WASHINGTON — House Democrats voted down a proposed constitutional amendment to lock in the number of justices on the Supreme Court at nine.
The amendment failed in a 212-206 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority needed to get it through the lower chamber. Only one Democrat, Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, voted with Republicans in support of the proposed amendment.
Republicans brought up the constitutional amendment as part of an effort to accuse Democrats of seeking to pack the high court due to its conservative majority and tie them to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
“We will have them put their money where their mouth is,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters ahead of the vote. “There’s a couple of Democrats here in the House who have suggested that they’re not on board with the Democratic Socialists of America. Just a few.”
“They’re going to get a chance to show us.”
The DSA wants to abolish the Supreme Court and replace it with a judiciary that is “subordinate to Congress.” Republicans have been hammering Democrats over the rise of the DSA in primaries.
Their proposed amendment specifically locked in one chief justice and eight associate justices on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court originally began with six justices, but that was expanded, and its nine-seat makeup has been untouched since 1869, though Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to pack it in the 1930s.
Congress has the power to expand the Supreme Court through statutory law. It would need to clear the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate.
Many prominent Democrats have floated the possibility of expanding the Supreme Court due to their frustrations with it.
“We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices like we have 13 district courts,” former Vice President Kamala Harris said at an event in July.
Over the weekend, Rep. Jim Clyburn (R-SC) similarly called for that, arguing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “a baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court.”
Proponents of the measure, such as Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), argued that it is needed to insulate the high court from political pressure or
“How can the Supreme Court protect Americans from government overreach if the same government can pack the court whenever it dislikes a ruling?” he asked during a discussion about the amendment in July.
