When the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal last weighed in on Minnesota’s still-undecided Senate race, it was frothing about supposedly nefarious behavior by local election officials that was threatening the integrity of the process. Yesterday the lead recount attorney for Al Franken’s campaign, Marc Elias, wrote in to correct the record.

Now the WSJ editorial writers have apparently decided that the local officials overseeing the recount are model civil servants. Their ability to conduct a fair, efficient process, however, is being threatened by the legal shenanigans of the Franken campaign. The WSJ accuses his campaign of attempting to ’steal’ the election by asking the five-member statewide canvassing board to examine absentee ballots that were rejected by local election officials.

Put aside that these ballots have already been ruled on by trained election judges. Put aside, too, the invasion of voter privacy. The real problem of allowing Mr. Franken to conduct his own voter discovery operation is that this is changing the rules after the election has been held. The gambit introduces subjective judgment and political pressure into a voting process that is supposed to be immune to both.

Perhaps I’m confused, but why would examining absentee ballots that have been rejected be any more inherently subjective or prone to political pressure than scrutinizing ballots cast on election day?