Newsom’s Reform Shift Puts Courts and Electoral Math in Play

Gavin Newsom is reconsidering a once-firm view on the Supreme Court. During a Tuesday podcast discussion with former CNN host Don Lemon, California’s governor said he had opposed adding justices a year earlier. His main worry was that one increase could trigger another. He now says arguments involving district courts have made him more receptive. Even so, this is not a clear promise to enlarge the bench. His position remains cautious, while his interest in the evidence has grown.

Newsom sounded far more certain about other court changes. He supports ethical rules and 18-year term limits for justices. Several Democratic leaders, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, have supported adding seats. That made Lemon’s direct question especially important. Newsom’s shifting answer also raises a bigger question. Would a larger court improve fairness, or would each winning side keep changing the rules? He has not given a final answer.

Newsom was much sharper when discussing the Electoral College. He argued that the system gives California far less influence than its population should provide. The state has roughly as many residents as 21 other states combined, yet it still has only two senators. In his view, that imbalance has warped national politics. He also said the Constitution was created to allow amendments. To him, changing the presidential voting system is worth considering now.

This was not Newsom’s first signal that his thinking could change. In June, while speaking with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen, he said Cohen was moving him nearer to support for court expansion. During a PBS NewsHour interview on Monday, he also said Democrats and the Democratic Socialists of America share ground on broad health coverage, climate action, and leaving fossil fuels behind. The group favors replacing the Supreme Court with judges chosen by Congress. Meanwhile, House Democrats rejected Rep. Andy Biggs’ constitutional amendment to keep the Court at nine justices. Biggs warned that any majority could alter the Court after disliking a ruling, leaving the next majority free to do the same.