Former Vice President Kamala Harris expressed support for expanding the United States Supreme Court and reforming the Electoral College during a podcast interview released on Tuesday, October 13, 2026. Speaking with actress and host Keke Palmer on the “Baby, This Is Keke Palmer” podcast, Harris outlined a series of structural and legislative changes that she said Democrats should pursue if the party wins back control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections.

In addition to judicial and electoral changes, Harris pointed to affordable child care and potential statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico—contingent on the wishes of residents in those territories—as key priorities for a Democratic-led Congress, according to Fox News. Her comments arrive amid an ongoing debate on Capitol Hill regarding the structure of the nation’s highest court and the mechanisms governing federal elections.

Proposals for the Judiciary and Electoral System

During her appearance on Palmer’s podcast, which Fox News highlighted on October 14, Harris stated that Democrats should work to add seats to the Supreme Court. She argued that appointing additional justices could help the bench reinforce the spirit and principles of the U.S. Constitution. On the topic of presidential elections, Harris urged lawmakers to push for what is possible to alter the Electoral College, asserting that the national popular vote should carry weight in determining outcomes.

Reporting varies regarding the exact specifics of the judicial expansion Harris favors. According to the account of the podcast interview cited by Fox News, Harris did not specify a target number of justices for an expanded bench. However, The Hill reported on October 13 that Harris has supported expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices alongside her calls for Electoral College reform, situating her comments within a wider discussion among Democrats about overhauling the judiciary.

A report from Politico published on October 12 placed Harris’s remarks within a broader push for Democrats to pursue changes to democratic institutions following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act. According to Politico, these institutional discussions encompass the Electoral College, the structure of the Supreme Court, the voting age, and possible statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

Legislative Context and Competing Capitol Hill Measures

Harris’s remarks intersect with active legislative disputes in Washington over the size and rules of the Supreme Court. Democratic lawmakers have introduced multiple distinct bills aimed at reshaping the judiciary, though the podcast excerpts do not establish that Harris has formally endorsed every specific congressional measure.

According to the New York Post, citing reporting from Fox News Digital, congressional proposals put forward by Democrats include legislation from Rep. Al Green of Texas to expand the bench from nine to 13 justices, as well as a separate measure from Rep. Ro Khanna of California to establish 18-year terms of active service for newly appointed justices. Other Democratic initiatives seek to impose enforceable ethics requirements on the justices and mandate greater transparency regarding the court’s emergency rulings, frequently referred to as its “shadow docket.”

Democratic proponents of court reform have expressed frustration over several recent Supreme Court decisions, alleging that the rulings are rooted in politics rather than legal precedent. Conversely, Republican lawmakers and critics contend that Democratic efforts to overhaul the court are a partisan reaction to unfavorable judicial outcomes. A critic quoted in Fox News’s coverage noted that the Supreme Court has maintained nine justices since 1869 and argued that expanding the bench would set a dangerous precedent.

In September, House Republicans attempted to advance a constitutional amendment to permanently fix the Supreme Court at nine justices, but the measure failed in the House after falling short of the two-thirds majority required for passage. Voters interviewed on Capitol Hill expressed similarly divided perspectives on the issue, with some telling Fox News Digital that adding one or two justices or implementing term limits could foster consensus, while others argued that changing the court’s size is motivated by political bias and that the institution should remain unaltered.

Addressing Public Criticism on the Campaign Trail

Beyond institutional policy, Harris used the October 13 podcast appearance to discuss her personal life and her ongoing efforts campaigning for Democratic candidates ahead of the midterm elections. According to Yahoo Entertainment, Palmer—who previously interviewed Harris in 2023—asked the former vice president how she balances her personal life with the pressures of being a public figure.

Harris acknowledged that managing both sides of her life can be “very difficult” and directly addressed online jokes and memes targeting her laugh. She stated that critics who mock her demeanor are attempting to diminish her strength.

“Those who try to take your joy are trying to make you weak, and that’s where my fight comes in,” Harris told Palmer. “There is nothing you can do to me that will take my joy; you are not that powerful.” She added that her laugh reflects her upbringing in a family of strong women “who laughed from their bellies.”

What It Means for Voters and Policy

While Harris’s comments highlight key priorities for Democratic voters ahead of the midterm elections, enacting structural changes to the judiciary or the presidential election system requires overcoming substantial legislative and constitutional hurdles. Below is a breakdown of the practical questions surrounding these proposals.

Does Harris mean abolishing the Electoral College, or changing how it operates?

In the interview excerpt reported by Fox News, Harris called for “changing” the Electoral College and stated that the popular vote must matter, without detailing a specific legislative or constitutional mechanism. It remains unspecified whether she favors outright abolition or procedural adjustments. A critic quoted by Fox News characterized the proposal as an effort to eliminate the Electoral College and warned against altering the electoral system in response to election outcomes.

What constitutional or legislative steps are required to enact these reforms?

Altering the size of the Supreme Court or establishing new ethics standards can be pursued through standard federal legislation, which requires passage in both the House and the Senate alongside the president’s signature—the benchmark Harris referenced when tying her proposals to Democrats winning back Congress. However, as noted by critics in Fox News’s reporting and demonstrated by the House’s September vote on the nine-justice cap, amending the U.S. Constitution—which would be required to formally abolish the Electoral College or permanently lock in the court’s size—requires a two-thirds majority vote in Congress and ratification by the states.

How do Harris’s positions compare with specific bills in Congress?

Harris’s remarks on the podcast functioned as broad policy priorities rather than a detailed legislative blueprint. While The Hill reported she has supported a 13-justice court—which aligns with the number proposed in Rep. Al Green’s legislation—the available reporting does not indicate whether she specifically endorses separate congressional measures such as Rep. Ro Khanna’s proposal for 18-year judicial term limits.

Sources

Read More