline a full replacement for the Electoral College. She said the popular vote “has to matter.” Changing the system by constitutional amendment would require two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Another route discussed in reporting is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, under which participating states would direct their electors to the national popular-vote winner once states totaling at least 270 electoral votes have joined.
A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found 63 percent of Americans preferred a system in which the candidate with the most votes nationally wins, while 35 percent favored keeping the Electoral College. Eight in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents backed replacing the Electoral College. Republicans split the other way: 53 percent favored the current system and 46 percent preferred the popular vote. Democrats won the national popular vote in seven of the eight presidential elections from 1992 through 2020. Trump won both the popular vote and the Electoral College in 2024.
The New York Post reported Harris’s call to expand the Court and change the Electoral College if Democrats take back Congress, and likewise highlighted the long-standing nine-justice norm, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s failed packing effort, and Ginsburg’s warning that expansion would make the Court look partisan.
The same structural fight has already drawn extended attention in pieces on how Harris has pressed Supreme Court expansion and Electoral College overhaul before.
Statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico stays on her list
Harris also backed pushing statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico if their residents want it. That step would change their representation in Congress and their electoral votes. It would not, on its own, convert the presidential race into a pure national popular-vote contest.
A September Marquette Law School poll found 53 percent of adults favored increasing the number of justices and 47 percent opposed. Support broke sharply by party: 68 percent of Democrats favored expansion, 35 percent of Republicans did, and 56 percent of independents were in favor.
Court fights over elections remain live elsewhere, including recent action when the Supreme Court left a $122,000 fee order standing in Arizona election litigation.
2028 still undecided; 2026 comes first
Palmer asked about another presidential run. Harris answered directly.
“I haven’t decided. I haven’t decided yet. I will, I promise.”
She put the near term first:
“’28 don’t matter if we don’t do ’26 right.”
Early primary numbers still show her in the mix. A RealClearPolling average through October 6 had Harris at 26.4 percent and California Gov. Gavin Newsom at 14.4 percent. A Financial Times/Focaldata poll conducted October 3, 6 put Harris at 30 percent and Newsom at 15 percent. On Polymarket as of early Friday morning, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York stood at 17 percent to win the Democratic nomination, Newsom at 15 percent, Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia at 14 percent, and Harris at 7 percent.
Newsweek reached out to the Office of Kamala Harris outside regular office hours for comment. No response was noted in the reporting.
Her positioning fits a longer pattern of keeping options open while building the apparatus, a theme covered when Harris built 2028 machinery while saying she remained undecided.
Harris has also shaped her own historical framing in other settings, including when she named her most effective presidents and left Joe Biden off the list.
What the proposals would actually change
Expanding the Court by statute is legally possible because the Constitution does not fix the number of seats. History shows Congress has altered the size more than once. The practical effect of adding seats under a Democratic president and Senate would be immediate new nominations and a shifted majority. That is the point of the proposal, and it is also the core of the criticism: once one party expands the Court to lock in preferred outcomes, the other party has every incentive to answer in kind.
The Electoral College path is harder. A full constitutional amendment faces the two-thirds and three-quarters barriers. The interstate compact route depends on states totaling 270 electoral votes agreeing to bind their electors to the national popular-vote winner. Harris did not specify which route she prefers beyond the claim that the popular vote has to matter and the statehood endorsements.
Trump’s 2024 win of both the popular vote and the Electoral College undercuts the older talking point that the system routinely frustrates the national majority. The older pattern from 1992 through 2020 still drives Democratic interest in changing the rules. Harris is now restating that interest out loud on a popular podcast while keeping her own next race undecided.
Americans who want a stable Court and a stable presidential system can see the trade clearly. One side is proposing to enlarge the bench and weaken the Electoral College after years of losing the judicial majority and after a cycle in which the other party won the popular vote as well. The other side is being told that “reinforcing” the Constitution requires changing the institutions that produced results Democrats reject. That is not neutral reform talk. It is a power play aimed at the next Congress and the next set of confirmations.
Voters can judge the pitch on those terms. Institutions that only count when one party likes the score do not stay institutions for long.
