The drivers of public support for militant democracy measures remain largely unknown despite the increasing relevance of such interventions in the context of far-right executive aggrandizement projects. This is even more relevant in Eastern European democracies, where strong constitutional provisions for militant democracy coexist with low levels of trust in mainstream parties and politicised judiciaries. While a limited number of studies have investigated mass preferences for party bans, there is no literature on citizens’ views regarding individual bans or the annulment of elections. We address this gap by drawing on the results of a national survey of Romanian voters, who have recently witnessed several controversial rulings of the Constitutional Court, justified using militant democracy arguments. Our findings indicate that priming mainstream voters to think about the problematic aspects of militant democracy interventions reduces their support for them. The negative effect is amplified among voters who perceived the Constitutional Court as highly politicised, depending on their views of party hegemony, and among older cohorts. On the contrary, exposure to an information treatment containing positive historical and contemporary examples of militant democracy does not make a difference.
