I'm listening to @realDonaldTrump's campaign make it's case against Maricopa County election officials in Superior Court.

Judge Daniel Kiley has set aside 5 hours for this hearing, which will cover submitted evidence and oral arguments.

I have coffee so let's do this.

First up, defendants are arguing that evidence collected from an online, Trump campaign portal that asked people to make declarations they had an issue at the polls.

Attorneys for the Secretary of State say the evidence is unreliable and untrustworthy.

The judge is really hammering on the way these declarations, these online "affidavits," were gathered.

Under repeated questions, attorneys for Trump acknowledge they know some of the evidence gathered online were false. (They did not submit those as evidence.)

As for the declarations they DID submit from the web portal, Trump attorneys don't know if they're true... They just can't prove it was false.

The judge is skeptical: Says if you know false evidence was submitted, how can you say this is a reliable evidence-gathering process?

***Quick note from me to point out the judge is hearing arguments to exclude some, not all, of the evidence submitted by Trump's attorneys.

There is more evidence to consider later.

Trump attorney's defending the evidence as "presumptively reliable," says it's submitted under penalty of perjury.

The judge doesn't see it that way.

He's asking questions that indicate he doesn't think this evidence doesn't meet legal standards.

Judge grants the motion to exclude evidence gathered from the Trump campaign's web portal. Says the process can't be trusted given that Trump's own attorneys discovered some online affidavits were false:

"It simply generated affidavits that you can't prove are not true."

Now we're getting arguments about the crux of the case:

How are election officials supposed to treat "overvotes"?

That's a circumstance when someone voted for too many people in a particular race on the ballot.

What's at stake here when it comes to @realDonaldTrump's hope of surpassing @JoeBiden in Arizona: 180 overvotes.

In total, there were 950 overvotes identified in "partisan" races in Maricopa County.

Trump attorney Kory Langhofer argued that "these 950 putative overvotes receive the manual review process mandated by Arizona law" in a brief.

Roopali Desai, an attorney the Secretary of State, says that's not the law: only "damaged or defective" must get a manual review.

Thomas Liddy, the attorney for various Maricopa County officials, provides new numbers for presidential overvotes:

Out of 166,875 in person, Election Day ballots, there were only 191 overvotes for presidential candidates.

We're done with opening arguments. Now Kory Langhofer begins his case by stating their claim is not about fraud. Different tone than @realDonaldTrump's tweets.

"We are not alleging anyone stole the election," he says. Adds they're dealing with good-faith errors on overvotes.

First witness called by the Trump campaign: Scott Jarrett, director of Election Day & Emergency Voting for Maricopa County.

This has become impossible to follow as multiple lines of conversation interrupt the audio from the Trump campaign and Jarrett...

I can't even hear the hearing anymore...

Sorry y'all.

The hearing has been recessed until 12:30pm.

The hearing has picked up again.

Scott Jarrett, director of election day and emergency voting, is explaining how overvotes work.

Basically, it's a situation where someone fills in an oval for more than one candidate. For example, there were three presidential candidates on AZ ballots. You pick one, no more.

Jarrett says, as county officials have publicly said, overvotes can be corrected, but that's a choice given to the voter.

They can leave the ballot as is. Votes in all other races will be counted. But the race that was overvoted is not.

Or they can fill out a new ballot.

Attorneys for @realDonaldTrump are now asking Jarrett about Sharpies.

Background on this issue: https://kjzz.org/content/1633148/arizona-ballots-marked-sharpie-pens-were-not-invalidated-brnovich-investigating

I'm honestly not sure where this is going, and how, if at all, it might tie into their broader claims about overvotes.

I could be wrong, but I don't think this line of questioning is being asked by the Trump campaign...

When the hearing was interrupted earlier, it seemed Kory Langhofer was beginning to make his case. Now I think attorneys for Maricopa County are asking the questions.

OK I've got my bearings. Joe LaRue, a Maricopa County attorney, was leading the questioning of Elex. Dir. Jarrett.

Now Kory Langhofer, atty for @realDonaldTrump and GOP parties, is questioning Jarrett.

In summary, attorneys for the county were asking Jarrett to summarize the process by which votes are handled if the ballot tabulator detects an overvote.

FWIW, Langhofer just mentioned there were fewer overvotes in 2020 than there were in 2018.

Jarrett attributes that to new ballot designs (fill in ovals, room for ink to bleed through) and the voting center model.

Langhofer wrapped up his questioning. It seems the main points he wanted to make were twofold:

1. Election officials sometimes make mistakes.

2. There are electronic photos of overvotes that could be retrieved for review.

Attorneys for the county are now asking about those photos Langhofer mentioned.

Jarrett said they can't simply identify specific ballot images -- they'd have to review images of all ballots in a batch. The size of the batch depends on the # of voters at a polling place.

Attorneys are done questioning Elections Director Jarrett, at least for now.

Trump attorneys just called Laura Christians up. She says she voted in person on Election Day.

Christians testifies that, when she went to turn her ballot into the tabulation machine, her ballot was initially spit out.

She says the poll worker put the ballot back in, hit a green button and told Christians she was good to go.

This is an example of what @realDonaldTrump attys are trying to prove happened: People weren't given an opportunity to correct overvotes.

EXCEPT that Christians just testified she only voted for one presidential candidate.

In her declaration, she says she "can't be sure" her vote for @realDonaldTrump was counted.

She says she doesn't have a "receipt" to show her vote counted.

(Nobody gets a receipt.)

But she also testified that she didn't overvote...

Christians testifies that she's uncertain that her vote was counted based on her conversations with @realDonaldTrump attorneys, friends, family members... Generally, things she's heard about the election.

Christians testifies the poll worker didn't notify her of an error...

The gist is that would make sense, given that her own testimony indicates there was no error.

But Langhofer makes the point that Christian was never shown the screen that would show if an error occurred.

Another voter now testifies that the ballot tabulation did indicate he overvoted on a race... It wasn't the presidential race.

Before he had a chance to review the error, the voter testified the poll worker pressed the green button to push the ballot forward.

On cross examination, we're getting some more Sharpie questions...

Langhofer jumped in to make it clear the Trump campaign is not making the debunked Sharpie controversy a part of their case.

The second witness is more reliable in the sense that he testified the ballot tabulation machine indicated there was an overvote on his ballot, and that the poll worker didn't give him a chance to decide whether to correct it or push the ballot through anyway.

But it also seems clear from his testimony that the overvote did not affect his vote for president. Nonetheless, both witnesses so far have expressed generally fears about their vote not being counted.

We've now heard from two poll watchers with concerns that voters weren't given a chance to correct overvotes -- that the "green button" was pressed before they could correct errors.

But none could view the ballot tabulation machine to confirm there was an error to fix.

We're having a quick 10 minute recess.

Some common themes in the testimony so far:

1. Voters testified tabulation machines found errors on ballots, even when the voters themselves inspected the ballot and found no error. Dunno what that means.

2. Attorneys for @azdemparty have cross examined every witness. They've asked every voter if they voted for more than one presidential candidate.

Every voter has answered "no." Most indicated they only voted for @realDonaldTrump and believe that vote wasn't counted.

3. Voters haven't been able to give a reason why they believe their votes weren't counted. Some have simply referenced things they've heard or read about the vote count.

Others cited a lack of understanding of their options at the polling place.

We're back and hearing testimony from Zack Alcyone, the man who created http://donttouchthegreenbutton.com  (which seems dead now) for @realDonaldTrump campaign.

Trump attys asking about the integrity of testimony gathered from the site.

That was the last witness called by Kory Langhofer, attorney for @realDonaldTrump and the GOP.

Now attorneys from Maricopa County call Kelly Dixon, asst. director of recruitment/training for county elections.

Dixon oversaw training of poll workers in Maricopa County.

She testified that poll workers were trained that, if an error was noted by tabulation machines, to let the voter decide whether to push the red or green button and decide what to do about it.

Of course, we heard some testimony from voters/poll observers who say, to their knowledge, that did not always occur.

Luciano Amoroso's experience stands out in this regard. He said a poll worker identified an error, but then pushed the green button without Amoroso's consent.

Now on the stand: Gina Swoboda, election day ops director for Trump's campaign.

"I had an open line of communication" with all counties on election day, she said.

Under questioning, said she didn't raise issues about voter intent being overridden by a poll worker: "No ma'am."

She did express concern that some ballots required two or three tried to be fed into the ballot tabulation machines.

Those concerns were raised and adequately addressed, Swoboda said, by county election officials.

Swoboda also testified that she never raised concerns with poll workers to @SecretaryHobbs's office.

Swoboda said she can't say that there were consistent, improper actions by poll workers on election day, just that there was some confusion.

Swoboda was asked if she has firsthand knowledge of votes for @realDonaldTrump that weren't counted properly on election day.

She says only that she knows some voters believe that their votes were counted. (We heard that directly from several voters.)

Swoboda now being questioned by Langhofer, Trump's attorney.

She again says she had no discussions about the green button on election day, but she "believes" that on election night, it was discussed by Trump's campaign.

No more witnesses. Now onto closing arguments. Trump's attorney repeats this is not about fraud.

Says they're asking for a contingency: If the margin of victory in a race is smaller than the overvotes identified by the county, "someone should look at" the overvotes.

Trump attorney said that's the same remedy available if a voter cast an early ballot and there was an overvote - it automatically gets a manual review.

Says its only fair that all ballots, early or in person, are treated that same way.

Trump attorney also says they're not asking for a recount, nor some overly burdensome task.

"Do the count right the first time," he says.

Langhofer, remember, is also an attorney for state GOP.

So he's also raising this as an issue not just for @realDonadTrummp, but for other Republicans down the ticket, like state Sen. @KateMcGeeAZ and Maricopa County supervisor @jacksellers.

Roopali Desai, attorney for @SecretaryHobbs, said the only problem here is misinformation fed to voters after the fact.

"Pressing the green button means the ballot is cast, not rejected."

She says there's nothing in state law requiring in person overvotes to be double-checked.

Judge Kiley interrupting here. He notes the reason why in person overvotes aren't manually double-checked "assumes the voter was given a choice."

Some voters testified they weren't given that choice. Then "why wouldn't the provision for manual review of those ballots apply?"

Desai, the attorney for @SecretaryHobbs, said there's nothing in law to allow that process.

She also says that voters who testified they weren't given a proper choice also testified they didn't overvote.

The judge doesn't sound convinced that there's not a chance for relief here, even though the Trump campaign hasn't proved widespread or systemic failures by poll workers.

Now up, attorneys for the county.

He notes that GOP attorney's may be using softer language at trial, but the plaintiffs themselves (including @kelliwardaz, GOP chair) have spent days since the election claiming "stop the steal," spreading rumors.

The county's attorney, I think this is Liddy, reiterates there is no proof of systemic fraud as alleged in the Trump campaign's inititial complaint.

And besides, he says the rules cannot be changed "in the middle of the count, after the election."

The county attorney also notes that all the ballots, the overvotes in question "have already been counted."

Again, pushing the green button means ballots are cast, not rejected.

Liddy: "Words matter. Statutes matter... numbers matter. And 99.89 percent of the ballots cast on election day have been tabulated for one candidate for president."

Defense attorneys for @SecretaryHobbs and Maricopa County officials have used closing arguments to remind that the Trump campaign made broad claims of fraud in their initial complaint.

The judge sounds amenable to the much, much narrower request Langhofer made in closing.

Liddy says the government should not treat ballots differently based on the outcome of the election. Doesn't matter how close the outcome is...

He uses the umpire metaphor. Government needs to call balls and strikes the same way no matter how close the outcome.

Attorneys for @azdemparty note that attorneys for the @realDonaldTrump have set a "moving target" for what they're asking for.

Started with claims that "thousands" of ballots impacted by overvotes. Now we're talking about a contingency order, depending on race margins.

. @azdemparty attorney said Trump attorney is misreading the law by comparing overvoted ballots cast in person versus damaged ballots, or early ballots.

. @azdemparty attorney said there is specific relief for issues with voting prescribed by the Arizona state Legislature... This remedy, manual review of in person overvotes, is not one of them.

Langhofer, Trump's attorney, is again seeking to distance the case from the claims of fraud and stolen elections made by his clients, including @realDonaldTrump and @kelliwardaz.

Judge Daniel Kiley isn't gonna issue a ruling immediately. He's taking the matter under advisement.

Not sure when we'll get a ruling.

That's it!