Traditionally, political candidates and their supporters campaigned hard up to election day, then turned their attention to the ballot counting and then, if victorious, prepared to take office.

In this year’s razor-thin gubernatorial contest, however, the campaigning didn’t stop when the polls closed. The enterprise of tracking down voters and soliciting their support continued for two weeks after the polls closed. This activity is cause for concern, and Washington’s legislators and elections officials should recognize that state election procedures need to keep pace with changing times.

With fewer than 300 votes separating Democrat Christine Gregoire and Republican Dino Rossi, out of more than 2.8 million cast, backers of both candidates turned their post-election attention to hundreds of voters whose ballots had been disqualified because of technical problems – usually involving questions about the validity of signatures.

Armed with lists of those whose ballots had problems, campaign workers located voters and asked them which gubernatorial candidate they had supported. If it was the campaign worker’s favored candidate, the voter was encouraged to provide elections officials with information that would resolve any questions and allow the ballot to be counted. Voters who had supported the rival candidate, were not so urged.

If the purpose of this strategy had been to make sure every vote was counted, all would be fine. But it wasn’t. It was to make sure certain votes were counted.

Remember that under Washington law, political activity is prohibited in and near polling places. When voters enter the church or school or fire station where their precinct casts ballots, they are supposed to be free from so much as a campaign button pinned to the lapel of the neighbor standing beside them. This is meant to keep the voting process pure.

Contrast that concept with the image of selective vote canvassing, conducted out of public view, after the votes have been cast. The validity of American elections rests on an expectation that all votes are treated equally. Meeting that expectation requires a process that is blind to partisanship.

This is not to imply the Rossi and Gregoire campaigns are anything but forthright. But they are acting from partisan motives.

With increasing reliance on mail-in voting, chances are that we’ll be seeing more elections where provisional ballots play a critical role. In close races where the counting drags on for days, state and county elections officials should have their own system for reaching those whose ballots are in limbo.

No one wants to see any honestly cast vote excluded from the official expression of public judgment just because a voter’s signature looks different now than it does on the voter registration rolls. It’s a challenge for the secretary of state’s office and the 39 county auditors to develop outreach methods for contacting all affected voters and make legitimate votes count, regardless of political preferences.

As the Gregoire-Rossi race demonstrates, the counting process may henceforth demand extra efforts. Elections officials need to make sure those efforts are carried out impartially.