going to try to hop on the bridge line to listen to the return hearing in aguilera v. fontes, which is a preposterous lawsuit involving #SharpieGate after a voter alleged that her vote didn't count because she used a sharpie to vote

the amount of money being spent on this fight is astounding. there are numerous highly paid election law attorneys involved in this case, which, again, is about permanent markers

as a preliminary matter, the documents are all available online, which is nice: https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2020/-folder-263

my favorite is that the plaintiff attempted to change judges as a matter of right, which you cannot do right now because of COVID. whoops!

we still haven't started yet because lawyers are bad at audio and are all "hearing an echo" that i, an innocent observer, do not hear at all

right now, someone is repeating over and over "can anyone hear me right now?" i can, speaker! but i cannot speak myself

20 minutes of audio issues. i'm sure this hearing will go swimmingly

i'm not in the actual gotomeeting lobby, so i can't see exactly how many attorneys are present. i would suspect there are at least ten attorneys on the call, with an hourly rate of at least $500 an hour (and likely higher for some). with 30 minutes wasted, that's $2,500 at least

finally calling the case, judge listing the motions that have already been filed. the judge going over the proposed interventions by the trump campaign and the democratic party first, with no objections

the plaintiffs want an evidentiary hearing a week from today. i have no idea how the plaintiffs are going to get the relief they want if that's the timeline

the plaintiffs are leaning VERY heavily on the attorney general's office's letter, which, uh, https://www.wltx.com/article/news/politics/ag-brnovich-no-evidence-sharpie-issue-kept-votes-from-being-counted-in-arizona/75-d1f4d241-60b4-4346-8a8a-bd15d509f44c

the county is pointing out that there is no way that they can identify the people who are somehow aggrieved (and part of the class), because we have a secret ballot. this should be obvious

county says that the manufacturer told them that the sharpie is the best ink to use for the machine (quick drying, etc.) and that it's accurate for the count

county specifically blasts some of the proposed plaintiffs with respect to their claims because it is something they experienced or "read about on the internet"

the county says that they responded to brnovich's letter already. also: points out that counsel for the plaintiffs contacted county employees and asked that they stop. there's a potential ethical violation there

the county again pointing out what is obvious: if we're talking about a hearing in a week, the count will be done by then. so what are we even talking about?

it is worth noting that the attorney for the county is tom liddy, who is g. gordon liddy's son. he is quite obviously conservative, but he probably doesn't believe that this is a worthwhile legal issue (because it's an argument about markers)

the county pointing out that the voters literally put the ballot into the tabulator themselves, so the proposed "remedy" (let us watch the count) makes no sense. they already watched the count!

the county: the possible relief - you should get to watch your vote being counter - is literally something that in-person voters already got to do. so what are we talking about?

the democratic party says that they'll get a motion to dismiss on file by monday. the county says they'll do it even quicker and again talk about this "fake story" about the sharpies and how the county wants to resolve this ASAP

"this story about 'sharpies being dropped from black helicopters to alter their vote' is fake" - the county

the trump campaign proposes an evidentiary hearing (coupled with arguments on the motion to dismiss) on november 16. again: this is totally inconsistent with the relief requested

basically the trump campaign is proposing that, with a hearing on november 16, they can somehow alter or impact (i would say "interfere with") the certification of the election results (which is 20 days after the election)

the judge makes clear that she's not going to issue any sort of order today (either on the proposed TRO or on the requested dismissal).

the plaintiffs push for immediate relief (being able to watch the ballots being tabulated). this is not going to happen, ever. also, there's literally a live feed.

the plaintiffs claim - incredibly! - that there is no cost or harm to the county in allowing "normal members of the public" to be able to go in and observe the count. last night, a bunch of protesters (some with long guns) surrounded the tabulation headquarters

the judge asks: how does this help anything, at all? how does allowing the voter to watch the count have anything to do with the injury from their voting experience?

the county points out that anybody can already watch the count right now. it's available online! it's here! https://recorder.maricopa.gov/multimedia/btcgallery.aspx

the county also points out that there are live observers (from the parties and the candidates) and that, by the way, did we forget we're in a pandemic? why on earth would we introduce more people to a small, indoor location?

the county explaining very calmly (well, maybe not "very") what the live feed / observation would show

the county also pointing out that all of the counting right now is early ballots (either mail-in or a small number of early votes). but the ballots counted on election day aren't even there, and those are apparently the plaintiffs' ballots

plaintiffs' counsel: "security notwithstanding, a video feed is not live observation" which is preposterous

the judge presses the plaintiffs for the citation to the statute: an addendum to a procedures manual which says: "The electronic adjudication of votes must be performed in a secure location...open to public viewing." uhhhh why is a live feed insufficient?

the out-of-state attorney for the plaintiffs has a new conspiracy: the paper was thicker for mail-in ballots than it was for in-person voting. this is "upon information and belief"

she is now arguing that we are talking about "different ballots," since they're not counting the ballots of the in-person voters with rejected ballots. so why would you get to observe the counting of ballots that are not at issue in this case?

the judge: "going down and watching a different process...i'm not sure how that's relevant to what the plaintiffs are really saying is their harm here." the attorneys for the plaintiffs are stepping on each others' toes

out-of-state attorney for the plaintiffs is trying to say there is a "special procedure" for these ballots that couldn't be read by the tabulator and that someone then reviews and tries to determine voter intent. i am not sure that this is true