The concepts of sovereignty and nonintervention stand at the heart of the election interference discourse, but they are also a substantial shortcoming of that discourse. The scholarly literature needs to think more creatively about legal doctrines that can analyze election interference in an intuitive and compelling way. The present chapter argues that the answer lies in the long-ignored right of self-determination. Section 1 explains the right of self-determination and its undeniable status as a binding right under international law. Section 2 explains why election interference violates self-determination. Section 3 answers an obvious question: If self-determination is the key to understanding election interference, why have international lawyers so assiduously avoided this powerful legal category? Finally, Section 4 considers several objections to the self-determination framework, namely that: (i) self-determination applies before the creation of statehood but not after; (ii) there is insufficient state practice or opinio juris of states objecting to election interference on grounds of self-determination; (iii) election interference cannot be illegal under international law because so many states have engaged in it; and (iv) the right of self-determination might not apply when a state acts extraterritorially, as Russia did when it intervened in U.S. elections.