The crop of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders includes many impressive leaders, but as news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health re-emerges as a topic of concern, it is important to keep in mind that none of the candidates are being fully frank with voters about the likelihood that the Supreme Court will overturn or sharply curtail key laws and regulations that they manage to enact.

The Democrats’ policy proposals include desperately needed reforms to fight climate change, cut gun violence, reduce economic inequality, fix the broken immigration system, expand access to health care, and end hyper-incarceration. As well, Democrats plan to fix democracy by banning voter suppression, dark money and gerrymandering.

What the candidates are not explaining to the voters, however, is that even if Democrats return to power in 2021, and even if they manage to enact solutions to address the policy emergencies facing this nation, Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues on the bench are unlikely to allow the reforms to ever see the light of day.

This nine-member court, as currently composed, cannot be trusted to protect our fundamental rights — and it could get worse, much worse, if Trump has another appointment or two to the bench. It’s time to seriously consider an expansion of the court.

Why would a court that allowed unlimited dark money in politics, that gutted the Voting Rights Act, and that put its seal of approval on hyper-partisan gerrymandering permit Congress to restore democracy?

The answer is that it would not.

Nor would the court tolerate reforms that address other critical problems. Take gun violence. There is a bipartisan consensus that, at very least, limited safety laws are needed. As the conservative justices signaled in their 5-4 decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, however, they will not tolerate gun safety laws. The same goes for laws addressing climate change, immigration, race and labor.

Many voters continue to believe that the court stands above the partisan fray, and that the justices apply the law in an even-handed manner divorced from partisan ends. Nothing could be further from the truth. Thanks to a generation of ruthless judicial politics on the part of the GOP and the Federalist Society, the court has become a partisan institution, and the justices are best thought of as politicians for a specific partisan agenda, not independent jurists.

Even Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was widely viewed as a centrist, was a highly partisan justice. An exhaustive review of his record by 538.com concluded that “he voted with the court’s right wing in the majority of cases … [and] occupied the ideological middle ground on relatively few issues.” With few exceptions, in other words, the ostensibly moderate Kennedy Court acted as a partisan shill for the GOP and for corporations and the billionaire class.

And now that Brett Kavanaugh has replaced Kennedy, the court is even more extreme.

But some continue to suggest that Chief Justice Roberts is a moderate who will prevent the Supreme Court from issuing dangerous rulings. This is not true. Original data collected by Take Back the Court show that Roberts is a staunch right-wing conservative, and that his reputation for moderation is not warranted by his record. Our data show that Roberts has been one of the most conservative justices since joining the Supreme Court and that there is essentially no partisan difference distinguishing his record from those of Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas and Scalia.

Fortunately, there is a solution to repair the Supreme Court. If Democrats return to power in 2021, and if they eliminate the Senate filibuster, they can pass a law expanding the size of federal courts including the Supreme Court, thus undoing the damage of Mitch McConnell’s theft of seats and illegitimate confirmations. In turn, laws and regulations that Congress enacts to address the nation’s core problems would withstand judicial review.

Despite concerns about retaliation, the risk of escalating responses from conservatives is overstated. Conservatives have already broken norms to steal the court, and if the GOP steals it again, the country won’t be any worse off than today. Cycling between Republicans stealing the court and Democrats restoring it is far better than unilateral surrender.

The size of the court has changed eight times in U.S. history, and there is no requirement in the Constitution for a fixed number of justices. Indeed, the nation’s founders understood that the way to deal with partisan efforts to steal Supreme Court seats was to address the problem head on by adding seats to undo the norm-breaking. After Thomas Jefferson won the presidential election, the outgoing Congress eliminated a seat to try to prevent him from filling it. He responded by working with Congress to add that seat back as soon as he took office.

Democratic presidential candidates should help voters understand that if the court is not expanded, few if any of their bold policy ideas will survive. Given the multiple threats facing this country, candidates who don’t get that point or who fail to explain it to voters should not be taken seriously as candidates.

Aaron Belkin is a professor of political science at San Francisco State University and founder of Take Back the Court. Kate Kendell is the former executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Campaign Manager at Take Back the Court.