Courts should decide ballot fitness
Our system of government in the U.S. is popularly referred to as “democracy.” This is a partial truth. Our system is better represented by the word “republic.”
A republican (small “r”) form of government is a blending of three classical types: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The monarchical (autocratic) dimension in our system is the presidency and executive. The aristocratic component is the Senate (sixyear terms) and the Supreme Court (lifetime terms). The democratic dimension is the House of Representatives (two-year terms). Representatives have to be frequently reelected by a broad constituency of the common people (In Greek, demos).
Why do we blend these three types of rule? It is because each by itself is limited and faulty. Monarchy allows too much power in too few hands. And there is generally no dependable method of choosing a successor. The autocrat commonly chooses his/her successor, which often makes it a family member of considerably less acumen. Aristocratic rule by the educated and wealthier classes can lead to oligarchy (rule by the wealthy) and a failure to address the needs of the broader public. Pure democratic rule places political decisions with people who often do not have the education or experience to make statesmanlike choices. A constitutional republic attempts to balance these differing domains of rule. It is generally considered the best form of government. It is at times hard to maintain. The Romans had a republic for 500 years, then devolved into an empire led by autocrats.
Right now, we see people on various ends of the political spectrum — even liberals! — claiming it would be better for someone to be excluded from office via popular vote than via legal disqualification. They think a democratic rejection is superior to an aristocratic/judicial rejection. This perspective is hazardously misguided.
The courts are better qualified to decide if someone is guilty of unconstitutional behavior than is the general voting public. Judges have studied the law and Constitution in depth. Most of the public have little grasp of either. We need to remember that this is not a case of criminal trial. The person is disqualified from running, not incarcerated or fined. The criterion of “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not apply here. We need only a preponderance of evidence. And we have that in spades. The case is not murky.
A presidential candidate has been judged by a state Supreme Court to be guilty of abetting an insurrection against the U.S. Constitution (after having vowed to protect it). The court has judged, per the 14th Amendment, that this person is ineligible to be on the ballot. Most commentators agree this is a correct judicial ruling; but inconsistently, they opine it would be better to allow this candidate to run and be rejected by the electorate than legally excluded.
This rates the judgment of the broad public on this matter above that of the judiciary. But these are equally valid constituents of our system. We have professional judges in part to correct for weaknesses in popular judgement. The judiciary has a protective role to play in excluding unambiguously inappropriate candidates. The people, or the demos, with their limited understanding, might elect someone unfit. They have done it before.
We benefit from a balance of powers in government. At this juncture, the judicial exclusion of an insurrectionist from ballots nationwide is correct and desirable. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court must step up.