On the evening of January 6, 2021, as the Capitol Police conducted final sweeps of the ransacked buildings and senators prepared to resume the electoral vote count, former President Donald Trump made a significant call. He requested Mark Martin, a retired North Carolina Supreme Court justice and a key adviser in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. This moment encapsulates a larger narrative about the legal machinations that sought to challenge the electoral process, revealing the intricate web of influence and strategy employed by Trump and his allies.
Martin’s role in this saga has often flown under the radar, especially when compared to other prominent figures like John Eastman, who is currently facing legal repercussions for his involvement. Despite being a central player in the efforts to reverse Trump’s electoral defeat, Martin has largely escaped the scrutiny that has befallen many of his contemporaries. His involvement included a nine-minute call with Trump, during which they discussed ways to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence into rejecting the electoral votes.
A review of records from the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack reveals that Martin’s influence extended beyond mere legal advice. He played a pivotal role in shaping strategies that targeted state legislatures, particularly in Arizona, where he advised state representative Mark Finchem on a controversial interpretation of the Constitution. This “plenary authority” theory suggested that state legislatures held absolute power to appoint presidential electors, regardless of state laws. This idea, while rooted in a selective reading of historical Supreme Court decisions, became a cornerstone of the arguments used by Trump’s allies to contest the election results.
Finchem, who emerged as a prominent figure among MAGA-aligned state legislators, credited Martin with providing the legal justification for his actions. In a memo to the Trump campaign, Finchem explicitly cited Martin’s authority, asserting that the Constitution granted state legislatures the exclusive right to appoint electors. This theory was not only legally dubious but also strategically significant, as it fueled efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the election results.
Martin’s influence did not stop at state legislatures. He was also involved in orchestrating a Supreme Court challenge that sought to directly contest the election results. His name and reputation were leveraged by other attorneys in the Trump orbit to lend credibility to their efforts. Kurt Olsen, one of the lawyers involved in these maneuvers, referred to Martin as the “brainchild” behind the strategy to file lawsuits aimed at the Supreme Court. This included the infamous Texas v. Pennsylvania case, which was swiftly dismissed by the Court, highlighting the lack of legal merit in the arguments presented.
Despite the gravity of his involvement, Martin has managed to maintain his position as a law school dean and a respected figure in legal circles. His current employer, High Point University, has issued statements asserting his commitment to the Constitution, but Martin has remained largely silent on the specifics of his actions during this tumultuous period. Critics, including his former colleague Robert Orr, have called for greater transparency, emphasizing that Martin’s status in the legal community carries a responsibility to be forthcoming about his role in the events surrounding January 6.
The legal landscape surrounding the 2020 election has been fraught with challenges, and as another election approaches, the implications of Martin’s actions continue to resonate. The Supreme Court’s recent rejection of the “independent state legislature” theory underscores the fragility of the arguments that Martin and others have championed. Yet, his name remains conspicuously absent from the broader discourse on accountability for those who sought to undermine the electoral process.
In the wake of the January 6 insurrection, many of Martin’s contemporaries have faced legal consequences for their actions, while he has largely evaded scrutiny. The January 6 committee’s failure to subpoena Martin, despite the significant number of witnesses who mentioned him, raises questions about the thoroughness of the investigation. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee’s chair, noted, it is disingenuous for Martin to claim absolution simply because he was not formally called to testify.
As the nation grapples with the aftermath of the 2020 election and the events of January 6, the role of legal figures like Mark Martin serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in the intersection of law and politics. The ongoing discourse surrounding election integrity and the rule of law will undoubtedly continue to evolve, and the contributions of those who sought to challenge the electoral process will remain a critical area of examination. In a democracy, accountability is paramount, and the legal community must confront the implications of its members’ actions during this pivotal moment in history.
