Former Vice President Kamala Harris urged Democrats to consider expanding the Supreme Court, pushing statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C., and rethinking the Electoral College, a set of proposals that triggered harsh Republican criticism amid a series of redistricting rulings that have favored GOP mapmakers heading into the midterms.
Harris told a Democratic nonprofit to “invite ideas” including those aimed at reshaping the highest court and other national rules, and she explicitly asked Americans to “Let’s invite ideas, for example, that are about Supreme Court reform, including the notion of expanding the court,” and to “Let’s invite a discussion about how do we push for statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C.; how are we thinking about the Electoral College.” Her language framed those moves as part of a broader strategy to retake power.
She justified the push by leveling a political charge when she said, “We’ve got to neutralize this red state cheating,” and continued, “There’s a brutality at play on the other side, and a ruthlessness. And we need to play to win.” Those lines made clear she views the fights over maps and rules as existential for her party and its ambitions.
Republican leaders didn’t hold back. House Speaker Mike Johnson blasted the idea of changing institutions when you lose, calling it reckless and warning against wrecking the system just because one side is unhappy. “It’s a dangerous thing, a dangerous gambit,” he said. “You don’t just blow up the system when you lose.”
Johnson also weighed in with fierce language aimed directly at the court-packing talk, saying, “For the former vice president of the United States and a candidate for president to suggest that you should pack the Supreme Court or destroy these institutions because they lost is I just think outrageous,” he added. That blunt rebuke framed the debate as one about preserving institutional norms over partisan advantage.
Other Republicans joined the chorus. Rep. Ralph Norman called the proposals “totally insane” and warned they were reason enough to block Harris from ever reaching the White House. “That’s why we can’t let her become president,” he said. “People … rejected her before; they’ll reject her again.”
Not every Democrat embraced Harris’ brainstorm. Rep. Jason Crow urged a different focus, saying, “I think that’s putting the cart before the horse,” and stressing basic bread-and-butter issues as priorities. “Right now I’m focusing on lowering costs, health care, ending a runaway war that’s costing Americans tens of billions of dollars. Those are the things that my constituents are talking to me about.”
The broader context is the recent string of court decisions that have reshaped redistricting politics. A Supreme Court ruling limited the role of race in drawing districts, a move that helped dismantle several Black-majority districts, and state courts have also struck down maps seen as Democratic gerrymanders. Those outcomes have handed momentum to GOP-led mapmaking efforts in many states ahead of November.
Republicans have translated those legal wins into new districts that could flip control of multiple seats, and states such as Tennessee, Louisiana, and South Carolina have moved to redraw long-standing districts in ways that favor Republican pickups. Meanwhile, Democratic efforts to counter with new maps in blue and purple states face timing and political obstacles that make them unlikely to alter the near-term battlefield.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has vowed to respond in friendly states, promising a gerrymander push in places like New York and New Jersey, but those plans often hinge on state timetables and legal hurdles that put them off until after the next election. The clash over mapmaking, court reform, and the Electoral College is now a central fault line, and it’s shaping both messaging and legislative priorities as campaigns ramp up.
