Historians
People who know the subject, think independently, and agree to follow public standards.
A future independent body
American Republic Commission
The proposed commission would review the health of the constitutional system using public evidence and the same standards for every party. It has not been formed and has not reviewed the current score.
This is a proposal. The commission and review panel do not exist yet. Submitted challenges currently go to a private review list.
A mix of experience
Who should be at the table?
Constitutional scholars
People who know the subject, think independently, and agree to follow public standards.
Retired judges
People who know the subject, think independently, and agree to follow public standards.
Civil liberties experts
People who know the subject, think independently, and agree to follow public standards.
Election experts
People who know the subject, think independently, and agree to follow public standards.
Political scientists, former officials, and citizens
People who know the subject, think independently, and agree to follow public standards.
Proposed safeguards
People should be able to see that the process is independent.
Disclose interests
Publish reviewers' relevant jobs, funding, political roles, and decisions to step aside. Readers should be able to judge both expertise and possible conflicts.
Keep funding away from scores
Supporters should not choose scores, block findings, or edit disagreements. Funding sources and editorial-control rules should be public.
Use a fair appointment process
Publish clear qualifications, fixed terms, and the selection process. No political party should control the organization.
Keep past records available
Leave earlier methods, evidence, decisions, and corrections online. A new scoring method should not quietly rewrite old results.
Proposed review process
How evidence becomes a public review.
- 01
Set the time period
Publish the dates covered, the scoring-guide version, and the questions being reviewed. Keep older evidence separate from new events.
- 02
Build the source record
Collect original documents, independent research, evidence pointing the other way, and any important gaps.
- 03
Score separately
At least two reviewers should use the same scoring guide on their own before comparing results. They should disclose conflicts and step aside when needed.
- 04
Show disagreement
Explain the main decision and publish other well-supported views beside it. If a score is disputed, say so clearly.
- 05
Publish and correct
Release a dated review with sources, uncertainty, and a record of changes. Keep the earlier version available and explain every correction.
Trust comes from public evidence, clear reasoning, visible disagreement, and standards that do not change when political power does.
Open evidence
The facts and sources behind every score should be public.
Clear reasoning
Every adopted score should explain how the evidence led to it.
Visible disagreement
Other serious readings of the evidence should be published.
Independent control
No political party should control the people, method, funding, or publication.
Questioning the score
Good-faith disagreement makes the work stronger.
A useful challenge names the measure in question, suggests another score, and links that view to evidence anyone can check. Explain what safeguard changed and whether you would use the same reasoning under different political leadership.
A strong challenge
“This review missed a court order that was carried out. Here are the order and proof of compliance. That changes how I view the limits on government power.”
Needs more support
“I dislike this policy, so the clock should move.” Disliking a policy does not show that a constitutional safeguard changed.
The form sends challenges to a private review list and gives you a reference number. Nothing is published automatically. A future commission should publish its decision on each serious challenge while protecting private information.