They were handed absurd instructions and have no choice but to carry them out.
People with those qualifications have the ability to switch jobs in a heartbeat. To say they had no choice but to violate the constitution is absurd. They chose to do this to us.
"Would someone be so kind as to please remind me how we can block posts from a given author?"
Bennett's name is specifically not a link, so that you cannot author block him.
I do federal government InfoSec. When there is a conflict between the mission and security the manager will overrule the system administrator every time. Even in the military where lives are potentially at risk.
Sure, there is a lot of less-than-competent admins out there, but a lot more of the problem is political rather than technical than most people realize.
We are both in agreement that the formula is simple: if a measure stops more fraud than legitimate votes it is good.
The concept I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is that you apparently genuinely believe that removing mail-in ballots would stop more fraudulent than real voters. The number of fraud cases is likely extremely low, to the point of being a statistical anomaly. Why make it harder to vote for people who have to work, single parents, the elderly, those without transportation, etc?