The evidence advisory system (EAS) is often criticized for serving to legitimize governmentpreferred policies rather than facilitating independent deliberation. Underlying this critique is a more fundamental question: Is expertise compatible with democratic governance? This article addresses that question by advancing two arguments in support of democratic expertise. First, drawing on theories of deliberative democracy, it argues that the epistemic authority of experts depends largely on the active judgment of citizens. The formation of expert consensus, which is central to EAS operations, is discussed as a working example. Second, using the framework of the politics of evidence, it contends that the legitimacy of the EAS hinges on institutional arrangements that enable the effective and democratic use of evidence. Together, these arguments clarify how ordinary citizens can develop the deliberative capacities needed to engage critically with expert knowledge.