This story was updated with further comment from Richter at 2:29 p.m.
Republican House challenger David Richter wants Rep. Andy Kim (D-Marlton) to oppose court packing, but he already has.
The former Hill International CEO on Monday called for Kim to oppose court packing, which some Democrats have floated as a means to regain control of — or at least whittle down the Republican hold on — the U.S. Supreme Court following the nomination of U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
“The voters of the Third District deserve to know how their representative intends to vote on this critically important issue,” said Richter. “In order to preserve the court, both now and into the future, I am calling on Andy Kim to join me in rejecting any attempts at packing the Court.
But Kim, a first-term incumbent, is already on record against court packing.
The congressman or his campaign have more than once said he opposed expanding the number of seats on the court in recent weeks. He told News 12 New Jersey’s Alex Zdan as much on Oct. 5, and a spokesman reiterated that stance to (Bergen) Record columnist Charlie Stile last week.
“David Richter knows Andy already publicly stated that he supports keeping the Supreme Court at nine justices. Andy said so in an October 5th interview where David was also a guest,” Kim communications director Andrew Mamo said. “This is a lazy attempt to mischaracterize Andy’s stance on an incredibly important American institution, and I’d ask David to stop misleading voters.”
After this story was published, Richter issued a follow-up statement that charged Kim’s opposition to court packing was insufficient because he was asked whether he supported keeping the Supreme Court to nine justices “right now.”
“Given Rep. Kim’s habit of breaking his promises to voters, like promising to vote against Nancy Pelosi and then voting for her, the above statements are woefully insufficient,” Richter said. “And certainly any statements by campaign spokesmen are meaningless to bind the congressman. We called on Rep. Kim to firmly commit to voting against court packing and he has failed to do so. Our demand stands.”
Richter also called for a constitutional amendment locking the court to its current size.
“In Congress, I intend to support a constitutional amendment that would set the size of the Court at nine Justices,” he said. “This is not a partisan issue. It is simply a matter of maintaining the checks-and-balances of our current system of government.”
Such an amendment would likely fail. The process to amend the U.S. Constitution requires two-thirds majority votes in both chambers of congress and, eventually, the approval of 38 state legislatures. Republicans control only 29 statehouses.