Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) on Thursday announced his latest legislation, which also seeks to implement stricter requirements on the Supreme Court for rulings that overturn laws and proposes mandatory audits of justices’ tax returns. Wyden’s proposal comes amid other Democratic-led legislative attempts to change the high court, including Vice President Kamala Harris‘s recent openness to break the filibuster, as the 2024 election draws nearer.

Wyden’s bill represents one of the most ambitious proposals to date as Democrats fume over the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority on the high court, installed with the help of former President Donald Trump and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

The measure aims to restore “balance between the three branches of government,” Wyden said after announcing the bill. Under the legislation, each president would appoint new justices in their first and third years of office, with the goal of preventing one party from dominating the court by stacking it with their nominees.

But Wyden’s bill is unlikely to pass in its entirety, as Republicans, who control the House, are largely opposed to efforts to overhaul the court. Even Democrats face an uphill battle, with some party members hesitant to support such sweeping changes.

And other conservatives and court reform skeptics argue the bill represents little more than a politically motivated attempt to pack the court. Carrie Severino, president of the conservative judicial advocacy group JCN, described the proposal as “a blank check for people who want to harass justices” and a continuation of efforts to intimidate the court.

Another potential deterrent for Democrats to support Wyden’s bill is how unpopular court packing has become. While a USA Today-Ipsos poll from August found that 75% of people support a binding ethics code for justices, only 40% approved of expanding the court from nine to 15 justices.

“It’s still very unpopular, and yet it continues to be their go-to. I am floored as to why they would decide this is their closing argument here, as we’re approaching an election,” Severino said.

The bill also includes provisions to make it harder for the court to strike down laws. Wyden proposed requiring a two-thirds vote by the justices or circuit courts to overturn congressional legislation, arguing that narrow majorities have been too quick to curtail established rights.

The introduction of the bill comes amid a broader Democratic push to reform the Supreme Court. Other recent proposals include implementing 18-year term limits for justices and introducing an enforceable ethics code. These efforts follow a series of Democratic-driven ethics scandals involving justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who reportedly failed to disclose luxury travel and gifts funded by billionaire Harlan Crow.

The debate over the Supreme Court’s composition also resurfaced during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, where lawmakers examined the court’s recent decision finding former presidents enjoy some immunity from prosecutions. The Trump v. United States ruling is only one of the latest decisions to become a political flashpoint for Democrats who claim the Supreme Court needs measures to rein it in.

Wyden’s bill also seeks to address what he described as the politicization of the judicial appointment process. One provision would require the Senate to vote on Supreme Court nominees within 180 days, preventing the type of delay seen in 2016, when McConnell blocked former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland.

However, critics such as Severino argue that these changes, such as requiring the IRS to audit the justices’ tax returns each year, would only exacerbate political tensions surrounding the court.

“This is just an attempt to amplify the intimidation campaign against the court,” she said. “If you knew you could file frivolous motions to waste justices’ time, guess how many more would be filed?”

While Wyden hopes that elements of the bill can gain traction, the likelihood of its full passage remains slim, with both parties sharply divided in the debate over the court’s future.

The senator’s effort marks yet more evidence of how far Democrats are wiling to go to offset the Republican-leaning court under Chief Justice John Roberts, as Harris has said her willingness to skirt the filibuster would be for the purpose of restoring the Democratic-backed precedent of Roe v. Wade, which was overturned by the current high court in 2022.