Okay, let's go with that for a second. I'd even agree with it. So what is stopping this? If you can find "volunteers" among the Republican election fraud conspiracy fanatics who want to show up and watch people stand in line for eight hours each day until Election Day, go ahead. Under this interpretation of the law, you're entitled. However, the law PERMITS these challengers / watchers. It doesn't REQUIRE them. That's why we operate each voting location so that TWO election officials sign off on every ballot and why TWO election officials must supervise any handling of machines and final tallies.

A child of ten could read the applicable statute and come to that conclusion and reject Heins' request for an injunction.

Do you have a link to the order?

I read your post, and I agree that this seems odd. I wasn't able to find the order, but I found a copy of the motion for the injunction. My reading of it is that the GOP was only asking for what you already agree with. The County was apparently refusing to allow watchers. The individual defendant in the case had applied to be a watcher, and was denied - apparently because the County had decided that they weren't required to allow watchers for in-person absentee voting. That decision by the County seems wrong. What Heins actually asked for in his motion was probably legitimate, and should have been granted.

So this may be a case where either the media reports might be misreading the scope of the injunction (it might order the County to allow watchers, not require them) or that the injunction itself is confusingly worded (it might read as though it requires watchers or no voting, even though that's not what plaintiff asked for). The Sec of State has said that the early voting will stay open, so they apparently do not read the order as requiring early voting to be shut down.

fox2now.com - Court order pauses early voting in st charles county