The Columbian on how voters must decide officials’ fitness to serve:

For observers on either side of the political aisle, it is easy to find examples of rambling gibberish from elected officials.

During a Tuesday Cabinet meeting in the White House, for example, President Donald Trump delivered some 24-karat nonsense as he turned the conversation to the room’s moldings: “If you paint it, it won’t look good because they’ve never found a paint that looks like gold. You see that in the Oval Office. They’ve tried for years and years. Somebody could become very wealthy, but they’ve never found a paint that looks like gold. So painting it is easy, but it won’t look right. And the question is whether or not we should gold leaf it.”

During a presidential debate last year, for another example, then-President Joe Biden said: “Making sure that we’re able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the … with the COVID, excuse me, with um, dealing with everything we have to with, uh … look, if we finally beat Medicare …”

And there is no shortage of absurdities from members of Congress, ranging from rants about space lasers causing wildfires to claiming that the three branches of government are “the House, the Senate and executive.”

Given this climate, it is interesting to consider a proposal from Washington Democrat Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. The two-term congressional representative believes members of Congress should be subject to ethics guidelines related to their mental acuity.

“I have rules up, down, and sideways about what kind of hat I can accept as a gift,” she told CNN.

“But these bigger questions about whether or not an office is being run by the person who’s elected, or their staff, have not been addressed in the way that they need to be.” In an email to constituents, she wrote, “It’s not a partisan issue — every citizen deserves to know their representative is fiercely showing up for them.”

As part of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act this year, Perez proposed an amendment calling for the Office of Congressional Conduct to create guidelines pertaining to members’ mental fitness. The amendment was rejected by the House Appropriations Committee, but it managed to raise important questions.

“Restoring public faith in Congress and building a body that is governed by elected representatives of all ages and backgrounds is a task my colleagues should view as urgent,” Perez said.

Indeed, there are cases where an official’s mental acuity is an issue. In 2023, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., continued to serve until her death at the age of 90, despite widespread concerns about her cognition. Last year, Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, went several months without casting a vote while living in a care facility and struggling with dementia.

But in most cases, it is difficult to delineate between opinions you disagree with and a lack of mental ability. Trump routinely refers members of Congress as “stupid” or “one of the dumbest” if they dare to disagree with him. This coming from a man who added at this week’s Cabinet meeting: “The only question is will I gold leaf the corners? My Cabinet could take a vote. You see the top line moldings.”

Although guidelines could be helpful, the concern is about who would determine whether a congressional member meets those guidelines. In these hyperpartisan times, claiming that somebody is mentally unfit could be easily weaponized.

Instead, the decision about an official’s fitness to serve must be left up to voters.