New:
A hearing will begin soon in Las Vegas about allegations of voting irregularities in Clark County, Nev.
The plaintiffs, 2 GOP House candidates, have charged there were "lax procedures" for authenticating ballots & that 3000 ballots were cast by ineligible voters.
Stay tuned.

The DNC and the Nevada state Democratic party have intervened in the case on behalf of the defendants, Clark County officials.
Judge Andrew Gordon, an Obama appointee, will preside.

Case is being called.

David O'Mara, lawyer for GOP plaintiffs, says one of his clients went to watch the post-vote counting process and wasn't able to get access.
Says the law permits the process to be public and it wasn't.

He asks for election officials to comply with that law.
Observers should be within 6 feet and be able to see & hear clearly.

Judge Gordon notes that O'Mara's own motion asks for "meaningful" access to ballot process. "What are you actually asking for?" he says.
The 6-feet rule, O'Mara says.

(Remember the count in Nevada is still going on....)

Judge Gordon asks if imposing such rules isn't the legislature's job, not his as a judge.
O'Mara wants him to enforce the rule.

(All of this echoes similar arguments from a hearing from last night about election observers in Philadelphia...)

Judge Gordon is now quoting a Justice Kavanaugh concurrence saying that federal courts shouldn't "swoop in" and get involved in state elections.
O'Mara tries to say the judge isn't "stepping in" but helping to conduct the process according to state law.

Judge notes that one of the GOP candidates O'Mara is repping *did* get to view the process but just didn't like where he was put.

So we need to open this to anyone in the world who wants to come in? Judge Gordon asks.
No, O'Mara says, but there has to be public access.
Circles.

What *specifically* did O'Mara's client not see that he wanted to see? Judge Gordon asks.
O'Mara doesn't answer that questions but says he wants relief to place his client, a GOP House candidate, within 6 feet of the counting where he can see & hear.

(Someone is now blasting rock and roll on the line. Good grief.)

It's like hold music from hell and is drowning out the entire proceeding...

Gone. Thank god.

Another O'Mara client, an elderly woman, tried to vote on Oct 28 and couldn't but didn't try to vote again until Nov. 5.
Gordon asks why did she wait to try again?
O'Mara...isn't sure why. But says she tried everything she could and sought to find out what happened.

What's interesting so far is the narrowness and small scope of the claims here.
One citizen's bad experience at the polls.
A matter of where election observers can stand.
These are not systemic complaints.

O'Mara is suggesting the judge "push pause" on the vote count and order Clark County not using its current vote tallying machines.
Judge Gordon does not seem inclined to do this.

(Recall, of course, that President Trump is behind in the Nevada count...)

O'Mara is now asking to have an evidentiary hearing on many--unspecified number--of ballots processed by the tallying machines he doesn't like.

Judge turns to defendants.
Craig Newby, a lawyer for the state, says they're in court even as ballots are being counted w/o any argument that this lawsuit can succeed on merits.

Newby says he doesn't want to start a process where the two sides argue about every single observer--where they can stand, for how long, etc.
Judge Gordon, seeming to agree, says, "I'm not anxious to go back to the days of the hanging chad."

As for the vote tallying machines, Newby says, the machines have been out there for months. No surprises here. Clark, an urban county, uses the machines to verify signatures even if smaller rural counties don't or can't, he says.

Nothing in the law prohibits use of these machines and there has been no evidence offered by the plaintiffs that the machines are unreliable, Newby says.

"What's required here is evidence," Newby says, "not just talking points."

MaryAnne Miller, a lawyer for the county, says that election officials haven't turned anyone away. Chirs Prudhome, the plaintiff who complained about access tried to record and drew ire of other observers, she says, and left for "his own safety." He's welcome back anytime.

Again, the parties here are arguing, on an emergency basis, about how much one observer in Clark County was able to see of the vote count and about complaints by a handful of other voters that the county's machines read their signatures automatically.

John Devaney, a lawyer for the DNC, notes that the county's voting machines have been in use for many months and in other places. Now, two days after the election, this complaint arrives asking the court to bar the machines from use? Would create disruption, he says.

"It would create chaos and confusion," Devaney says.
He adds: "It's extradordinary" that the plaintiffs would even ask to stop the machines--especially on the basis of one declaration from one voter who isn't even sure if the machines affected her vote or not.

"It's a remarkable leap you're being asked to make," Devaney tells the judge.

On top of all that, Judge Gordon says, the Nevada Supreme Court is hearing these very issues itself. Why, he asks the plaintiff's lawyer O'Mara should a federal judge be dealing with this?

O'Mara says the state Supreme Court won't rule until at least next week and he wants the federal court to settle things now.
"But shouldn't this be decided by Nevada justices elected by Nevada residents?" judge asks. He says O'Mara should ask Supreme Court to expedite things.

Remember: these small-ball legal arguments are taking place even as Biden's lead in the Nevada tally keeps growing.