Mens rea is more intention to do the act, not knowledge of criminality. For example intentionally killing someone is murder even if you didn't know murder is a crime (because the act or killing was intended). The mens rea is intention to kill (if you lack the mens rea you end up with manslaughter or something equivalent).

It could be, but in order to sign a provisional ballot you have to sign a form that tells you you can't vote as a convicted felon. So even if she honestly didn't read the form (which wouldn't surprise me!) it severely undercuts her argument.

Many crimes do not require intent, they're strict liability. Some do.

That distinction isn't relevant here. She had mens rea -- she knew she was voting. She didn't know she was breaking the law.

Fascinating to me that it is humanly impossible for any individual to remember ALL the laws yet ignorance of the law is not a defence.

:)

I'm more upset that ignorance of the law IS a defense for police officers, whose job is to know it.