Starting a new thread on the Sharron Angle/Election Integrity Project lawsuit in Nevada seeking an emergency injunction barring NV from certifying election results/requiring new election. Hearing starting soon

Original story/complaint here:…
This case was originally assigned to Judge Rob Bare, who recused himself as he lost re-election bid in 2020. Judge Gloria Sturman is one of 3 judges taking election cases, discloses that 20 years ago was business partners w/ Angle/EIP attorney, Joel Hansen
Felicia Ellsworth, an attorney with WilmerHale intervening on behalf of NV Dems/DNC, is presenting motion to intervene.

Judge Sturman interrupts to correct her presentation of "Nevada"
Hansen, the attorney for Angle/EIP, says he read opposition to his original motion and agreed with it(!)
"Hate to admit right in open court but I did."
He's filed an amended complaint asking for a prelim injunction, not permanent-- see here->…
Hansen says plaintiffs have come back with evidence of illegal voting/fraud in election.

Says amended motion is needed because it's an emergency situation and only way plaintiffs can get a remedy in time
Hansen says that Angle/EIP want the same relief in amended complaint
- Declare AB4 unconstitutional
- NV election results declared void
We're now on to the merits of the case:
Hansen says that previous request for injunction was denied because evidence way hypothetical. Says the situation in the US w/ voting is "unprecedented" and the "vote by mail has turned out to be a disaster."
Hansen says AB4 has "opened the floodgates wide for illegal and fraudulent voting."

Says EIP (Sharron Angle group) sent out canvassers to check on voters, says group found 41K voters on voter rolls who should have been put on inactive status (haven't voted since 2010)
Hansen said that group of 41K voters had 8K ballots cast in the 2020 election. Again, inactive voters can still vote. Inactive just refers to issues with their address, doesn't mean they cannot cast a vote
Sturman interrupts and asks what they're looking at - throwing out entire election statewide?

Hansen: Yes...this is a revolutionary thing to ask the court. I understand that.
Sturman: Shouldn't we be encouraging our citizens to vote? How is this an equal protection (claim)?

Hansen: AB4's "shotgun, blanket approach" sending out ballots leads to 1000s of votes being sent out to people who don't cast them
Sturman asks if plaintiffs have found people who have said they've received a ballot on behalf of someone else and voted for them.

Hansen is looking for an affidavit but hasn't answered question yet
Hansen says group has IDed 1,400 voters who cast ballot in NV but were registered to vote in CA.

Sturman: Do we know if they voted in CA?
Hansen is now pulling out boxes of reports from citizen 'investigators,' who went to addresses of the 8K voters that plaintiffs claim were still on active voter roll erroneously. Says many were on vacant property/different people living there
Sturman asks if there's evidence that the ballots in question could have made a different - such as Miller/Anthony race decided by 10 votes, or presidential (about 32K).

Hansen says ~any~ voter fraud causes vote dilution, which is grounds to overturn AB4
Sturman says to accept that premise, then why is this an emergency? Is it going to change anything?

Hansen: There's "so much fraud going on that we don't know how the race should have turned out."
Sturman says even accepting all of Hansen's claims, why does judge need to throw out an entire election as a remedy?
Hansen's argument, as best I can follow, is that this pool of 8K voters out of 1.4 million cast (which is people who cast a ballot for first time since 2010) is proof enough of fraud that the election should be nullified and expanded vote-by-mail found unconstitutional
And of those 8K, plaintiffs have sent out canvassers to addresses to check status and found 57 who no longer reside at address (those statements are considered hearsay at this point)
Now up to @NevadaAG's Craig Newby, who says lawsuit was filed 17 days after the election and is requesting extraordinary relief (new election/prohibiting elected officials from taking office.)

"This is their burden, their extraordinary burden, to get this extraordinary relief.
Newby: They simply haven't done it. And if the court has no questions I can stop there. But the extraordinary nature of the relief requires a little bit more.
Newby says other courts have required plaintiffs to show personalized injury, not that their vote was diluted by 0.01% or whatever
Newby says bringing this challenge 4 days before statewide canvass "is not seeking just extraordinary relief. This is super extraordinary relief, and there's just no evidence to justify it."
Sturman notes that it's a hardship for officials re-elected or elected in 2020 if this was to go forward, because they just don't hold keep holding office indefinitely
Abha Khanna, attorney for @PLANevada is now up.

Khanna says the application seeks relief beyond scope of complaint, circumvents "well established" statutory procedures for challenging electoral results.
Khanna notes that the "vote dilution by fraud" theory has been rejected in every court its been presented.
Khanna says "this is a lawsuit, not a movie trailer designed to keep audiences on the edge of their seat." Says if they want relief now, they need to provide evidence now
Sturman says the current claims (reports by EIP volunteers on addresses checked) have "layers of hearsay"
Sturman: I don't mean to sound cavalier, but so what? How does this affect the 1.4 million voters to cast a ballot
Sturman: I'm just saying, I'm not understanding...your argument. There is no particularized harm that they've been able to identify, such that a preliminary injunction was would be appropriate.
We're now on to Felicia Ellsworth, attorney for DNC/NV Dems. Says that EIP's declarations denote observations or what someone else said about an address.
"There's not a scintilla of evidence of any actual votes cast which should not have."
Ellsworth notes that only 7 reports on questionable addresses are signed by people at address. Even accepting all of those reports as legit, that's only about 200 votes, which is nowhere near margin in presidential race
Sturman says the "mere fact that someone may have lived at that address and moved," or haven't voted recently, "doesn't make your vote illegal"
Hansen says the standing argument is irrelevant because previous judge in case found that Angle/EIP have standing, which wasn't touched/modified by NV Supreme Court
Supporters of lawsuit have taken over the BlueJeans vide conferencing comment section, including Sharron Angle herself Image
Hansen keeps making point that if a person doesn't vote in 2 subsequent federal elections, they should be put on the inactive voter list.

SOS: "No registered voter in NV is ever changed from active status to inactive status solely on the basis of not voting in recent elections"
Here is the full @NVElect statement on when active voters become inactive - only deals with returning election mail. You are not made inactive because you don't vote in 2 elections…
Sturman says she's troubled by claims of "illegal votes," as it doesn't have a definition in law, but plaintiffs are just arguing that it's "just anybody that you know didn't voted the way you want to vote."
Sturman says she's "struggling" with throwing out an entire election over maybe 8K fraudulent votes out of 1.4 million cast.

Hansen: How much fraud is too much?
Sturman: I'm not saying that there's not problems here. I'm saying you're asking me to throw out an election and order a do over on an emergency basis, and isn't there an administrative remedy? (submitting complaint to @NVSOS)
Sturman seems to be getting irked with Hansen, says "stop right there" like 5 times in a row. Says simple fact that some have CA voter registration isn't proof of fraud, because that's not evidence they cast a vote in CA - they may have just decided to vote in NV anyways
Sturman: To throw out an election, based on what-ifs, is really an extreme request here Mr. Hansen.
Hansen says that the Election Integrity Project sent 2 letters to @NVSOS, but SOS did nothing and wrote back "we have better information than you have."

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Riley Snyder

Riley Snyder Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RileySnyder

20 Nov
Sturman: You are asking, as a preliminary matter to throw out 1,400,000 votes on the chance that somewhere around 258 people voted who should not have
Sturman says she's "really struggling" with idea of throwing out the election, says doing so would cause "very serious harm to public, disenfranchising the 1.4 million people who did vote....and the public interest is keeping people in office.
Sturman says she does not see herself granting a preliminary injunction based on the record.

"The civil remedy of throwing out an election is just a shocking ask."
Read 7 tweets
20 Nov
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
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"
Read 52 tweets
8 Nov
.@8NewsNow has a livestream of the Trump campaign/NV GOP press conference scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. today. I'll be live-tweeting remarks:…
Chants of "God Bless Trump" and "Four more Years" before @AdamLaxalt & @mschlapp start press conference
Laxalt says the Trump campaign hasn't observed signature verification on the 600,000 votes cast by mail this election
Read 12 tweets
6 Nov
I'll be live-tweeting this hearing on the lawsuit filed by NV GOP groups seeking a halt to Clark County's use of a signature verification machine. Scheduled to start at 2 p.m. PST
To recap, here's what the plaintiffs are requesting as part of the lawsuit (which was filed last night in federal court).
Our story on the complaint:…
Here is the @NVSOS reply to the complaint, filed earlier today:

And here is the NV Dems/DNC reply (they're intervening in the case)
Read 73 tweets
5 Nov
Link to livestream of Trump campaign/NV GOP press conference in Las Vegas this a.m. (via @8NewsNow)…
If you're having troubles with the livestream Fox5 is also carrying the presser on Facebook Live:…
Former AG @AdamLaxalt is kicking off press conference, says he "cares deeply about the rule of law and voter integrity."
Read 9 tweets
4 Nov
NEW: Judge Joe Hardy Jr. rules that polling sites that were not open by in Clark County due to technical difficulties can remain open until 8 p.m. this evening.

HARDY: The right to vote is obviously extremely extremely important and if the courts going to err on the side of anything, as, as all parties candidly recognize here, best to err on the side of allowing the full fair opportunity for everyone to cast their votes.
IMPORTANT: Hardy says anyone in line at the listed locations by 8 p.m. can still cast a ballot
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!