Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of Mills argue that he has not been convicted of any crime and that allegations, however serious, must be weighed against the presumption of innocence that underpins the legal and political system. They note that Mills denies the claims, and that removing a candidate from contention or withdrawing support on the basis of unproven accusations sets a troubling precedent that could be exploited to damage political opponents. Ultimately, they contend, it should be voters who weigh the allegations against his record and decide whether he remains fit to represent them, rather than media pressure or rivals pre-empting that judgement.

The case against

Critics argue that the seriousness and pattern of the allegations, coming amid a string of similar domestic abuse claims against other members of Congress, warrant real scrutiny regardless of whether criminal charges are ultimately proven, since such cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. They believe those seeking or holding public office should be held to a higher standard of accountability, and that continued endorsement of an accused lawmaker risks normalising such conduct and discouraging victims from coming forward. They also argue that voters deserve full transparency and a thorough airing of credible concerns before casting their ballots, rather than having party loyalty or endorsements overshadow the allegations.