Former presidential nominee and Vice President Kamala Harris this week presented a number of what she considers top Democratic Party goals, should the party retake Congress, that appear more far-left than those being pitched to potential voters during the midterm cycle. 

She expressed her views on the "Baby, This Is Keke Palmer" podcast posted Tuesday on what a Democrat-controlled Congress should try to advance including expanding the Supreme Court, changing the Electoral College and statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.

"I believe that we need to expand the Supreme Court. We need more justices," she said, while also mentioning more affordable housing and healthcare and the high cost of "groceries and gas."

She also said, "If the folks [in Congress] want it, we should push for statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C."

Such comments appear divergent from what House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries outlined as 2026 Democratic candidates' unifying message.

“Fighting for an affordable America – that’s what unites Democrats all across the country,” Jeffries said recently at the party campaign headquarters in Washington.

Still, Harris is far from alone. 

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville told party members that if they win both chambers, then the White House in 2028 should “make Puerto Rico [and] D.C. a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13” on day one, advising them to “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.” 

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., endorsed the same court expansion on Meet the Press, calling 13 justices, compared to nine now, “a pretty good number” and a “baker’s dozen.” 

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, in May introduced legislation to increase the number of high court seats to 13. Green lost his reelection bid in a party primary, and it's unclear whether another Democrat House member will champion the issue.

Washington, D.C., statehood remains a standing Democratic priority through the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which would create two new senators and a House member for a district that votes overwhelmingly Democratic. These proposals, which would add Senate seats and reshape the high court, have circulated among party figures for years and would become far more viable with control of Congress.

Narrow-margin House measures Democrats could revisit

If Democrats reclaim the House majority on Nov. 3 with even a slim edge in the next Congress, several measures they backed in the current 119th Congress that fell short by a handful of votes or nearly cleared procedural hurdles could advance, according to voting records and discharge petition tallies.

A three-year extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits, which Democrats forced toward a House vote via discharge petition and later passed 230-196, would add an estimated $80.6 billion to the deficit between 2026 and 2035, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while a permanent extension is projected to cost roughly $350 billion over a decade. 

The subsidies, which lack meaningful income caps, would likely prop up higher marketplace premiums without addressing underlying cost drivers and shift more of the burden onto taxpayers. With a narrow Democratic majority, the measure would face little resistance in the House after previously requiring Republican crossover votes to advance.

Amnesty for most

The American Dream and Promise Act, H.R. 1589, which nearly forced a floor vote after a discharge petition gathered roughly 210 signatures, would grant a pathway to permanent status for certain Dreamers and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders. 

Many Republicans argue it would reward illegal entry, expand future chain migration, and increase demand on federal programs without any accompanying border security requirements, with prior similar legislation estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to add more than $30 billion in deficit spending driven largely by expanded access to Medicaid, CHIP, and other benefits. 

A slim Democratic House majority would almost certainly clear the procedural hurdle that stalled the bill this Congress.

A congressional stock trading ban, which attracted substantial bipartisan discharge petition signatures but fell short of forcing a vote under the current majority, is frequently framed as ethics reform. 

Critics note that Democratic versions have often sought to expand restrictions to the president and executive branch in ways that could be applied selectively for political advantage rather than establishing uniform rules across government. A Democratic House majority would almost certainly secure the signatures needed to bring a version of the ban to the floor.

Amanda Head is White House Correspondent for Just the News. You can follow her here.