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

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

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

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to expenses, regardless of widespread belief amongst 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Decide Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to influence 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 habits. What I did was mistaken and I’m prepared to just accept the results handed down by the courtroom.”

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

Assistant Legal professional Common Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

“The only approach to forestall voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no approach to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s ballot, and mentioned nobody acquired jail time in those cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely stated, over an extended time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, nobody in this state for similar cases, in comparable context ... nobody received jail time,” Henze stated. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson stated jail time was essential as a result of the kind of case has changed. While in years previous, most circumstances concerned people voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election folks had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson instructed the choose. “And basically what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous downside and I’m simply going to slide in beneath 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 in any respect,” he said. “And I think the attitude you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

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

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be called for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “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 with none proof, except your personal fraud, such statements aren't unlawful as far as I know,” the decide continued.