The third day of hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett kicked off in the Senate Judiciary Committee shortly after 9 a.m.

As with previous days, Barrett’s children and extended family filed into the hearing room ahead of her to watch.

In this second round of questioning, Democrats will likely follow up on whether Barrett would recuse herself from any election-related cases that could come before the Supreme Court later this year, while Republicans, squarely focused on getting the nomination through, counter their warnings.

Barrett, once again, has no notes or documents displayed on the witness table, opting to keep it simple with a blank notepad and pen.

After spending more than 11 hours on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Judge Barrett will face a second and possibly third round of questioning in the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, and then members will enter a closed hearing to review her FBI background check.

In the second round of questioning, senators will be given 20 minutes each, as opposed to the 30 minutes they received Tuesday. The order of questioning is determined by seniority.

With 22 senators, the round is expected to last seven hours.

It's possible the committee will then enter a third round of questioning. If there is one, each senator will receive 10 additional minutes to question Barrett, adding roughly four hours to the hearing.

After questioning concludes, members will enter a closed session to review sensitive FBI background material on Barrett, as customary in the Supreme Court nomination process.

-ABC News' Trish Turner and Allie Pecorin

The Senate Judiciary Committee spent Tuesday questioning Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, in a marathon session that featured exchanges about judicial independence, the future of the Affordable Care Act and any election-related cases that could come before the Supreme Court later this year.

Here are the key takeaways from the second day of the hearings.

It's not about the votes in the room -- virtual or otherwise -- or even the votes in the Senate as a whole.

This week's hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett are odd in at least one respect: They appear unlikely to influence the decision of a single senator when it comes time to vote on her confirmation for the Supreme Court.

But the hearings could matter a great deal when it comes to determining who will sit in similar rooms next year and beyond. Four potentially vulnerable Republican senators sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee on the eve of elections that look increasingly dire for their party.

That list includes Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who opened Tuesday's hearing with a riff about how Obamacare has been a "disaster" that he argued is laying the groundwork for Democrats to impose a single-payer system.

"That's a political debate we're involved in," said Graham, in what he acknowledged wasn't actually a question to Barrett.

Democrats on the committee include Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for vice president, along with a range of potential Biden administration Cabinet picks. Their goal for the week is less about changing colleagues' minds than it is highlighting what a conservative-leaning court could mean for matters of policy.

To that end, Barrett said repeatedly that she has no predetermined position on the Trump administration's challenge to the Affordable Care Act -- a case scheduled to go in front of the Supreme Court just days after the election.

Barrett also said she would "consider" recusing herself from a case that arises from a dispute in the election.

And in one striking exchange, her care in not prejudging outcomes left her declining to say whether the president has any right under the Constitution to delay an election -- a power he clearly does not have.

-ABC News' Political Director Rick Klein

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., raised Barrett's dissent in a case she dealt with on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Kanter v. Barr, in which she suggested the Constitution protects the right of non-violent felons to own guns but does not protect their right to vote -- a right she wrote belongs "only to virtuous citizens."

"Here is what it boils down to," Durbin said, laying out his case. "After Heller, after the decision, after Scalia's statement, you concluded that any felony can take away your right to vote, but only a violent felony can take away your right to purchase an AK-47."

"Senator, with respect, that is distorting my position," Barrett interrupted. "What I said in the case, which is what Heller said and which is conventional in all discussions of this, to my knowledge, is that the right to vote is fundamental. However, it is an individual, fundamental right we possess, but we possess it as part of our civic responsibility for the common good."

"It is a distortion of the case that I ever said that voting is a second-class right," she added.

Durbin pressed forward, hoping to get a new answer from Barrett, but she held her ground.

"When you finished with your dissent here’s what it came down to say, if you are guilty of a felony that is not violent, you can lose your right to vote. You can't lose your right to buy a gun. Am I wrong?"

"Senator, Kantor had nothing to do with the right to vote. The point I was making in that passage, the 14th Amendment actually expressly allows for states to deprive felons the right to vote. And my point was there is no similar language in the Second Amendment," she began.

"I don't have an opinion and have never expressed one about the scope of a legislature’s authority to take away felon voting rights. What I said is there is a history of provisions and state constitutions and the federal Constitution, but I did not intend and if my words communicated that, this is a miscommunication. I never denigrated the right to vote," she said.

To which Durbin replied, "It was, at best, a serious miscommunication."

In another line of questioning, Durbin pressed Barrett on why she won’t say whether a president can unilaterally delay an election and she reiterated that she won’t discuss “legal hypotheticals” whether they are "easy or hard" questions.