I would like to tell you that I'm covering a hearing in Clark County, NV, in one of the cases challenging the county's handling of mail-in voting and seeking a revote, but...the courtroom is somehow muted on Blue Jeans, so I am only covering in the sense that I can *see* it...

A masked lawyer is currently gesturing. Then the masked judge is gesturing. That's all I've got.

Aha we have sound!

Here's a link to the complaint in this case courtesy of @DemocracyDocket, it's seeking a total revote in Clark County: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/A-20-824884-W_Writ-Peittion-1.pdf

The hearing sound kicked in just as the judge was questioning how the allegations raised by plaintiffs warrant a total redo of voting in Clark County (she sounds v. skeptical) — she questions that he's basically asking that residents in Clark County don't have their votes count

Just so the players are clear — the Trump campaign is *not* a party to this case, and the DNC/Nevada Dems are seeking to intervene to support Clark County

Oof so it turns out the public was given the same BlueJeans info as the lawyers for Clark County and the DNC/Nevada Dems, so they've been shut out of the hearing until now too. The judge is summarizing everything that's happened so far and figuring out how much they need to redo

The plaintiff is a GOP congressional candidate Jim Marchant — the judge is saying that in terms of understanding what Marchant is arguing, she has a problem with the fact that the congressional district at issue covers multiple counties, but he's only challenging Clark County

Meanwhile, the lawyer for Clark County says Marchant and his lawyer (who is pursuing several lawsuits raising similar claims in Clark County) haven't formally served them, and procedurally have also styled the lawsuit wrong per NV law

The Clark County hearing is back on after a short break - so far the video and audio are working!

Nevada local counsel for DNC/NV Dems is seeking permission for out-of-state lawyers to enter the case, which is normally a pretty routine process. Plaintiffs counsel Craig Mueller is opposing, saying this is a narrow, county-specific issue, dispute they need to be part of it

Judge has granted the motion for out-of-state counsel to have permission to practice in the case, saying they've met the requirements and parties have a right to hire whatever counsel they want. Now hearing args about whether DNC can formally intervene in the case

Something that jumped out: In opposing admission of DNC counsel, the plaintiff's lawyer Craig Mueller argued it was a narrowly-drawn, county-specific case, and he started to say it involved fraud before quickly correcting himself that it was not about fraud

DNC/NV Dems lawyer Kevin Hamilton argues they have an interest b/c it affects Dem candidates. Even if relief is just about revoting Marchant's race, and not all races, Hamilton says that still affects his clients. "This election is over. And Mr. Marchant lost the election."

Judge Sturman grants DNC/NV Dems motion to intervene — she explains she's doing it because Marchant didn't name his Dem opponent (Steven Horsford, who won) in the congressional race as a party, and so someone needs to be representing Horsford's interests in the case

Mueller is summarizing their case against Clark County, which is two-fold: That Clark County sent 10s of thousands of mail-in ballots to addresses with inactive addresses, and then unlawfully and improperly used a computer program to verify signatures on mail-in ballots

The Nevada Supreme Court previously considered the issue of the computer system Clark County used to verify signatures on some mail-in ballots, Agilis, and wasn't persuaded that it violated Nevada law https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7289523/11-3-20-NV-Supreme-Court-Order-Trump.pdf

Clark County lawyer Mary-Anne Miller says Marchant's lawyer is misrepresenting the law and the facts on the ground:
- NV law anticipates situations where people are still eligible to vote even if the address on their ballot is wrong (e.g. military, college students)

More from Miller:
- Clark County election officials can't just scrub someone from voter rolls if one mail-in ballot is returned for bad address, it takes multiple election cycles
- Agilis is not a "voting machine" per NV law, it sorts mail and can be used to check signatures

DNC lawyer Kevin Hamilton is noting that NV law says that Senate/House candidates are explicitly carved out from the state election contest law, and he argues Marchant is trying to shoehorn an election contest through other laws re: ballot destruction that don't apply

Judge Sturman goes back to her problem with the fact that even if Marchant just wants a revote for his race, the congressional district covers multiple counties, and he's only asking for a do-over in Clark Cty. DNC lawyer Hamilton says that would trigger equal protection issues

Sturman is noting the previous case challenging the use of the Agilis system to verify signatures, noting that a judge in Carson City held a 10-hour evidentiary hearing before rejecting that challenge

Clark Cty's Miller says Marchant's case is based on too many leaps — that b/c 93K ballots were allegedly returned as undeliverable in the *primary*, that's proof large #s cast invalid ballots in the *general*, and that there's a way to show X of them voted for the Dem candidate

Sturman again comes back to the fact that Marchant is only asking for a do-over in Clark County — she confirms that the congressional district at issue covers seven (7) counties. Marchant's position is he only has a problem with how Clark County handled things

Sturman is saying that the math doesn't make sense — Marchant has to make up ~30K votes in Clark County, and she's not clear how the court is supposed to be able to tell if the ballots that he contends are at issue would make a difference in terms of that margin

I have to jump off this Clark County hearing for a bit, but @alanfeuer is live-tweeting so follow him for more updates --> https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status/1329884032860041217

This outcome seemed likely given the judge's questions today — worth noting there are several cases raising similar claims pending in Clark County from the same lawyer, Craig Mueller https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status/1329886136412549120