Thread by @RileySnyder

An FYI - this hearing, which was scheduled to start at 10 a.m., appears to be going on, but the court has somehow muted itself on the video conferencing system so I have no idea what's being said. Lots of hand gestures from judge + attorney for Marchant fwiw

https://twitter.com/RileySnyder/status/1329848270663815169

SOUND

Craig Mueller (attorney for @VoteJimMarchant) is asked by Judge Sturman how new election process would work & how voters in other counties would work if only Clark County re-votes

"It is not my desire to disenfranchise anybody"

Bradley Schrager, attorney for NV Dems/DNC, brings up that everyone on video conference has missed first 30 minutes.

Judge Sturman is now going over what was missed

Lots of procedural points going on now - Mueller (Attorney for Marchant) is opposing admittance of pro hac attorneys for NV Dems/DNC.

Clark County attorney Mary Anne Miller says county hasn't been served any documents in case

Mary Anne Miller says the lawsuit has a procedural issue - it's supposed to name the other candidate as a party in the case (which it hasn't).

Sturman says she's been talking to Mueller about it before the video conferencing started working

And now we're on to a 10-minute break to figure out all the procedural stuff

And we're back!
BTW, if you're interested in this case, @KTNV has a live-stream of proceedings available here: ktnv.com/news/political…

First up is a presentation from NV Dems/DNC attorney @BradleySchrager on a pro hac vice admission (i.e. legal process to allow out-of-state attorneys practice in NV court). These are usually non-controversial but Mueller (Marchant attorney) is opposing the motion

Mueller says he objects because the motion is a "very narrowly cause of action."

Says its not a matter of national interest and that the case involves a "narrowly drawn cause of action" involving one county

The pro hac motion is approved - Judge Sturman says it's a "fairly routine administrative proceeding."

Kevin Hamilton with Perkins Coie is now presenting on a motion to intervene in the case (the NV Dems + DNC).

Hamilton says Mueller (again, attorney for Marchant) is "underplaying the importance of the proceedings." Says it would disrupt the certification of lawfully cast ballots & national Dem groups have an interest bc lawsuit is threatening right to vote

Judge Sturman says she "gets your point" as to Mueller's complaint that the national/state Dems don't have standing to intervene, but "I don't see it."

Sturman grants motion to intervene on permissive grounds, i.e. no one in case is representing interests of @StevenHorsford

We're finally on to the merits of the case.

Mueller is now re-starting his arguments (again because of the earlier tech difficulties)

yep

Mueller is going through his arguments, many of which have been raised before in lawsuits challenging use of Clark County's automated signature verification machine.

Mueller says Joe Gloria (Clark County Registrar of Voters) failed to follow the state law saying he "shall" verify mail ballots. (Complaint is that machine auto-accepted some signatures without human review)

Mueller says there's "no meaningful doubt that this election did not pass muster."

"This is not an election of national significance. Its an election, or issue of local incompetence."

(Again, this case is for a seat in the U.S. House)

Mueller reiterates that he wants an evidentiary hearing for 9 a.m. on Monday.

Clark County attorney Mary Anne Miller says Mueller's claims are "completely basis and erroneous."

Miller says that description used regarding inactive voters is incorrect - it generally refers to registered voters who have address not on file with election officials, but are still allowed to vote

Miller says there wasn't time to "scrub" voters from voter roles between June primary and November election (which involves the mailing of postcards to try and verify address)

Miller says that county uses latest signature on file - so DMV signatures (which have less dots per inch than what machine typically requires) means that any matching involving DMV signatures were probably rejected and checked by hand

Miller: There was absolutely, absolutely no malfunction by the Agilis (signature verification) machine

Now up is Kevin Hamilton (attorney for NV Dems/DNC). He says the lawsuit is an election lawsuit and is being filed under the wrong statute. Says its clear by various claims of voting by unqualified voters - "that is exactly what an election contest is designed to address."

Hamilton says that there is a different election contest lawsuit filed (Trump lawsuit filed in Carson City). Says current court doesn't have jurisdiction over this election
"Those plaintiffs understood election law."

Hamilton says Mueller is attempting to "end-run" Nevada law (which kicks election contests for federal races to the US House) and is trying to "shoe-horn" his case into a different court/legal framework

Hamilton: He supplies the court with a thick stack of news publications....obvious hearsay. But he doesn't provide any actual evidence that there's enough here to warrant a new election.

Sturman says her problem is case involves a race for a congressional seat that covers several counties. Says her concern is requiring Clark County to have re-vote in that election but not other counties could be issue.

Hamilton agrees, says that raises equal protection concerns

Hamilton notes that the issue with signature verification machine has already been litigated - Judge James Wilson held a 10-hour evidentiary hearing on similar issue & declined to issue order prohibiting use of machine

Sturman notes that one of affidavits submitted by Mueller was made by a plaintiff in the earlier case (Frad Kraus) that was denied by Judge Wilson in other case. Hamilton says the issues has already been litigated & decided in that case

Hamilton reiterates that the court should reject the lawsuit due to jurisdictional issues - says its an "effort to evade Nevada law, not invoke it."

Lots of discussion on an affidavit filed by an elections volunteer who said he was ignored when bringing up signature verification issues.

Miller says there are multiple steps to verification and that affidavit doesn't ID where in the process that volunteer was

Sturman brings up claims in lawsuit that canvassers went out to check on potentially invalid residences that were sent ballots.

Hamilton says that's "obvious hearsay" but that person moving doesn't mean they lose right to vote - college students, military members can still vote

Sturman says Mueller wants an evidentiary hearing on Monday involving Joe Gloria, two poll workers, data analysis experts, and field canvassers.

Clark County attorney Mary Anne Miller says plaintiffs are basing their claims on fact that 93K votes came back as undeliverable in June primary - says it's quite a leap of logic to get there.

"The fact that a ballot came back as undeliverable means nothing."

Hamilton says that its a fundamental principal that plaintiffs challenging election results have to show that fraudulent votes were cast, who they were cast for, and enough were cast to call results into question.
"Every step of the analysis, he fails."

Hamilton summarizes:
- They've invoked the wrong statute
- Simply put together back-of-the-napkin newspaper clippings
- Should be election contest, not a mandamus action

Mueller notes that it looks like judge has made up their mind, so he won't belabor any points.

Sturman notes that a significant number of votes in #NV04 came from outside of Clark County.

Says she has a "significant problem" with ordering a new election in just one of 7 counties that cast votes in that House election

Sturman says there are some aspects of election law that talk about "shall" do the following, election law provisions in AB4 give discretion to county election officials.

Sturman: "I'm not really sure, if we get past jurisdiction in this court....is there a request for writ of mandate appropriate where its discretionary? Arguably, no"

Sturman says "we don't have missing ballots. No one was denied their right to vote."

Sturman says difficulty is that Marchant has to "make up" 30K votes in Clark County for results of election to be in doubt. Very different from Clark County Commission C race, where results are in doubt because margin in that race was 10 votes

Sturman: "That's my problem here, is that we would be looking to make up a difference of 30,000 votes, and I just don't see how."

Mueller says he at least wants at least a status check on Monday to provide computer logs of ballot records.

Mary Anne Miller: I don't know what he's talking about. What computer backup logs go to any of his allegations made today?

Sturman says she wants to pinpoint precincts that are in Marchant's precincts where 93K people maybe voted.

Miller says that only active voters were sent mail ballots for general election (went to active/inactive voters in primary), and wouldn't even know what to look for

Hamilton again brings up that lawsuit has been filed using wrong legal mechanism - says Marchant can issue a public records request but that case should be dismissed at this point (not have status check on Monday).

Mueller says that AB4 gave Joe Gloria the "discretion" to hold a mail-in ballot election (it did not? It's a trigger based on if NV is in governor-declared state of emergency).

Sturman: This isn't the right venue. This court does not have jurisdiction over this action at all.

Sturman says she's going to DENY the petition (lawsuit) - particularly because the congressional seat in question encompasses 7 counties, and this challenge is only for one county.

Sturman says we'll be back on Monday (Mueller is attorney for @DanRodimer & has similar case up for hearing on Monday.

Mueller said he objects but the court kept rolling. Next up is the Sharron Angle lawsuit on similar grounds, which'll start at 1:30 p.m.