If he has a half decent lawyer, I think he will ultimately win this case. There's soo many burdens on the prosecution to show intent to actually make people think they voted, they would have to present parties that were actually "injured" by this, and they would have to make a strong case that the person intended to fraudulently represent the campaign and that people fell for it.

I bet they have zero parties that can say "I did this and thought I was voting!". And if people tried to fake that they did, and it's proven that they voted in the election, then they would open a whole can of worms where one could say that if their premise is they thought they were voting, then they effectively intended to commit a crime where they voted twice.

Not to mention the glaring fact that there is no law on the books that says a person can vote by phone. It's like if you told someone they can go 120mph on the highway, and they did despite the speed limit signs, and you're charged with some crime for telling them they could do that. Which shows just how preposterous such a case is. What it will be is a political show trial for political talking points. It's not meant to create justice. It's meant to punish political opposition.

Oh and one final thing, they actually have to prove what he meant by "vote". Vote can mean a LOT of things, vote isn't a word only reserved for elections, it can be a vote for anything, and they can't prove otherwise because you can't convict people on what you think their intent was. It immediately creates reasonable doubt that no matter what they imply the intent was, is still reasonable doubt. That's where the prosecution runs into a brick wall.