Moreover none of the proposed measures would have prevented that, as you said it was in fact an error. The reason why this issue is so intractable is because t

Moreover none of the proposed measures would have prevented that, as you said it was in fact an error. The reason why this issue is so intractable is because the level of disruption must be measured against the risk of disenfranchisement. People would be happier to implement these unneeded security measures if there was more care by those proposing them to address those ways in which legal legitimate voters would be refused a ballot. And the fact they don't ever address those concerns is the whole tell that the disenfranchisement is the point. Instead it's always bad faith "Oh you want the elections to be unsecure, you're overlooking massive security holes!" At the end of the day the biggest loudmouth in the world got people so mad about an election that they attacked the government, so then we were forced to spend years going over that election with a fine tooth comb only to turn up zilch. Even the Cyberninjas couldn't find the fraud they alleged when given direct unfettered access to voting records. And yet, we still have to entertain claims about the boogeyman of voting as if they're in good faith. Prove it in just one court under high standards of evidence! But even the biggest loudmouths saying fraud won't say it under oath in front of a judge, because they don't have the evidence to back it up. It's far past the point that noncitizens voting in elections should be considered the biggest threat to our democracy. No, the threat is an authoritarian, insurrectionist president trying to corrupt the election process.