Watch along here: superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/calendar/today/

Select the live stream under Mark Finchem, Katie Hobbs or Adrian Fontes.

Sec. Katie Hobbs’ attorney argues that Finchem's claims rest on a "conspiracy theory" about the certification of tabulator machines. The attorney says that even if the theory was true, the issue should've been brought up in court before the election, not after.

The attorney for Hobbs says that the court should dismiss "this political sideshow immediately" and "send a strong message to plaintiff, and future litigants like him, that the judiciary is not the appropriate venue to air political grievances and conspiracy theories."

Sec.-elect Adrian Fontes' attorney says that "the key thing here is this case is about trying to undo millions of votes...[Finchem wants] to stop the will of the people from being effectuated and...there's absolutely no legal or factual basis asserted by which to do so."

Fontes' attorney argues that Finchem's claims about procedural irregularities do not show how the results of the election could be affected and do not amount to a true election contest under Arizona law.

Fontes' attorney: "This is just one of a series of meritless lawsuits that continue to perpetuate divisive, and frankly harmful, rhetoric and we just need to stop."

Mark Finchem's attorney begins and argues that there cannot be a motion to dismiss an election contest. The judge responds with an example from a 2013 lawsuit where an appellate court upheld a motion to dismiss in an election contest.

Finchem's attorney says that he's spent so much time responding to the motions to dismiss that he hasn't had time to prepare for his arguments in the case.

☹️

Finchem's atty: "We're not trying to overturn millions of voters, judge. We're not asking for the entire election to be redone...We're asking for a revote on the specific contest."

Finchem's attorney compares their request to the Georgia U.S. Senate runoff in that Georgia didn't have a redo of every race, just one.

The difference between Arizona and Georgia, of course, is that Georgia law requires a runoff and a "revote" isn't a real thing.

The judge asks Finchem's atty to respond to the laches argument — the legal principle that plaintiffs have to make their claim within a reasonable time frame. Finchem's atty says laches is a "trap" and that if he filed before the election, it would've been dismissed.

Finchem's atty points to a lawsuit Kari Lake & Finchem filed that sought to get voting machines banned in Arizona that was dismissed as why he didn't file this challenge earlier. The attorneys are currently being sanctioned for bringing that case. democracydocket.com/cases/arizona-…

Finchem’s lawyer says the machines are not accredited. He says that his expert would say that the signed accreditation document "is a forgery made to fool the public." Judge counters that the federal Election Assistance Commission has confirmed the accreditation of the machines.

Finchem's attorney moves on and begins arguing that Hobbs inappropriately asked Twitter to take down posts that Hobbs' office said contained election misinformation.

The judge responds that Twitter is a private company and AZ law requires election contests to prove misconduct in election canvassing. She asks Finchem's attorney to explain how a private actor taking down misinformation is misconduct in election canvassing.

Finchem’s attorney responds: "These platforms are directed by a governmental official and that makes it government. Thus, the government of Arizona restricted the speech that affected this election."

Finchem’s attorney talks about counties that refused to certify election results: "If the county boards have a legitimate belief, whether it's correct or not, it's a legitimate belief that their constituents could somehow have been injured" and they should not certify.

The judge points to a part in Finchem’s brief that states that they are not alleging any fraud, only that there were "irregularities" that affected the outcome of the election.

Finchem's attorney says: "We're entitled to have a hearing on charges of fraud or deception. And we believe that there's deception in the practice of state of not dealing fairly."

Finchem's attorney says, not revealing his source, that almost half of Arizonans believe that there's something wrong with the election. He says he took this case because "someone has to do it" and if he gets disbarred, it's okay because he wants to retire anyway.

Hobbs' attorney again urges the court to dismiss the case. Fontes' attorney says Finchem's arguments are full of contradictions and "what you've heard in the last half hour or so illustrates the complete nonsense that is this case."

The judge says she will issue her written order on the motions to dismiss by 5 pm MT and a status conference will be scheduled for Monday if needed.