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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a girl o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her useless mother’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 basic election.

But the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the least 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to fees, regardless of 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 Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to impression the outcome of the election.

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

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

Assistant Attorney Common Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his office where she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The only technique to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed 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 good election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do imagine there was a 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 comparable violations of voting someone else’s poll, and stated no one received jail time in those circumstances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely said, over a long time period, in voluminous cases, 67 circumstances, no one on this state for similar instances, in comparable context ... nobody got jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has modified. Whereas in years previous, most circumstances involved folks voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election folks had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson advised the choose. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big drawback and I’m just going to slip in below the radar. And I’m going to do it because everybody else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

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

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

“And if there have been proof 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. “However the record right here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody just like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your own fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful so far as I know,” the choose continued.