The state Supreme Court made the correct call last year when it ruled that Democrat Jeanne Windham, not Constitution Party candidate Rick Jore, had won the House District 12 race for the state Legislature.

The two initially had tied, but the justices agreed that ballots election judges had counted for Jore were in fact spoiled ballots on which voters had marked squares for two competing candidates. Such ballots couldn't be counted because election judges can't be expected to read a voter's mind, the court ruled. The case had statewide implications because it resulted in a tie between Democrats and Republicans in the House.

Now a district judge has made another ruling regarding the case, this time delivering not only a legal opinion but also a moral one.

Lake Country District Judge Kim Christopher of Polson said last week that Jore is legally liable for $15,663 in fees charged by Windham's attorneys, as is required by state law of losing candidates. But the judge was quick to add that the state, not Jore, should pick up the tab. The judge's recommendation makes sense.

The Windham-Jore case not only determined the outcome of the political battle for control of the House, but it settled an important statewide question regarding the counting of votes. The case, in short, went far beyond a dispute between two candidates.

In addition, the current system of making the losing candidate pick up the winner's legal costs is patently unfair in Jore's case, because he personally didn't contest the election's outcome. On this, his opponent agreed. "A candidate should not be punished for running for office," said Windham last week. She said the law requiring the losing party to pay attorney's fees "is bad public policy, and absolutely unfair and wrong."

We doubt that, as Jore suggested, the situation may make potential candidates think twice about running for office, if only because few elections result in litigation. And we realize that "loser-pays" laws are designed to deter frivolous lawsuits. But we have to agree with Judge Christopher, who said that "candidates and their attorneys should not have to subsidize the rest of the state by bearing the entire burden" of the cost. In a case like this, that argument rings particularly true.