OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 27:2 2012] A. Which Post-Election Disputes are Appropriate for Mediation? The International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) recently examined the use of ADR in election conflicts.75 The book is aimed at building election infrastructure in post-conflict and developing democracies. Its authors identify several types of election disputes ill-suited for ADR including: (1) disputes relating to fundamental rights, (2) cases in which binding precedent is desirable, and (3) cases in which the court system can provide a timely, credible decision.76 These factors provide a useful starting point. There are certainly instances in which fundamental rights come into play in post-election disputes. Any time a ballot is invalidated, for example, a voter's fundamental right to exercise the franchise is jeopardized.77 In addition, there is very often the need for precedent setting in post-election disputes, particularly in the recount context, as states build experience managing them.7 8 Finally, thanks to the health of the U.S. judicial system, its courts are capable of delivering timely and credible decisions in the majority of instances. Although these general exemptions provide a good rough guide, this article argues that there are a certain subset of post-election disputes which do not directly involve fundamental rights, for which administrative precedent setting is more important than judicial precedent setting, and which courts are ill-equipped to manage: post-election process disputes. Postelection process disputes are distinguished from outcome-determinative postelection disputes. For the purposes of this article, "outcome-determinative" refers to those disputes for which the resolution will directly impact a vote tally. An example of an outcome-determinative dispute would be whether or not the voter intended to vote for Candidate X or whether the factors required to prove fraud were sufficiently argued. These disputes require a third-party neutral such as a judge or election official to issue a ruling one way or another. 75 GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING, ADJUDICATING, AND RESOLVING DISPUTES IN (Chad Vickery ed., 2011), available at ELECTIONS http://www. ifes.org/-/media/Fi les/Publications/Books/20 11 /GUARDE_final _pub Iication. pdf. 76 /d. at 254-55. 77 As one state supreme court justice noted, "the right to have one's vote counted is as important as the act itself." Coleman v. Ritchie, 758 N.W.2d 306, 311 (Minn. 2008). 78 See, e.g., Tamney v. Atkins, 209 N.Y. 202,205 (N.Y. 1913) (cited broadly for the proposition that the ability of courts to engage in judicial review of election disputes is bounded by state statute). 342 HeinOnline -- 27 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 342 2012