California Gov. Gavin Newsom now says he is "evolving" toward supporting Supreme Court expansion and wants a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, positions that place him squarely in the progressive wing's campaign to reshape American institutions.

Newsom made the remarks during a podcast interview with former CNN host Don Lemon, marking his most explicit public shift yet on whether Congress should add seats to the nation's highest court. Asked directly whether the judicial branch needed to be expanded, the governor stopped short of a flat yes but told Lemon he is moving in that direction.

The comments land as several prominent Democrats, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, who has called for expanding the bench to 13 justices, push court-packing as a live 2028 campaign issue. Newsom, widely rumored to be eyeing his own 2028 presidential bid, appears to be inching toward the same lane.

Newsom's year-long drift from 'no' to 'open'

A year ago, by his own account, Newsom would have rejected the idea outright. He told Lemon his earlier instinct was rooted in a practical worry: that any expansion would simply invite the next majority to pack the court further.

"My initial instinct, me, a year ago, I would have said no out of concern that it will continue to be expanded."

At that point, Newsom said, he preferred structural reforms, 18-year term limits and tighter ethics rules, over adding seats. He described term limits as a "no-brainer."

But his position has shifted. In a June interview with podcast host Brian Tyler Cohen, who argued in favor of expansion, Newsom conceded Cohen was "getting me closer to your point of view." By the time he sat down with Lemon, the governor went further, citing unspecified "district court arguments" as the catalyst.

"And I was making a case for the ethical reforms and term limits, 18 years, which I was making a case a year ago. I'm more open to it on the basis of those district court arguments, which are not terrible arguments."

When Lemon pressed, "Is that a yes?", Newsom hedged but kept the door wide open.

"I'm finding myself evolving on it. I normally have very clear conviction on things. I've been open to argument and interested in the evidence on this."

Newsom never identified which district court arguments changed his mind, and his office did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. That vagueness matters. A governor auditioning for the national stage is signaling a major institutional overhaul without naming a single legal rationale for it.

House Democrats already blocked a cap at nine justices

Newsom's drift comes against a backdrop of concrete legislative action, in the opposite direction. Rep. Andy Biggs, an Arizona Republican, introduced a constitutional amendment that would permanently cap the Supreme Court at nine justices, the number that has held since 1869. House Democrats voted it down.

Biggs framed the stakes in blunt terms on the House floor:

"Here's the question every American should ask: If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes rulings, what happens to the next time the other side is in power?"

That question has never received a serious answer from court-packing advocates. The logic of expansion is inherently escalatory: if one party adds seats to override rulings it dislikes, the opposing party faces enormous pressure to do the same the next time it holds power. The result is not judicial reform but judicial capture on a rolling basis.

Democrats who voted against the Biggs amendment made their preference clear. They want the option to expand the bench left on the table. Newsom's public "evolution" fits neatly into that strategy, keeping the threat alive without committing to a number or a timeline, while testing whether the base rewards the posture.

Meanwhile, the current Supreme Court continues to hand down consequential rulings. The Court recently delivered two major immigration wins for the Trump administration on TPS and asylum processing, the kind of decisions that reliably accelerate progressive demands to restructure the bench.

Newsom calls the Electoral College 'perverted'

The governor did not stop at the judiciary. He used the same interview to take aim at the Electoral College, calling the constitutional system "perverted" and arguing it warps American politics.

His case rested heavily on California's size. Newsom claimed the state's population equals that of "21 state populations combined" yet receives only two Senate seats, the same as Wyoming or Vermont. He framed this as a grievance, not a feature of the republic's federal design.

"California has already been a leader that's already gone out front saying it's time to change that system. Which state's more burdened by it than my state? We're the size of 21 state populations combined. Come on. And we have two representatives in the Senate? Come on."

He continued:

"And the way that thing favors... it's perverted, I think, our politics. The Constitution is a living document, and it was conceived to be amended, and I think it's time to make that amendment."

Newsom referenced California having already moved to change the Electoral College system, though he did not specify the mechanism. His complaint about Senate representation is a familiar progressive grievance, but it conflates two distinct constitutional structures, the Electoral College and the Senate's equal-representation design, both of which exist precisely to prevent large-population states from dominating smaller ones. The Founders built that balance deliberately. Calling it "perverted" does not make it a defect; it reveals a preference for raw majority rule.

Notably, Newsom has shown a pattern of challenging the Court's authority when its rulings conflict with his policy goals. He has vowed to defy a Supreme Court ruling on biological males competing in girls' sports, pledging that California would continue its own policy regardless. That stance raises a pointed question: does the governor want to reform the Court, or simply override it whenever it disagrees with Sacramento?

A broader Democratic alignment with the institutional left

Newsom's remarks did not occur in isolation. In a separate interview with PBS NewsHour on Monday, the governor said the Democratic Party is "pretty aligned" with the Democratic Socialists of America on issues including universal healthcare, climate change, and moving off fossil fuels. Fox News Digital noted that the DSA's stated goals include eliminating the Supreme Court entirely and replacing it with a judiciary selected by Congress.

That alignment is worth examining. A governor who says his party shares common ground with an organization that wants to abolish the Supreme Court, and who simultaneously says he is "evolving" toward expanding it, is not engaged in cautious reform. He is moving toward a structural overhaul of the judiciary, one step at a time, while maintaining just enough ambiguity to avoid committing to specifics.

Other Democratic leaders have taken varied approaches. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has demanded a Supreme Court overhaul while stopping short of endorsing expansion, a distinction that lets him claim the reform mantle without the political risk of a concrete number. Newsom appears to be following a similar playbook, though his language has moved further toward the progressive position with each successive interview.

The Supreme Court itself remains at the center of major legal and political disputes. Chief Justice Roberts recently allowed construction on a White House ballroom project to proceed while the Court weighed a related case, a reminder that the institution's decisions carry immediate, tangible consequences and that calls to reshape it are not abstract.

Reform talk without a reform plan

Strip away the podcast-friendly hedging and the picture is clear enough. Over the span of roughly a year, Newsom moved from opposing court expansion to describing himself as "evolving" toward it. He went from advocating term limits and ethics rules to calling those ideas a baseline while leaving the door open to adding seats. He called the Electoral College "perverted" and urged a constitutional amendment to eliminate it.

At no point did he name the district court arguments that changed his mind. He did not propose a specific number of justices. He did not explain how expansion would avoid the escalation cycle Biggs warned about. He did not address why abolishing the Electoral College would not simply hand presidential elections to a handful of high-population coastal states.

What he did do is send a signal, to progressive activists, to potential 2028 primary voters, and to the institutional left, that he is willing to go where the base wants him to go. The ambiguity is the point. It lets him claim moderation while moving steadily leftward on two of the most consequential structural questions in American governance.

When a politician says the Constitution needs rewriting to suit his state's political preferences, voters everywhere else should pay close attention to what comes next.