Ruthless Plan: Kamala Harris Targets 13 Justices

Kamala Harris speaking at a podium with microphones — Photo: Sheila Fitzgerald / Shutterstock

Kamala Harris told a New Hampshire audience that Democrats should expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices and be “ruthless” in pushing structural reforms if they win.

Story Snapshot

Harris endorsed expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices at a New Hampshire event.
She tied court expansion to broader “structural” reforms and said Democrats must be “ruthless” but not cruel.
She urged a fresh look at the Electoral College and said the popular vote should matter.
She cited statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., and overturning Citizens United as goals.

Harris Calls For A 13-Justice Supreme Court

Kamala Harris said Democrats “have to expand the Supreme Court” and named 13 justices as the target. She linked the number to the count of federal circuit courts. She made the remarks during a recorded appearance in Manchester, New Hampshire, where she took questions on rights and elections. The event was published as part of a recorded series and shared in full online. Separate reporting on the same swing through New Hampshire also quotes her support for court expansion and related reforms.

Harris’s numerical case drew quick attention because it relies on a circuit count that does not by itself set the Court’s size. The United States Constitution does not fix the number of justices, and Congress has changed it several times in history. Supporters can point to that legal pathway. Critics can argue that motives matter when changing a branch’s makeup. The New Hampshire reporting flagged the circuit rationale as a factual slip that opponents are likely to repeat.

“Ruthless” As Uncompromising Accountability, Not Cruelty

Harris told the audience Democrats should be “ruthless,” then defined the word to avoid confusion. She said she meant being firm and uncompromising about accountability and consequences, not being cruel. She framed this stance as needed to carry out structural reform if voters hand Democrats power. The exchange appears in the recorded discussion, which centered on how to turn anger into action after recent policy fights and court rulings.

The event also placed court expansion within a larger plan. Harris described “structural work” that would include the Supreme Court, and she urged changes she argues would strengthen democratic input. She highlighted the Electoral College as an area that deserves a fresh look. She also backed statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., and called for overturning the campaign finance ruling in Citizens United. Local coverage summarized these priorities from her New Hampshire swing.

Electoral College Debate And Scope Of The Agenda

Harris said the popular vote should matter and that the Electoral College needs a critical review. She did not name a specific path, such as a constitutional amendment or an interstate compact. Academic work notes that replacing the Electoral College by amendment is unlikely soon, which shapes what any reform could look like. Reporting from New Hampshire aligns her comments with a push to make national vote totals count more directly in choosing presidents.

The record so far shows campaign and event videos, not a bill or a formal party platform. The reporting and recordings establish her positions, but they do not identify legislative text, a timeline, or a nomination plan to reach 13 justices. That gap matters because Congress, not candidates, would have to pass a law to change the Court’s size. The Constitution leaves the number to Congress, and history records several past changes to the bench.

Why This Fight Matters Across The Political Spectrum

These proposals land in a larger fight over how much to change the rules of government when many think the system is not working. Backers say expansion and election reforms could better reflect voters’ will. Opponents warn that changing the Court’s size could harden partisan control. Research on public views finds voters react poorly to moves they see as politicizing courts, but they respond better to neutral, rules-based arguments. That tension will shape how this push is received.