MEDIATION AND POST-ELECTION LITIGATION main functions on the call as representing those interests.1 42 The question of whether a secretary of state can adequately represent the public interest in a mediation setting raises a slew of interesting questions. First, if the secretary of state is an elected official, does this make him or her more or less responsive to the public interest? The answer is not clear. Some scholars have posited that legislatures are a better forum for election disputes because turning to a majoritarian institution resolving election disputes is better than asking the judicial branch to decide (i.e., a political forum for a political question).l 43 This may arguably be true of an elected secretary of state as well-she or he may be quite responsive to the interests of the electorate, as many believe was the case with Secretary Ritchie.144 At the same time, examples of highly politicized secretaries of state abound--one need look no further than Katherine Harris during Bush v. Gore.l45 It is not at all clear that a state's chief election officer can be trusted to represent the public interest across the political spectrum. In the context of post-election litigation, the question of public voice can be a practical one. In the Franken-Coleman recount, the campaigns each mounted efforts to inject individual voters into the process. During the early phases of the recount, the Franken team methodically gathered data about and affidavits from voters who claimed their votes had been rejected for unclear reasons.146 Later at trial, a lawyer for Franken, Charlie Nauen, was permitted to intervene on behalf of sixty-one voters whose ballots had been rejected.147 For its part, the Coleman team organized an ill-fated class-action get-out-the-vote programs, and so forth. Benson notes that partisan politics often frustrate secretaries of states' efforts to advocate for voters. JOCELYN F. BENSON, STATE SECRETARIES OF STATE: GUARDIANS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS 65 (2010). 142 Interview with Sec'y Ritchie, supra note 120. 143 See Huefner, supra note 24, at 321. 144 Weiner, supra note 62, at 121. Note that Secretary Ritchie indicated that the next election loomed large for him during the recount as he made an effort to do his best by the people of Minnesota. Interview the Sec'y Ritchie, supra note 120. 145 Daniel P. Tokaji, The Future of Election Reform: From Rules to Institutions, 28 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 125, 127 (2009). 146 Weiner, supra note 62, at 91. 147 Weiner, supra note 62, at 173. See Petitioners' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Peterson v. Ritchie, Minn. Dist. Ct., Jan. 21, 2009, available at No. A09-65, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation!documents!MNElectionContestPetersonJ'vlemo-1-21-08.pdf (petition on behalf of the 64 voters); Order, Peterson v. Ritchie, Minn. Dist. Ct., Jan. 16, 2009, No. A09-65, available at http://www .mncourts.gov/Documents/O/Public/Other/2008%20Elections/Order.1.16.09. p 361 HeinOnline -- 27 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 361 2012