Thread by @RileySnyder

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: thenevadaindependent.com/article/sharro…

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->
beta.documentcloud.org/documents/2041…

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

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 ktvn.com/story/42190337…

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."