Thread by @arizonaslaw

UPDATES on Trump campaign's Arizona election irregularities lawsuit:

Parties arguing a Secy/State motion to remove the Trump campaign's declarations from persons submitted online.

Judge Kiley removes GOP's "Don't touch the green button" online declarations from evidence - the party solicited them online & on conservative media. The attys eliminated "spam" and others. Judge notes that means the solicitation process was unreliable.

The judge also removed affidavits that were obtained in person from people who had initially submitted online.

Kory Langhofer for the Trump campaign says "the critical fact... is there were unadjudicated overvotes," and needed to be MANUALLY adjudicated.

Roopali Desai for Secy/State says that's incorrect, that only damaged ballots need to be manually adjudicated.

Desai tells court the real purpose of the Trump campaign lawsuit is "to undermine the credibility of election results."

Tom Liddy for the County defendants says the MCAO is proud to represent the election workers who put on "the best election in the history of Arizona. The best."

Liddy works for GOP Maricopa County Atty @allisteradel, and is representing a Democratic @RecorderFontes and a Republican Board of Supervisors.

Amicus briefs have been submitted by the (1) @azfec / AZ Public Integrity Alliance, and (2) @ProjectLincoln

Stand by for those briefs to be posted.

Trump campaign attorney Langhofer emphasized "This is not a fraud case. Not a steal the election case." Just a small procedural case.

Audio access has been cut off as the technical experts try to figure out how to mute members of the public who (unknowingly) took over the call.

It is not Zoom. Not sure how the host of a GoToMeeting app call can change the settings to not allow anyone to unmute themselves. (If you know, please call the Judge's chambers, 602-372-3839.😉)

Unfortunately, we are all missing Dep. Cty Atty @Joseph_La_Rue capably walking Scott Jarrett through an explanation of how the County properly conducted the election and the dealing of overvotes and/or ambiguous marks on Election Day.

Because public access was lost, the hearing has gone into recess until it can be figured out. (That is why the line has gone silent.)

The hearing has now been recessed until 12:30pm.

I'm gonna go get some real work done! See you soon!

Judge Kiley reports that the public access line in Trump's Arizona challenge was compromised externally.

LET'S MAKE A DEAL: Testimony resumes with a description of what happens to the ballots that are put into "Door Number 3."

Those are ballots misread by the on-site tabulator. They are later hand-recreated by bi-partisan pair of workers.

Scott Jarrett now describing what happens when there is an apparent overvote on Election Day.

(I witnessed the procedure he is describing many times last Tuesday.)

The Trump-demonized Dominion comes up in testimony. Now describing why they recommends the use of Sharpie markers. (Answer: faster drying.)

Jarrett testifies that Trump's AZ E-Day Director called him many times during the day about a myriad of issues. None of the calls were regarding the green button issue.

SHARPIEGATE, R.I.P.: The direct and cross-examination has definitively laid to rest the conspiracy theory that Sharpie bleed-thru caused overvotes. Trump campaign's cross did not touch it.

SIDENOTE: The Trump campaign has sent former Acting Attorney General (U.S.) Matthew Whitaker to Phoenix to assist with main attorneys Kory Langhofer and Tom Basile. (He has not verbally participated yet.)

The cross-examiner of the Trump voter SHOULD have asked if the tabulator made an audible acceptance sound.

h/t to @grantstern

Both of the two voters called by the Trump campaign have sworn that they did not overvote - either for the President or any issue.

If that is the case, it is unlikely that the tabulator would have flagged the ballot for an overvote. If that's the case, no "green button issue".

Both voters seem more concerned about not *knowing* if their vote for Trump was counted. They do not corroborate the issue for the lawsuit.

Trump campaign now calling a GOP poll observer who says almost all of the voters - at a heavily-Democratic center in Guadalupe - were instructed to push a button to have their ballot accepted.

This is highly unlikely, based both on my poll observing and the way the system works.

Another GOP Poll Observer "on the stand". I worked with - and helped - fellow Poll Observers from both parties all day on Tues. (& in many years' of elections in the past). Like poll workers, almost all good people interested in smooth voting.

But, Poll Observers...

...- from either party - did not receive any training on how the tabulating machines dealt with overvotes.

If you're listening to the testimony with me, the Poll Observer just described a situation where the voter expressed their intent to allow the overvote, finished filling in the bubble, re-fed it into the tabulator, and poll worker accepted the ballot with the disallowed overvote.

We're hearing from the last of several voters and poll observers who are concerned about their votes.

We have now posted the briefs filed by both @ProjectLincoln and @azfec /Public Integrity Alliance:
bit.ly/AZlaw1109

Court takes a brief recess - 10 minutes.

It appears we have a situation where both the Trump campaign's attorneys and voters were/are laboring under misconceptions of the process.

The atty's now seem to understand that there was not fraud and that the process may have confused some, but worked.

Some voters don't...

...understand that if they did not overvote the Presidential race, their vote for that race did count.

Two Trump/RNC attorneys better understood, and withdrew
bit.ly/AZlaw1108

Plaintiffs have rested. County is now presenting the woman who was in charge of training the Poll Workers.

County rests after presenting the poll worker trainer. She established that poll workers were instructed to tell the voters that they had to decide whether to *accept* the overvote or to spoil the entire ballot and re-vote a new ballot.

Secy/State now calls Gina Swoboda, the Trump campaign's Arizona E-Day Director. This could be interesting.

"State Director of Election Day Operations". Worked for the Trump campaign.

INTERESTING: Before taking the position with the Trump campaign, Ms. Swoboda worked in the Arizona Secretary of State's office (under Democratic SoS @SecretaryHobbs). She was an "Interim Campaign Finance Supervisor".

Swoboda carefully acknowledges she does not have personal knowledge: "I have knowledge of voters' beliefs that their votes were not counted."

(Cite: Swoboda as fmr employer at AZSOS: bit.ly/AZlaw1109)

Swoboda: "I know that the Elections Dept goes to great lengths to train people properly."

Judge Kiley decides to give the parties an additional 15 minutes each, so that they will be able to present closing arguments.

Kory Langhofer is now trying to bring back his witness: "My declaration is accurate and what we brought forward is the voters' concerns."

CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Kory Langhofer, for the Trump campaign, is trying to highlight the difference in treatment between Early Voting adjudications of overvotes and the Election Day adjudications. That's how he gets to the poll workers possibly pressing the button.

Langhofer compares it to the Bush v. Gore 2000 case.

Acknowledging the words in court have a real world effect: "This is a modest claim we're making....IT IS NOT ABOUT FRAUD."

Langhofer proposes that the relief should be that IF a race's margin ENDS UP smaller than the overvotes in that race, THEN look at the overvotes.

That is nonsensical BECAUSE voters usually CREATED the overvote to accept it. If there was a small mark, they would fill the rest.

(Explanation: There were two sets of "flags".
1) "Overvote": both bubbles (in 2-person race) filled in enough. Voter could accept or spoil.
2) "Ambiguous mark": Machine couldn't tell if it was overvote or just a dot. That would get spit out, voter usually filled in rest of bubble

Kory Langhofer raises a very valid point for future legislation. Now that Maricopa County (and other counties) have gone to Voting Centers, the parties should be able to have MULTIPLE Poll Observers.
cc: @SecretaryHobbs @Richer4Recorder

Judge Kiley officially nails down that the Trump campaign is now ONLY asking for overvote ballots to be manually inspected IF the final result could be changed by the accepted overvotes for that race.

For reasons expressed above, that makes no sense because it could not change.

Roopali Desai (for @SecretaryHobbs) highlights the differences between early/mailed-in ballots and in-person E-day ballots.

Kiley acknowledges this, but points out that there is testimony that some poll workers may not have explained the overvote adjudication to the voter.

Desai says the new scaled-back relief sought by Trump campaign is likely not possible or practical, nor is it envisioned in the law.

Tom Liddy for the County Defendants closes with the fire!

He agrees with Trump campaign that "words matter", then accuses it of directing its "Stop the Steal" mantra, etc AT THE POLL WORKERS.

Liddy states: "The claim was systematic error. You'd find thousands of votes for Donald J. Trump. That's impossible. The most you can come up with is 191."

(Sidenote for national readers: the County's attorney - Tom Liddy - is the son of G. Gordon. He is in the County Attorney's office and is representing both the County Recorder (Dem) and County Board of Supervisors (R-controlled). Both share oversight of elections.)

SHE MUST'VE BEEN LISTENING: 10 minutes ago, State Rep./Sen.-elect @KellyTownsend11 calls for recount and audit of the election. Throws in everything plus the kitchen sink to support the demand.

As both Kory Langhofer & Tom Liddy just argued, "Words matter. Statutes matter."

Langhofer repeats that it is just about the mechanical treatment of overvotes. "It is not a Stop the Steal case or a fraud case."

Judge Kiley takes it under advisement, will rule as soon as he can!

I don't usually unroll my own, o' great @threadreaderapp. But...