Read on Twitter
I can hardly hear anything, but from the little I can gather Hanen doesn't seem inclined to throw out the votes. But again, I can hardly hear.
Someone (a woman) is destroying the Bush v. Gore argument right now.
Hanen is now saying he's concerned about the elections clause of the constitution. The lawyer is responding.
He's now seeing who else wants to talk. This hearing is very consistent with my experiences with Judge Hanen.
Also, there is a kid talking in the background (from the call) and it's great.
Also, there is a kid talking in the background (from the call) and it's great.
Another lawyer is raking plaintiffs over the coals for their delay.
He's letting @steve_vladeck's lawyer from Reed Smith talk now.
A lawyer who represents some voters who voted drive through is talking now. This is just filling in the corners at this point. Hanen seems like he's done with whatever he wanted, unless he has more Qs for Plaintiffs.
The lawyer says he represents his mother. Hanen thinks this is funny.
A lawyer with pregnant wife who is representing himself is now talking.
Pregnant wife lawyer says "I'm here to say my vote counts."
I think plaintiff's counsel is arguing again, but no idea what he's saying. He must be away from the mic.
He's saying something about how the legislature only provided for mail in voting, so that's it.
More shouting from plaintiff's counsel but I don't know what he's saying. Hanen is letting him talk.
This call is made even better by fact that someone shouts "MUTE YOUR LINES" every 40 seconds.
Hanen points out, I think (I can hardly hear), that all kinds of counties do different things with voting, so what's the big deal.
Lawyer shouts more things in response, but again, no idea what he's saying. I hear the word legislature.
A new person has told us to mute our mics after someone logged on and said "how are you doing."
This is what I'm tweeting because Woodfill continues to shout stuff I can't really hear.
This is what I'm tweeting because Woodfill continues to shout stuff I can't really hear.
"I'm on hold with animal services."
PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONES, comes the voice again.
PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONES, comes the voice again.
Hanen now wants to talk about the other aspects of the test for a preliminary injunction. (this was all likelihood of success, maybe?)
Hanen just asked a clearly skeptical question of Plaintiffs but there are some many people logging in and we can hear all their notifications when they log in
Hanen asks "what about the public interest" to Plaintiff's counsel (that is one of the factors they have to satisfy for the injunction they're seeking).
Woodfill says something like the drive-through voting has abrogated the legislature's rules on how you vote. "It's not close enough"
Mithoff (one of the Defendant's counsel, a very well known lawyer here) is now being asked about irreparable injury and public interest.
Someone is sighing audibly on the conf. call. Unnnng, she says.
Literally 25 beeps of people logging in, no clue now what Mithoff is saying, but it's about the SCOTUS opinions - sounds like Purcell type stuff.
Someone is analyzing the case on the conference call and isn't muting.
The woman from before is going to town on the 4 days before election day point (this is the winner) and she says it's not at all clear voters would be able to vote again - weighs heavily against throwing out the votes.
"We were inundated with voters who wanted to be represented"
"Invalidating the ballots would be profoundly inequitable"
says this good lawyer. Don't know who it is.
"Invalidating the ballots would be profoundly inequitable"
says this good lawyer. Don't know who it is.
"Even the most limited remedy given to plaintiffs would create chaos tomorrow." (YES)
"Voters would reasonably fear they could not be allowed to vote again."
"Voters would reasonably fear they could not be allowed to vote again."
Hanen says he doesn't think Purcell is applicable, because that's about enjoining state law, this isn't that. That's a negative for the voters - Purcell is one basis they would win.
One lawyer is citing Hanen's own opinion in the DAPA (?) case back to him (where he refused to unscramble an egg)
A dog in the distance howls. I too would like to howl.
