I rarely rely on single, anonymous sources, however I did receive something from one that I consider impeccable. Also, the information is opinion and not fact. However, you as the reader should consider these factors.
According to the source, an observer (one learned in the law) at the Powell hearing indicated the Justices seemed inclined towards the Handel arguments.
The manner in which Justices question attorneys is usually an indicator of their thoughts, but not always. This may mean nothing or it may mean everything. We will have to wait and see.
UPDATE: The AJC has a good report on the hearing.
“We’ve had absentee and early voting and it’s been going on for three weeks,” said Justice Robert Benham. “Why is this not moot?”
That's a very good question. Here's the way it may go down. The Court hates to muck around in elections but also hates leaving statutory powers in limbo, so it may come down to which they hate more. If they decide since the election is already under way the matter is moot, Powell wins. If they decide to actually issue a ruling clarifying the law, Handel wins.
Either way, here's a tip for future candidates - for Gods sake, change your homestead before you qualify.