The controversy surrounding election law continues to evolve as the American Bar Association (ABA) recently faced criticism for inviting Mark Martin, a key figure in the campaign to overturn the 2020 election results, to participate in a continuing legal education (CLE) session on election law. Martin, formerly the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, has been described as a principal architect behind the theory that the Vice President could unilaterally reject Electoral College votes—a notion that played a role in the events of January 6, 2021. For further reading on Martin’s background and involvement, his profile is available.
This decision by the ABA has raised eyebrows within the legal community, with critics questioning why such an organization would endorse an individual with a controversial role in the 2020 election context. Professor Rick Hasan, a prominent voice on election-related issues, expressed disappointment at the ABA’s decision, echoing the sentiment that such a move undermines the institution’s credibility. More on his views and the implications of the CLE event can be found in this analysis offered by Hasan.
The ABA’s choice is seen by some as a case of “bothsideism,” attempting to balance perspectives by incorporating diverse voices on their panels. However, the inclusion of Martin, known for the disputed legal theory concerning the 2020 election, is viewed as inappropriate given the stakes involved. The specific CLE session in question is titled “What Judges Should Know About Election Law”, reflecting a commitment to providing legal practitioners with the necessary insights into the evolving landscape of election litigation.
As the United States moves closer to another presidential election, the scrutiny over who is consulted as an election law expert is intensifying. With challenges surrounding election integrity and the trustworthiness of electoral processes, the pushback against Martin’s involvement highlights broader concerns about partisan influence in legal education and the long-term implications for democracy. The original discussion of Martin’s role and the surrounding debate can be viewed here.