Level I — Legal Eligibility
Does the candidate satisfy the constitutional and statutory qualifications that actually govern the office, such as age, citizenship, residency, and other lawful requirements?
Informed citizenship • elections • public trust
Being legally eligible to run for office answers one question. Being prepared to exercise the public's authority answers another.
Purpose
This nonpartisan civic framework gives citizens, journalists, civic organizations, debate moderators, and candidates a consistent way to examine readiness for public office. It does not create additional legal qualifications for office and does not replace constitutional, statutory, state, or local election requirements.
Three levels
Does the candidate satisfy the constitutional and statutory qualifications that actually govern the office, such as age, citizenship, residency, and other lawful requirements?
Does the candidate demonstrate sufficient understanding, judgment, preparation, and ability to perform the responsibilities and respect the limitations of the office?
Does the candidate demonstrate ethical judgment, accountability, transparency, respect for equal citizenship, and commitment to lawful constitutional government?
Core standards
Understanding the responsibilities, powers, and limitations of the office.
Recognition that public officials exercise authority under law and remain accountable to it.
Understanding the authority of other branches and levels of government.
Knowledge, experience, judgment, preparation, or demonstrated ability relevant to performing the work.
Understanding conflicts of interest, disclosure, recusal, and ethical responsibilities.
Understanding the responsibility associated with authorizing, spending, overseeing, or managing public money.
Commitment to serving constituents regardless of whether they supported the candidate.
Recognition of the obligation to protect lawful rights, including those of people with whom the officeholder disagrees.
Commitment to accurate public communication, appropriate disclosure, and correction of significant errors.
Willingness to explain decisions, acknowledge serious mistakes, and accept lawful oversight and consequences.
Standardized candidate interview
These questions are designed to be applied consistently to candidates seeking the same office. Follow-up questions may examine an answer, record, or contradiction, but the core standard should not change according to party, ideology, identity, popularity, or personal preference.
Office-specific examination
The universal questions provide a common foundation. Additional questions should address the actual authority and responsibilities of the particular office.
Executive authority, constitutional limits, commander-in-chief responsibilities, appointments, vetoes, emergency powers, foreign affairs, execution of federal law, and transfer of power.
Legislation, appropriations, oversight, constituent representation, impeachment responsibilities, and constitutional congressional authority.
Legislation, confirmations, treaties, oversight, impeachment trials, and representation of the state.
State constitutional authority, administration, budgeting, appointments, veto authority, emergencies, and relations with the legislature and local governments.
State lawmaking, appropriations, oversight, constituent representation, ethics, and state constitutional responsibilities.
Questions should be tailored to the powers actually granted to mayors, councils, boards, sheriffs, elected judges, school boards, and other offices under applicable law.
Journalism & civic questioning
Candidate scrutiny should focus on matters materially related to exercising public authority: legal eligibility, powers and limitations, constitutional knowledge, competence, judgment, ethics, conflicts, public finances, rights, truthfulness, and accountability.
The standard does not prevent investigation of a candidate's background. Prior governmental performance, professional history, financial interests, conflicts of interest, public statements, misconduct, legal matters, and other relevant records may bear directly on fitness and public trust. The principle is relevance to public responsibility and consistent scrutiny.
Citizen evaluation
Is this person legally eligible?
Do they understand the office and the limits of its power?
Have they demonstrated the competence and judgment to perform its duties?
Will they protect the constitutional rights of all citizens?
Will they accept scrutiny, lawful oversight, and accountability?
Can they be trusted with the authority citizens are delegating to them?
Your vote is not simply a choice between candidates. It is a decision about whom you will entrust with a portion of the public authority exercised in your name.
INFORM • ENGAGE • PARTICIPATE • PRESERVE
Supreme Citizens does not endorse candidates, parties, or political ideologies. This framework is designed to help citizens examine qualifications and public trust using the same civic standard.
Continue to Voting Resources