OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Vol. 27:2 2012) if signed by the voter's spouse? What if the spouse has a power of attorney? Must the power of attorney be a blanket power of attorney? What if the power of attorney was obtained for health decisions only? What about distinguishing marks on ballots like signatures that would typically nullify a vote? Overseas and military voters often write passport numbers or military ID numbers on absentee ballots. Should these votes be tossed? If a complete absentee ballot requires a full address, what if the voter leaves off her zip code? What if the voter has moved to a different apartment at the same address but lists the old apartment number on the absentee ballot envelope? What if the voter abbreviates "Rd." or leaves the word "Road" off altogether when stating her address? Literally dozens of such questions hang in the balance in recounts. And that's just with respect to absentee ballots. Although process disputes are not directly outcome-determinative, this is not to say they matter less. In fact, they matter quite a bit. As we have seen in countless recounts, lawyers on both sides forward impassioned arguments for why ambiguities in statutory process language should be managed one way versus another. Resolving process disputes is tricky business. Each side invariably will argue that even the smallest process decision can have an impact on the final tally. As one prominent recount lawyer explains, "Every procedural call has an advantage and disadvantage that both sides will fight tooth and nail to preserve."82 Depending on their assessment of the impact on their client, most election lawyers will admit to alternately forwarding impassioned arguments for strict technical compliance with a vague statutory provision in one instance, and equally impassioned arguments for the idea that technicalities impede acknowledging voter intent in the next. There are numerous ways in which states attempt to fill procedural gaps in recounts. In Virginia, for example, state statute requires a judge to set forth the specific procedure that will guide the recount process. 83 In practice, the state court judge will work with the parties to hammer out a preliminary procedural order followed by a final order. 84 In other states, a state board of 82 !d. 83 VA. CODE ANN. § 24.2-802(8) (1950) (" ... the chief judge of the circuit court shall call a preliminary hearing at which (i) motions may be disposed of and (ii) the rules of procedure may be fixed, both subject to review by the full court."). 84 See, e.g., Goode v. Perriello, Recount Procedural Order, Case No. CL0800266600 (2008) (specifies the procedures leading up to the recount, the date and time of the recount, the manner of court supervision of the recount, the location of the recount, how the vote tabulators will be programmed, what the testing requirements will be, how recount officials will be selected, rules governing recount observers, training procedures for recount officials, contingencies for inclement weather, and various other procedural 344 HeinOnline -- 27 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 344 2012