Woman avoids jail for voting useless mom’s poll in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her lifeless mother’s ballot in Arizona within the 2020 general election.

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the very least 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, despite widespread belief among many supporters of former President Donald Trump that there was widespread voter fraud that led to his loss in Arizona and other battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to affect the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was incorrect and I’m prepared to just accept the implications handed down by the court docket.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, were registered Republicans, although she was not asked if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days earlier than early ballots had been mailed to voters.

Assistant Lawyer Common Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his workplace the place she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s poll.

“The only solution to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee advised the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no means to make sure a fair election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do believe there was a whole lot of voter fraud.”

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and said nobody got jail time in those cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply acknowledged, over a long time period, in voluminous circumstances, 67 instances, nobody on this state for similar cases, in similar context ... nobody obtained jail time,” Henze stated. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson said jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has changed. While in years past, most cases concerned individuals voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election individuals had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a giant downside and I’m just going to slip in under the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he mentioned. “And I believe the attitude you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

LaBianca said that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told the investigator what she wanted: going after people who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there were evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be known as for, the court may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the file here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your personal fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful so far as I know,” the judge continued.