Because the government (aka DOJ) under a democrat administration decided that that wasn't voter intimidation to the point that the accused didn't bother to show to the initial hearing and then the lawyers handling the case were ordered to drop it from above. So it's less severe than something our favorite constitutional scholar and last decent president specifically considered not voter intimidation.
OK. I mean, I'd still say someone filming you at the ballot box is more intimidating than someone standing outside, but whatever.
Why should we be using that standard here, then? You don't seem to like the standard. And I never invoked it. So why are you now insisting we work by it?
Mail ballots generally come with an envelope you have to put them in, that hides who you voted for from passerby and mail handlers. Unless something is going very wrong, even a team of idiots with cameras circling you looking as close as possible should only be able to see that you are dropping of a ballot, but not what you voted (or even if the ballot is actually yours). Like, it's a stupid pointless plan on their part unless the same people show up repeatedly to drop ballots or someone shows up with armfuls of them or something.
Mail ballots, sure. Not all ballots.
But regardless of this, the message they're sending is clear: "we're watching you". Say if I turned up to vote looking like a bit of a hippy, and the person filming me at the ballot box was a skinhead.
It's very obvious that they're likelier to make certain assumptions about me and the way I voted. And it's very obvious they want me to know.
