Elections are designed to reflect the will of the people. Given the current presidential stalemate, people throughout our country are questioning whether the will of the people can remain paramount in the face of partisan wrangling of the highest order.

It's a good question, and it's why a neutral arbiter is in order.

When a question of fairness or justice arises, it is the proper role of the courts to decide. This is accepted practice in domestic and business disputes. When parents divorce and cannot decide on custody of the children, we insist that the courts make a determination. When heirs argue over the distribution of an estate, we insist that courts make a determination. When employees and employers wrangle over dismissals, we insist that courts make a determination. We cannot send the message to our citizens that the courts are good enough to solve our private problems but not matters of critical public importance.

The right to have one's vote counted is one of the most important rights of citizenship, and the courts have played -- and continue to play -- a special role in protecting that right. It should be the role of the courts to decide whether the design of the ballots in Palm Beach County was illegal, whether -- as the NAACP has alleged -- minorities were prevented from voting and where and when recounts should take place.

Many people understandably believe that elections should be decided in the electoral -- not the judicial -- arena. This is true, but it's the role of the courts to ensure that the electoral process is fair and accurate.

Those who argue that using the courts politicizes the judiciary and taints this election have it wrong. The election is already tainted. No matter who is finally declared the winner, there is likely to be a feeling that the victory was not fair. But relying on the judicial branch may restore a semblance of legitimacy to this highly politicized affair.

This doesn't mean that the judicial process can't be abused. In addition, the courts themselves may decide not to hear a particular matter. Still, it's best to leave these matters up to the courts. Of our three branches of government, only the judiciary is charged with being both independent and impartial. We know that charge is sometimes more an ideal than a reality. Even though we have not attained the ideal, the courts are simply the best alternative available.

The courts have played a crucial role in holding our country together in times of deep dispute. This is one of those times.

If we cannot trust the courts, then whom can we trust?

john a. powell, Executive Director, Institute on Race & Poverty and Marvin J. Sonosky Professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota Law School in Minneapolis, Minn. powell worked in Miami from 1981-1983 as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Miami Law School and as Executive Director of Legal Services of Greater Miami.