Former Vice President Kamala Harris is calling for sweeping changes to two of America’s most powerful institutions, renewing a constitutional debate as Democrats seek control of Congress in November.
By Lucretia Hughes Klucken
WASHINGTON, — Former Vice President Kamala Harris is advocating for expanding the U.S. Supreme Court, changing the Electoral College and granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, proposals that have reignited debate over the future of America’s constitutional institutions.
During an appearance Tuesday on the Baby, This is Keke Palmer podcast, Harris outlined changes she believes Democrats should pursue if they regain control of Congress in the November midterm elections.
Harris argued that increasing the number of Supreme Court justices would help restore what she described as the constitutional principles the nation’s highest court was established to protect.
The former vice president also called for reconsidering the Electoral College, arguing that presidential elections should more directly reflect the national popular vote.
Her remarks come nearly two years after she lost the 2024 presidential election to President Donald Trump, who defeated Harris in both the Electoral College and the nationwide popular vote.
Supreme Court Expansion Raises Concerns
The Supreme Court has maintained nine justices since 1869, although Congress has the constitutional authority to change the number.
Proposals to expand the court have historically generated controversy, particularly when the political party seeking expansion disagrees with the court’s ideological composition.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the court in 1937 after several New Deal programs faced constitutional challenges. His proposal encountered significant opposition, including resistance from members of his own Democratic Party.
Critics of modern expansion proposals argue that adding justices could undermine judicial independence and encourage future administrations to alter the court whenever its decisions become politically inconvenient.
Supporters contend that expansion could address concerns about ideological imbalance and restore public confidence in the judiciary.
Legal analyst Y. David Scharf, chairman of Morrison Cohen LLP, warned in comments to Fox News Digital that Harris’ proposals could establish a dangerous political precedent.
Scharf argued that changing longstanding institutions in response to unfavorable political outcomes risks weakening confidence in the constitutional system.
Electoral College Changes Face Constitutional Obstacles
Harris also renewed her support for changing how Americans elect their president.
Under the current system, presidential candidates compete for electoral votes allocated to individual states rather than winning solely through the national popular vote.
The Electoral College was established under Article II of the Constitution and subsequently modified by the 12th Amendment.
Eliminating the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, including approval by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
A simple congressional majority would not be sufficient.
Supporters of the Electoral College argue that the system preserves the influence of smaller states and maintains the federal structure of presidential elections.
Opponents contend that the system can produce presidents who lose the national popular vote and gives disproportionate attention to competitive battleground states.
Harris did not provide a detailed legislative proposal explaining how Democrats would secure the constitutional support necessary to eliminate or fundamentally restructure the system. Fox News
Statehood Proposals Could Reshape Congress
The former vice president also expressed support for granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, provided residents support the proposals.
Both measures have been longstanding Democratic priorities.
Statehood would give the newly admitted states representation in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, potentially altering the balance of political power in Washington.
Supporters argue that residents deserve full congressional representation.
Opponents question the constitutional implications of granting statehood to the nation’s capital and raise concerns about the political consequences of admitting additional states.
Unlike abolishing the Electoral College, admitting new states generally falls within Congress’ authority under Article IV of the Constitution, although Washington, D.C., presents additional constitutional questions because of its federal district status.
Harris Faces Questions About Political Future
Harris’ renewed push for institutional changes comes as Democrats prepare for the November elections and speculation continues about whether she will seek the presidency again in 2028.
The former vice president has not announced another presidential campaign.
According to reporting by The Associated Press, Harris is preparing to campaign for Democratic candidates in several states, including Georgia, Wisconsin and Nevada, during the final weeks before the midterms.
Her political future remains uncertain following her 2024 defeat, with some Democratic strategists questioning whether she can rebuild the coalition necessary for another successful presidential nomination. AP News
Constitutional Debate Moves Into Election Season
Harris’ proposals highlight a growing disagreement between Democrats and Republicans over whether longstanding American institutions require fundamental restructuring.
Supporters view the changes as opportunities to modernize government, strengthen representation and address concerns about the judiciary.
Critics argue that expanding the Supreme Court and fundamentally altering presidential elections could introduce greater political instability and weaken institutional safeguards.
The debate also raises questions about the limits of congressional authority and the constitutional amendment process.
With the November midterm elections approaching, voters will determine which party controls Congress and whether proposals involving the Supreme Court, Electoral College and statehood receive additional legislative attention.
For now, Harris’ comments have placed some of the country’s most consequential constitutional questions back into the national political conversation.
The central question remains whether Americans want to reform the institutions established by the Constitution or preserve the existing framework that has governed the nation for generations.
Original article
Comments