Proportionality review in some constitutional systems proceeds through stages: whether a measure pursues a legitimate objective, whether it is rationally connected to that objective, whether a less rights-restrictive but comparably effective alternative exists, and whether the remaining burden is justified by the objective's importance. Critics fear that the final balancing stage invites judges to substitute their values for legislative choices. Defenders answer that transparent stages expose the actual tradeoffs and require government to justify rights burdens rather than hide them behind labels.