OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Vol. 27:2 2012] process in which all relevant issues--even those not originally contemplated-will be confronted to ensure that the settlement reached is workable, comprehensive, and has staying power. This approach could be of great service in resolving post-election process disputes. Rather than forcing a court to rule on countless micro-process disputes or waiting for those disputes to arise organically down the road, an experienced election mediator might anticipate problems and ensure that the full scope of the dispute-and possible options for resolution-are on the table. 103 Addressing the full scope of process issues in the early stages of a recount or contest could greatly enhance efficiency.104 Finally, injecting an experienced mediator into the mix early on could have provided an important educative function. In reflecting on his experiences in the 2008 recount (and the 2010 recount), 105 Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson sees the wisdom of bringing in an presented" and do not look to resolve any part of the dispute not immediately at the table.) 103 Much of this legwork can be done in the context of a "conflict assessment" (sometimes referred to as a "convening assessment," in which the mediator analyzes and diagnose the dispute, identify stakeholders, map their interests, and assess the scope of the dispute. See FRANK FISHER, GERALD MILLER & MARA S. SIDNEY EDS., HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS: ThEORY, POLITICS AND METHODS 515-16 (2007); see also Laurence Susskind & Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, CONSENSUS BUILDING HANDBOOK (1999). I04 The best argument against mediator evaluation in post-election disputes is that an evaluative mediator may take sides in the course of providing advice on the dispute. This is particularly problematic given the difficulty of finding a nonpartisan mediator. See infra Section II. The problem of impartiality in evaluative mediation is well recognized. See, e.g., Richard C. Reuben, Constitutional Gravity: A Unitary Theory of ADR and Public Civil Justice, 47 UCLA L. REv. 949, 1092 (2000) (noting that "bias concerns may ... be heightened in evaluative mediations, in which the mediator is providing an opinion on the merits of the parties' relative positions, precisely for the purpose of influencing the parties' settlements"). This concern is, however, allayed by narrowing the category of election dispute to be mediated to process disputes only. 10 5 In November 2010, Minnesota underwent another large scale recount, this time between gubernatorial candidates Republican Thomas Emmer, Democrat Mark Dayton, and Independent Tom Homer. A close race (margin of .42%) triggered an automatic recount. It took just over a month to declare Dayton the winner by 8,715 votes with 99.99 percent votes recounted and 765 ballots contested (not enough to secure victory for Emmer). Robert Y oon, Democrat Dayton Wins Minnesota Gov. Recount, CNN POLITICS, Dec. 4, 2000, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/l2/04/democrat-dayton-winsminnesota-gov-recount/. 350 HeinOnline -- 27 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 350 2012