Adding D.C. and Puerto Rico, Expanding the Court to 13: What Each Side Argues

Democratic strategist James Carville has a blunt plan for the next time his party controls Washington. On his Politics War Room podcast in April 2026, he said Democrats should, on day one, make Puerto Rico and D.C. states and expand the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13.

“Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it,” he added. Critics call it a quiet power grab.

Three different proposals are bundled in that pitch, and they do not carry the same weight. Statehood is mostly about representation. Court expansion is mostly about power. Here is what each side argues, and what is documented fact.

The Representation Gap Is Documented

The starting facts are not in dispute. Washington, D.C. has about 700,000 residents, more than Wyoming or Vermont, who pay full federal taxes and serve in the military but have no voting representation in Congress, the Brennan Center notes.

Puerto Rico is home to roughly 3.2 million U.S. citizens who cannot vote for president and have no voting members of Congress, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. In November 2024, on the highest turnout of any status vote in the island’s history, 58.6% chose statehood, a result certified in January 2025. It was the first such vote to leave the current territorial status off the ballot.

Whether and how to close those gaps is the debate. That the gaps exist is not.

The Vote Congress Has Not Answered

Puerto Rico’s vote landed in a Senate that has not acted on it. The Puerto Rico Status Act, S. 3231, would set up a binding process toward statehood, independence, or free association, but it has sat in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with no hearing and no markup since the plebiscite.

The bill is not fringe. Its lead sponsor, Sen. Martin Heinrich, is the committee’s ranking member, and it drew 26 cosponsors, the most ever for a status bill. But Republicans hold the committee 11 to 9, Chairman Mike Lee is skeptical, and without bipartisan support it goes nowhere. Puerto Rico, with no vote in Congress, has no leverage to force the question.

Statehood, For and Against

Supporters say the fix is straightforward. Congress has broad constitutional power to admit new states by simple statute, the Brennan Center notes, so statehood needs no amendment. They argue it is the cleanest way to give millions of citizens the representation other Americans take for granted.

Critics say the motive is partisan. Each new state adds two senators, and both D.C. and Puerto Rico would likely lean Democratic, reshaping Senate control. The Heritage Foundation warns of long-term budget costs and questions whether Puerto Rico has durable consensus after decades of divided votes, including a 2017 plebiscite that hit 97% statehood on only 23% turnout amid a boycott. Some opponents also raise constitutional objections to turning the federal capital into a state.

A 13-Justice Court Is a Different Question

The Constitution does not fix the Court at nine. Congress has changed the number repeatedly, from six in 1789 up to ten during the Civil War and down to seven during Reconstruction, before the Judiciary Act of 1869 settled it at nine, where it has stayed for more than 150 years.

Supporters of expansion say a Congress with that power can use it to answer years of hardball over confirmations, and some note that 13 justices would match the 13 federal circuits, an argument Take Back the Court makes. That last point is a policy preference, not a constitutional rule.

Critics warn that expanding the Court to flip its majority would normalize retaliation. When Franklin Roosevelt tried to add up to six justices in 1937, his own party’s Senate buried the plan. The Harvard Law Review and Brookings both note that once one party adds seats, the next party will too, and public trust in the Court could erode further.

The Alternatives to Packing

Expansion is not the only reform on the table. Many scholars and the Brennan Center’s Six Solutions favor 18-year term limits with regular appointments, binding ethics rules, and changes to how the Court takes cases. They argue these address the underlying problem without setting off a size war. A 2021 presidential commission studied the options without endorsing expansion.

Would It Heal or Divide

That is the real question, and it is a judgment call, not a fact. Supporters say the moves would correct structural distortions and give millions of citizens their voice. Critics say bundling representation with court expansion turns a fairness argument into a power play and deepens the cycle of brinkmanship. Reasonable people who agree on every fact above still land in different places.

What You Can Do

Tell Congress to act on both. A certified majority in Puerto Rico chose statehood in 2024, and D.C.’s 700,000 residents still have no vote. Our letter and call script below carry both asks separately, a Senate hearing on the Puerto Rico Status Act and passage of the Washington, D.C. Admission Act (H.R. 51 and S. 51).
Judge each question on its own. Representation for D.C. and Puerto Rico is a different decision from changing the size of the Court. Bundling them, as Carville does, blurs the strongest argument with the weakest.
Know who controls the calendar. The Puerto Rico bill is stuck in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Sen. Mike Lee, which has held no hearing since the 2024 vote. Pressure there, and on your own senators, is where movement starts.
Read the court-reform menu before deciding. Compare expansion with term limits and ethics rules through the Brennan Center’s reform analysis so “reform” means something specific when you weigh in.