Is &quot;intent&quot; taken into account by US Law (in this circumstance)?
<p>I could imagine that &quot;I was just cleaning the gun and it went off&quot; might be an acceptable defence against killing someone, but, in a comment to <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/56899/are-there-any-specific-reasons-why-president-trump-has-suggested-that-his-suppor">a question</a> on our Politics site about trump inciting voters to to vote twice, someone said</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whether such prosecution is successful may well hinge on the intent of
the voter. If a voter is able to convince a magistrate that the
transgression was innocent, he may get off with a slap. OTOH, if the
voter says that he felt it was his duty to &quot;test&quot; the system or that
he was following DJT's instructions, a significant fine and jail time
may follow.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is there any way that &quot;intent&quot; would make a difference in such a case?</p>

<p>It would depends on the laws of the particular state, since each state has its own laws pertaining to voting. The law in North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. §<a href="https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-275.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">163-275(7)</a>, says that it is unlawful</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For any person with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at
more than one precinct or more than one time, or to induce another to
do so, in the same primary or election, or to vote illegally at any
primary or election</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/pji-master-2019/criminal/r259.98%20%5B2017%5D.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">corresponding jury instruction</a> says what it means to have an intent to commit a fraud:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Intent  is  a  mental  attitude  seldom  provable  by  direct
evidence. It must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it
may be inferred. You arrive at the intent of a person by such just and
reasonable deductions  from  the  circumstances  proven  as  a
reasonably  prudent  person would ordinarily draw therefrom. Specific
intent is a mental purpose, aim or design to accomplish a specific
harm or result.</p>
<p>If  you  find  from  the  evidence  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that
on  or about the alleged date the defendant voted more than one time
in the same election event, the (name election event or contest),and
that defendant did so with the intent to commit a fraud, then it would
be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. If you do not so find, or
if you have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, then
it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The prosecution would presumably construct an argument that the defendant intended that is vote be counted twice, and if they can prove that intent, then the jury should convict. Defense could argue that the intent was based on a reasonable belief that their absentee ballot was not counted thus disenfranchising defendant, and defendant acted with the lawful intent that their vote be counted, once. Because NC law contains procedural provisions to filter out double-voting, defendant can reasonably have a non-criminal intent, even if they are mistaken about the efficacy of those safeguards.</p>
<p>However, the <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3599.12" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ohio law</a> does not carry an intent element:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(A) No person shall do any of the following: ...</p>
<p>(2) Vote or attempt to vote more than once at the same election by any
means, including voting or attempting to vote both by absent voter's
ballots under division (G) of section 3503.16 of the Revised Code and
by regular ballot at the polls at the same election, or voting or
attempting to vote both by absent voter's ballots under division (G)
of section 3503.16 of the Revised Code and by absent voter's ballots
under Chapter 3509. or armed service absent voter's ballots under
Chapter 3511. of the Revised Code at the same election;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This doesn't even require that you <em>know</em> that you are voting twice.
So it depends on the particular law of the state.</p>

<p>A basic element in most crimes is &quot;mens rea&quot;; the intent to break the law. In the case of cleaning a gun that goes off there is no intent to kill or injure, just negligence, so once the facts are established it would be sentenced as such.</p>
<p>In the case of vote fraud, the crime is voting twice and its not something you do by accident. If the crime is detected after the fact then there is no excuse. If the defendant was detected before casting the second ballot then they might be able to claim that they were only &quot;testing&quot; the system and were not in fact going to vote a second time. However AIUI this is not actually a crime; they will just be told they can't vote.</p>
<p>If a person does vote twice then they are guilty and will be sentenced accordingly; their motive for committing the crime is not relevant.</p>

united-states voting