Thread by @ZoeTillman

There's an 11:30am ET hearing in the Trump campaign's case in Michigan alleging the state isn't complying with rules about election inspector access to absentee ballot counting and election challenger video access to ballot boxes. It will be streamed here: youtube.com/channel/UCIUqx…

Here's the Trump campaign's emergency motion, which seeks to halt counting in Michigan until an election inspector from each party is present and video of ballot boxes is available to challengers assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7297…

Campaign presented one challenger who claimed exclusion

The hearing in the Trump campaign's MI case is delayed to noon. Meanwhile, here's the SoS's response: assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7317…

"Even a cursory review of Plaintiffs’ filings demonstrates that their vague legal claims and nonexistent facts hold no water and should be dismissed."

Michigan SoS argues:
- Trump campaign didn't present any evidence of party election *inspectors* denied access
- Law doesn't require video feed for citizen *challengers* (different from party inspectors)
- Ballot counting is done so not clear what relief campaign could get now

The hearing in the Trump campaign's case in Michigan (see thread for details) is underway, you can watch live here:

Trump campaign lawyer Thor Hearne (yes, Thor truenorthlawgroup.com/thor-hearne/) begins by acknowledging "many" ballots have already been counted (the SoS says absentee ballot processing is done) but maintains there's still at least some adjudication of ballots where they want observers

As for harm, the judge is skeptical about an affidavit the Trump campaign submitted from a witness saying she got a note from an unnamed person saying poll workers were being directed to mark late-arriving ballots as being received on time. Judge asks - isn't this hearsay?

Judge Cynthia Stephens: "'I heard somebody else say something' — how is that not hearsay? Come on now"

Michigan SoS lawyer Heather Meingast is up, says it's not clear what relief would be available at this point as far as allowing for campaign obversation. "The counting boards are done. We have finished counting [absentee] ballots in Michigan."

Meingast also says the Trump campaign's filings conflate different issues and are confusing — there is the issue of election inspectors having in-person access to observe, but the person the campaign names is a *challenger*, which is a different designation with different rights

Hearne clarifies they're seeking video they argue the law required the SoS to make of absentee ballots being processed from drop boxes — that's what they're saying election *challengers* were supposed to get access to. Different from saying ppl were excluded from counting boards

New: The judge in Michigan has denied the Trump campaign's petition, finding the issues the campaign raised are really about the duties of local election officials, not about anything the SoS has control over beyond issuing directives re: observer access, which she's done

The judge concludes there's no relief available now — the campaign asked to halt absentee ballot counting pending observer access — because the counting is done. She notes the campaign didn't actually file the case until late in the afternoon yest., despite announcing it earlier

As for whether election challengers should get video recordings of absentee ballot drop boxes, she finds campaign failed to show substantial likelihood of success warranting immediate action by the court, and is unconvinced the SoS had a legal duty to manage that

In sum: The MI judge basically says the Trump campaign took the wrong party to court — if a specific election board/official allegedly denied someone observer access (either in-person or re: video of drop boxes) they were entitled to, that's who the campaign should have sued