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

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

However the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in all just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to charges, 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 different battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Choose Margaret LaBianca before the choose handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to influence the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was flawed and I’m ready to just accept the implications handed down by the courtroom.”

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

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

“The one technique to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee advised the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no method to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for similar violations of voting another person’s ballot, and said no one got jail time in those circumstances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

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

However Lawson mentioned jail time was essential as a result of the type of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most instances concerned folks voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the decide. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s an enormous problem and I’m simply going to slip in under the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he stated. “And I think the angle you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

LaBianca mentioned that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she needed: going after individuals 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 might order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the record here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for somebody just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any evidence, besides your individual fraud, such statements should not unlawful as far as I do know,” the decide continued.