also, let me interrupt you, and i interested in your due process argument, and at least as i read, griffon, bristow, it seems to me that those cases are clearly distinguishable in the sense that in those cases, there was an announced procedure before the election, and after the election, election officials changed the rules. here, we have a much difference situations -- situation. as i read these cases, do you contend that the election officials engaged in widespread misconduct by announcing an election procedure before the election, that there was reliance by the voters and then a material change after the election? >> no, your honor, but there was a material change after the election, because the election officials -- classic minnesota law, and then, is the trial court that changed the game after words and went back to the -- >> so your argument, it seems to me, is not that the election officials changed the rules, but you are saying that the panel violated due process by saying, "we are going to have a mandatory requirement"? but how, at least under the federal cases, how do you get aro