NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate provides the Northwest Progressive Institute's uplifting perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Wednesday, March 9th, 2022

A majority of Washington State voters favor expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court

A major­i­ty of like­ly 2022 Wash­ing­ton State vot­ers favor expand­ing the size of the Unit­ed States Supreme Court from nine to thir­teen mem­bers to make it a more diverse and rep­re­sen­ta­tive body, NPI’s research has found.

50% of 700 like­ly 2022 vot­ers sur­veyed last month for NPI by Pub­lic Pol­i­cy Polling said they strong­ly or some­what sup­port­ed pass­ing leg­is­la­tion to expand the Court, while 41% were strong­ly or some­what opposed. 8% were not sure.

Visualization of NPI's poll finding on U.S. Supreme Court expansion

Visu­al­iza­tion of NPI’s poll find­ing on U.S. Supreme Court expansion

In Con­gress, Sen­a­tors Ed Markey, Eliz­a­beth War­ren, and Tina Smith have intro­duced the Judi­cia­ry Act of 2021, which would expand the Court to con­sist of twelve Asso­ciate Jus­tices and one Chief Jus­tice (thir­teen total). It’s a very sim­ple bill, and it con­sists of just a few para­graphs, which are as follows:

To amend title 28, Unit­ed States Code, to allow for twelve asso­ciate jus­tices of the Supreme Court of the Unit­ed States.

Be it enact­ed by the Sen­ate and House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca in Con­gress assembled,


This Act may be cit­ed as the “Judi­cia­ry Act of 2021”.


Sec­tion 1 of title 28, Unit­ed States Code, is amend­ed by strik­ing “a Chief Jus­tice of the Unit­ed States and eight asso­ciate jus­tices, any six of whom shall con­sti­tute a quo­rum” and insert­ing “a Chief Jus­tice of the Unit­ed States and twelve asso­ciate jus­tices, any eight of whom shall con­sti­tute a quorum”.

Only one mem­ber of the Wash­ing­ton State con­gres­sion­al del­e­ga­tion has gone on record as sup­port­ing the Court’s expan­sion: Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Prami­la Jaya­pal of the 7th Con­gres­sion­al Dis­trict. In an arti­cle pub­lished on Mon­day, The Stranger’s Rich Smith explained that he tried to find out where the rest of the state’s con­gres­sion­al del­e­ga­tion stands on the mat­ter, but got very few responses:

When asked, com­mu­ni­ca­tions staff for Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, Mar­i­lyn Strick­land, and Maria Cantwell did not respond to requests for com­ment on the bill. (I asked some of the Repub­li­cans, but hon­est­ly I gave up halfway through typ­ing out the email address for Rep. Cathy McMor­ris Rodger­s’s com­mu­ni­ca­tions direc­tor, because why.)

A spokesper­son for Sen­a­tor Pat­ty Mur­ray said the sen­a­tor rec­og­nized that Repub­li­cans “fun­da­men­tal­ly under­mined” the “integri­ty and inde­pen­dence” of the courts over the last four years, is “absolute­ly invest­ed in fig­ur­ing out how we restore that trust,” but does not sup­port the Jus­tice Act.

She does, how­ev­er, “sup­port the Con­sti­tu­tion, which grants Con­gress the pow­er to set the num­ber of fed­er­al judges — includ­ing for the Supreme Court.” Isn’t that a nice thing to say?

Rich then added:

Though no Wash­ing­ton Demo­c­rat in Con­gress would say why they haven’t signed onto the bill, they’re like­ly refus­ing to com­mit because only 26% of Amer­i­cans think Con­gress should pass such a law, though near­ly 30% don’t have an opin­ion or don’t know.

And with an elec­tion com­ing up this fall, Repub­li­cans say they can­not wait to slam Democ­rats for sup­port­ing “court packing.”

Sen­a­tor Rick Scott told Politi­co, “I can tell you we do our work over at the NRSC and it’s res­onat­ing. The pub­lic doesn’t like it. Repub­li­cans and Democ­rats, nei­ther of them like it.”

The research we’re releas­ing today shows that, at least in Wash­ing­ton State, the pub­lic is sup­port­ive of U.S. Supreme Court expansion.

50% is a major­i­ty, and it’s about twice the lev­el of sup­port as that Morn­ing Con­sult poll that Rich linked to in the excerpt above (26%).

This find­ing just goes to show that state-lev­el polling can be very dif­fer­ent than nation­al polling. And it’s pos­si­ble that in the months and years to come, nation­al and state sup­port will grow, espe­cial­ly after the Court over­turns Roe v. Wade.

(I say when because every indi­ca­tor we have sug­gests the Court’s six-mem­ber right wing bloc is pre­pared, by the end of the cur­rent term, to join a major­i­ty opin­ion gut­ting the Court’s pre­vi­ous hold­ings sup­port­ing repro­duc­tive rights.)

Here’s the full text of the ques­tion we asked, and the answers we received:

QUESTION: Arti­cle III of the Unit­ed States Con­sti­tu­tion gives Con­gress the respon­si­bil­i­ty of deter­min­ing the size of the Unit­ed States Supreme Court and the estab­lish­ment of all low­er courts. Do you strong­ly sup­port, some­what sup­port, some­what oppose or strong­ly oppose the pas­sage of leg­is­la­tion to expand the size of the Unit­ed States Supreme Court from nine mem­bers to thir­teen mem­bers to make it a more diverse and rep­re­sen­ta­tive body?


  • Sup­port: 50% 
    • Strong­ly sup­port: 39%
    • Some­what sup­port: 11%
  • Oppose: 41%
    • Some­what oppose: 9%
    • Strong­ly oppose: 32%
  • Not sure: 8%

Our sur­vey of 700 like­ly 2022 Wash­ing­ton State vot­ers was in the field from Thurs­day, Feb­ru­ary 17th through Fri­day, Feb­ru­ary 18th, 2022.

It uti­lizes a blend­ed method­ol­o­gy, with auto­mat­ed phone calls to land­lines (50%) and text mes­sage answers from cell phone only respon­dents (50%).

The poll was con­duct­ed by Pub­lic Pol­i­cy Polling for the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute and has a mar­gin of error of +/- 3.7% at the 95% con­fi­dence interval.

More infor­ma­tion about the survey’s method­ol­o­gy is avail­able here.

Our ques­tion con­sist­ed of three ele­ments: (1) a fac­tu­al expla­na­tion of what the Con­sti­tu­tion says about the judi­cial branch, (2) a syn­op­sis of the Judi­cia­ry Act of 2021, and (3) a sim­ple ratio­nale for pass­ing it. Our goal was to ask about Court expan­sion as neu­tral­ly as pos­si­ble to find out what peo­ple real­ly think.

Not sur­pris­ing­ly, Demo­c­ra­t­ic vot­ers are very sup­port­ive. 78% of them favor expand­ing the Supreme Court. Repub­li­can vot­ers’ oppo­si­tion is iden­ti­cal to that fig­ure: 78%. That was actu­al­ly pleas­ant­ly sur­pris­ing, because some­times we see Repub­li­can oppo­si­tion to ideas that we’re test­ing in the high eight­ies or the nineties. Vot­ers who iden­ti­fy as inde­pen­dent, mean­while, are some­what split. 49% present­ly oppose court expan­sion, and 44% are supportive.

Those who oppose expand­ing the size of the Court but agree that the Court needs to be reformed have sug­gest­ed alter­na­tives, like doing away with life­time appoint­ments in favor of terms that expire. But get­ting rid of life­time appoint­ments would require amend­ing the Unit­ed States Constitution.

Expand­ing the Court would entail pass­ing a bill in the House, abol­ish­ing the fil­i­buster to pass a bill in the Sen­ate, and get­ting a pres­i­den­tial signature.

That’s doable with a stronger Demo­c­ra­t­ic tri­fec­ta, where­as amend­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion requires exten­sive Repub­li­can coop­er­a­tion at two lev­els: in Con­gress (where a two-thirds vote of each cham­ber would be need­ed) and in state­hous­es (three-fourths of the states have to rat­i­fy a con­sti­tu­tion­al amendment).

Such coop­er­a­tion is most assured­ly not going to be forth­com­ing, no mat­ter how much some reform­ers pine for some good ‘ol bipartisanship.

Hav­ing suc­cess­ful­ly packed the Court to their lik­ing already, Repub­li­cans are not going to par­tic­i­pate in enact­ing any scheme that would unpack it.

Expand­ing the Court to thir­teen mem­bers would ush­er in a new major­i­ty, but it would be a nar­row one. There would still be six right wing jus­tices on the Court who would have a lot of influ­ence and might occa­sion­al­ly pre­vail in a case. They would just be bal­anced out by a total of sev­en more pro­gres­sive justices.

There is noth­ing par­tic­u­lar­ly mag­i­cal or spe­cial about the num­ber nine. When the Unit­ed States Supreme Court was first cre­at­ed fol­low­ing rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion, it did not have nine mem­bers — it had six:

The Judi­cia­ry Act of 1789 is passed by Con­gress and signed by Pres­i­dent George Wash­ing­ton, estab­lish­ing the Supreme Court of the Unit­ed States as a tri­bunal made up of six jus­tices who were to serve on the court until death or retire­ment. That day, Pres­i­dent Wash­ing­ton nom­i­nat­ed John Jay to pre­side as chief jus­tice, and John Rut­ledge, William Cush­ing, John Blair, Robert Har­ri­son and James Wil­son to be asso­ciate jus­tices. On Sep­tem­ber 26, all six appoint­ments were con­firmed by the U.S. Sen­ate.

It was­n’t until 1869, more than half a cen­tu­ry lat­er, that the size of the Court was increased to nine mem­bers by Con­gress. It has been nine since then.

Pres­i­dent Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt mem­o­rably pro­posed expand­ing the Court in the 1930s, but the leg­is­la­tion he request­ed was not approved by Congress.

How­ev­er, around the same time that Roo­sevelt (who was frus­trat­ed that the Court kept inval­i­dat­ing New Deal leg­is­la­tion) asked Con­gress to expand the Court, a key jus­tice, Asso­ciate Jus­tice Owen Roberts, became more sym­pa­thet­ic to the admin­is­tra­tion’s posi­tion, bring­ing an end to the so-called Lochn­er era, in which the Supreme Court often sided with busi­ness inter­ests against the pub­lic interest.

In recent years, anoth­er Roberts — Supreme Court Chief Jus­tice John Roberts, appoint­ed by George W. Bush — has occa­sion­al­ly played a sim­i­lar role, notably vot­ing with the Court’s more pro­gres­sive bloc to uphold the Patient Pro­tec­tion Act and rein­ing in his most rabid right wing colleagues.

But with Amy Coney Bar­rett hav­ing tak­en Ruth Bad­er Gins­burg’s place, John Roberts is no longer the deci­sive swing vote on the Court, and can­not pre­vent it from accept­ing and act­ing on oppor­tu­ni­ties to over­turn prece­dents like Roe and enabling Repub­li­cans to rig elec­tions for their ben­e­fit even if he want­ed to.

The Supreme Court, in its cur­rent incar­na­tion, has sad­ly become a grave threat to the health and sur­vival of Amer­i­can democracy.

The Court is also an unrep­re­sen­ta­tive body, as our ques­tion allud­ed to.

It has no Native Amer­i­can mem­bers, no Asian Amer­i­can mem­bers, and no Pacif­ic Islander mem­bers. It has no LGBTQ+ mem­bers, no mem­bers liv­ing with dis­abil­i­ties, and no mem­bers younger than the age of fifty.

Ketan­ji Brown Jack­son’s arrival will help, but the Supreme Court still won’t be prop­er­ly rep­re­sen­ta­tive and diverse even after her confirmation.

After decades of right wing dom­i­nance, with no end in sight, Con­gress has an oblig­a­tion to rebal­ance the Unit­ed States Supreme Court and make it more diverse. And a major­i­ty of Wash­ing­ton State vot­ers already sup­port enact­ing leg­is­la­tion in the U.S. House and the U.S. Sen­ate to do just that.

Adjacent posts

  • Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation

    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local politics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t run ads or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for money.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy journalism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time donation

  • NPI’s essential research and advocacy is sponsored by: