[xdmr]

What I don't understand: Is it established in the law whether intent is enough in this case for there to be a crime, or is actual harm required?

Lots of people are saying either "No evidence that any votes were lost" or "He obviously had mens rea." As far as I can tell, both of these statements are probably true. Sometimes in law, intent is enough to create a crime, and sometimes it isn't. For example, attempted murder is a crime, but attempted assault is not (although sometimes attempted _aggravated_ assault is). So, is it established that intent is sufficient for a crime in this particular case or not?

Note that when I say "no evidence" I mean that I don't think the government lawyers submitted any evidence (like a sworn statement by somebody who said that they got fooled and subsequently did not vote because they thought they already had) that anyone was deprived of a vote. I don't mean that there's no rational basis to believe that anyone was deprived.