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

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

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve not less than 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of only a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to expenses, regardless of widespread perception amongst 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Choose Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to affect the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was fallacious and I’m prepared to just accept the results handed down by the court.”

Each McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, have been registered Republicans, though she was not asked if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days before early ballots were mailed to voters.

Assistant Lawyer Normal Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace where she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The one approach to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no means to ensure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting someone else’s poll, and stated nobody received jail time in these cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply acknowledged, over an extended time frame, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, nobody on this state for related circumstances, in similar context ... no one obtained jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson stated jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most instances involved people voting in two states as a result of they both 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 out there,” Lawson informed the judge. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant downside and I’m just going to slide in below the radar. And I’m going to do it because everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he mentioned. “And I think the angle you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite cases.”

LaBianca stated that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she informed the investigator what she needed: going after people who committed voter fraud.

“And if there were evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be referred to as for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the document right here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for someone just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, except your own fraud, such statements will not be unlawful as far as I do know,” the decide continued.