The Lingering Shadow of 2020: Prosecutions Continue as Trump Pardons Allies
The attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election continues to reverberate through the American legal system, even as the central figure, Donald Trump, secured a second term in 2024 and subsequently issued pardons to many involved in the scheme. Despite these developments,legal battles persist,raising fundamental questions about accountability and the fragility of democratic institutions.
the core of the controversy lies in the actions taken in the weeks following the 2020 election, where, despite Joe BidenS clear victory in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, 84 individuals signed false electoral certificates claiming Trump had won key battleground states. These certificates, representing nearly a third of the votes needed to overturn the election, were a direct attempt to subvert the will of the voters.
To some, these events are distant history.As one observer noted,the passage of time can make such events seem as irrelevant as “faded social-distancing stickers.” However, this perspective rests on the perilous assumption that wrongdoing diminishes with time and that the principles of fair and honest elections are contingent on political expediency.
“What we’re talking about here is an attempt to overturn the outcome of a presidential election,” explained Sean morales-Doyle, head of the voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Centre for Justice. “If people can engage in that kind of conduct without consequence or accountability, then we have to worry about it happening again.”
Recent legal developments in Nevada underscore this concern. This month, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously reinstated criminal charges against six republicans – including Nevada’s GOP chairman, Michael McDonald, and the state’s representative on the Republican National Committee, Jim DeGraffenreid – who falsely certified Trump’s victory in the state. The court’s decision centered on a procedural issue regarding the location of the trial, but the implications are clear: those who attempted to undermine the election will be held accountable.
However, the path to justice is proving complex.While the “Nevada six” face prosecution,Trump himself evaded legal repercussions by winning reelection in 2024. Furthermore, he recently issued pardons to numerous individuals involved in the attempted election heist, including his former attorney, Rudy Giuliani. These pardons, while largely symbolic as they do not extend to state-level charges, demonstrate a continued disregard for the rule of law. As a reminder of past actions, Trump previously pardoned nearly 1,600 individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol shortly after taking office.
The pursuit of justice has yielded mixed results across the country. In Michigan, a judge dismissed charges against 15 phony electors, citing insufficient evidence of intent to commit fraud. Similarly, in New Mexico and Pennsylvania, fake electors avoided prosecution because their certifications included a caveat stating they were submitted only if recognized as legitimate – a maneuver seemingly intended to create plausible deniability. “
Legal experts are divided on the best approach to addressing these issues. derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame, suggests that the ballot box, rather than the courtroom, may be the more appropriate venue for resolving disputes over election integrity. “There’s a fine line between what’s distasteful conduct and what’s criminal conduct,” Muller said. “If it’s somthing novel… having a pretty iron-clad legal theory is pretty essential if you’re going to be prosecuting people for engaging in this sort of political protest activity.”
Despite these challenges, investigations continue. Preliminary hearings for forgery charges are scheduled next month in Wisconsin for three fake electors.Fourteen defendants, including Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, face charges in Georgia. In Arizona, the state attorney general has revived a case against 11 individuals after an initial indictment was dismissed due to procedural errors.
Justice in these cases has been neither swift nor certain. But the principle remains: attempting to hijack an election is a grave offense. While the penalty for hijacking a plane carries a minimum sentence of 20 years,the gravity of attempting to subvert the democratic process demands a commensurate response. Dozens of individuals attempted to hijack an election, and they should not be allowed to escape accountability.
