As democracy has come under pressure in multiple contexts over the recent years, scholars have studied why citizens may choose to tolerate or resist democratic backsliding by elected leaders. Bringing political culture to bear on this puzzle, we ask how normative commitment to democracy among voters and parties alike shapes these dynamics. Our approach explicitly integrates both the demand- and supply-side dimensions. In a vignette experiment conducted among Czech respondents, we explore which kinds of political parties are more likely to retain voter support when proposing democratic transgressions as well as which kinds of voters are more easily swayed by elites to tolerate such transgressions. Our findings indicate that voter commitment to liberal democracy plays a greater role than party positions on democracy: on average, voters with high commitment to liberal democracy judge transgressions more harshly than the supporters of parties highly commited to liberal democracy. Even when the in-party justifies a proposed transgression, it is still unable to flip voters’ assessment of the democratic nature of a proposal. These results shed light on the sources of democratic resilience and the importance of factoring citizens’ level of democratic commitment in when assessing the trade-offs they may be willing to make in the face of co-partisan democratic transgressions.