State Rep. Warren Love, R-Osceola, does not actually want to see petty criminals lynched; he has apologized for a recent social media post suggesting otherwise. Likewise, state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, does not actually want to see President Donald Trump killed; she has apologized and sought forgiveness for a recent social media post suggesting otherwise.

These two legislators’ initial statements were shocking and deeply offensive. Both were immediately condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike, including calls for the lawmakers’ resignations. In response to those calls, Love and Chappelle-Nadal each clarified that they did not mean what they said in their ill-advised social media posts, and both have stated that they will not resign their seats in the legislature.

Some are suggesting that apologies are not enough, and that the legislators should vote to remove these officials from office. The Missouri Constitution does authorize each house of the Legislature to expel members, but there are several important reasons that the Missouri House and Senate should not use this authority in regard to Love or Chappelle-Nadal.

The most important consideration is that our system of government depends on the idea that voters hold the ultimate authority to decide who would best represent them in office. Expelling an elected official from office means that a group of legislators from outside of a district would be overriding the will of the voters who chose that official to represent them. Since 2004, Chappelle-Nadal’s constituents voted five times for her to represent them in Jefferson City. Love’s constituents elected him three times since 2012. Unless these legislators’ ill-advised comments on social media have generated a true wellspring of outrage coming from within their own districts, there is no legitimate justification for depriving these voters of their chosen representatives.

The First Amendment raises another important concern. In 1965 voters in Georgia overwhelmingly elected a legislative candidate who had publicly opposed the Vietnam War and stated that he admired the courage of people who burned their draft cards. Based solely on these controversial statements, the Georgia House of Representatives denied the candidate his seat in the legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, in excluding the candidate from the office to which voters had elected him simply because of his controversial statements, Georgia had violated the First Amendment. The same principles apply to the social media statements that Love and Chappelle-Nadal made. However ill-considered and offensive the statements might have been, they neither violated any laws nor disrupted legislative proceedings; expulsion is only being discussed because other legislators object to the ideas expressed in those statements. The Constitution’s protections for free speech do not permit a government entity to penalize citizens — even members of the Legislature — solely because they made a statement that others found to be offensive.

But the Legislature should not expel Love or Chappelle-Nadal because doing so would perpetuate the political gamesmanship that has been damaging our nation and alienating voters. The political insiders who control both major parties have for decades prioritized scoring political points by tearing down opponents (even those within their own parties) rather than working together to find solutions to society’s challenges. But the interests of political insiders do not necessarily align with the interests of the ordinary citizens, who simply want people they trust and respect to represent them in the government. This elevation of political expedience over people is why so many voters have become disillusioned with our political process.

The Post-Dispatch editorial board has suggested that Chappelle-Nadal, in particular, might now be unable to serve her constituents and that she might “damage her party” if she remains in office. But if Chappelle-Nadal is expelled from the Senate, her district likely will not have any representation at all in the next legislative session. Remaining in office would not only ensure that her district would have representation, it would also serve to combat the idea that the opinions of pundits and political insiders are more important than voters having their voice heard in Jefferson City. And to the extent that either political party is willing to marginalize, ignore or expel a legislator because its members choose not to forgive an ill-advised social media post, perhaps any “damage” that party might suffer is self-inflicted. Ordinary Missourians are faced with problems far greater than whether two legislators made foolish statements online that they did not actually mean and for which they have apologized. Expelling Chappelle-Nadal would not get the legislature any closer to solving those problems.

Dave Roland is the director of litigation for the Freedom Center of Missouri, a nonprofit, nonpartisan law firm devoted to protecting free expression and voters’ rights.