OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 27:2 2012] prior to litigation,58 the march to court when elections are close has never been seriously questioned. 59 It is widely held to be the cleanest way to resolve post-election disputes.60 Indeed, election litigation has skyrocketed since Bush v. Gore in 2000.61 However, there are real reasons to question the assumption that court is the best place for post-election dispute resolution. As seasoned election lawyers will tell you, post-election litigation is anything but straightforward. Post-election litigation can drag on for months and months and can cost candidates and taxpayers millions of dollars. Lawyers in the FrankenColeman recount in Minnesota estimated a price tag of $10 million in legal fees alone.62 On a cost basis, alternatives should certainly be explored. 58 See supra Part II. 59 Kovick and Young note that one factor opposing the use of ADR is in instances where countries have a "strong, credible and independent judici[al] .. . system ... that can be relied upon to hear and resolve election complaints in a fair and timely manner." KOVICK & YOUNG, supra note 37, at 255. Because the U.S. judiciary is widely seen as credible, independent, and strong, the tendency is to assume that courts are the natural venue for election disputes. 6 Foley, supra note 42, at 376 ("The prevailing public conception of courts, right or wrong, is that their job is to decide [election] cases according to the requirements laid down by the law .. . without regard to discretionary considerations of politics."). As noted above, some even advocate for increased judicial oversight of elections. See Recent Case, Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (2004), 118 HARV. L. REv. 2461, 2464 (2005) (advocating more judicial oversight of unilateral interpretations of federal election law made by partisan state election officials). 6l See Richard L. Hasen, The Untimely Death ofBush v. Gore, 60 STAN. L. REv. I, 28-29 (2007); Richard L. Hasen, The Democracy Canon, 62 STAN. L. REv. 69 (2009). Hasen's results show that election litigation more than doubled shortly after 2001 and has held steady at that amount for the decade since Bush v. Gore. Pre-2000, the country averaged 94 election cases (in both state and federal courts) annually. !d. at 90. The average number of election-related cases over the past ten years has been 239. Richard L. Hasen, Election Law Litigation Remained at Double Its Pre-Bush v. Gore Rate, ELECTION LAw BLDG (March 31, 2011 ), http://electionlawblog.org/archives/O 19119.html. 6Z See JAY WEINER, THIS IS NOT FLORIDA: How AL FRANKEN WON THE MINNESOTA SENATE RECOUNT, 223-24 (2010) (during the 2008 Minnesota senate recount and related litigation, candidates AI Fmnken and Norm Coleman spent $5.7 million and $4.4 million on legal fees, respectively); John Gibeaut, Electing to Litigate As Primaries Begin, Voters, State Officials and Lawyers Brace for More and More Lawsuits, 94 A.B.A. J., 40, 46 (2008) (one election lawsuit cost the state of Ohio more than $5 million.); Erin Butcher-Lyden, supra note 4, at 537 (just ten of the twenty-three lawsuits against the state of Ohio during the 2004 election cost the state a combined $1 million.); CoNNY McCORMACK, THE COST OF STATEWIDE RECOUNTS: A CASE STUDY OF MINNESOTA AND WASHINGTON, THE PEW CENTER ON THE STATES 23, 35 (2010), available at http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/MN_ W A_recounts_report. pdf ° 338 HeinOnline -- 27 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 338 2012