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

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

But the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at 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 against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to prices, despite widespread perception 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Choose Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to affect the result of the election.

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

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 before early ballots have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Legal professional Common Todd Lawson performed 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 mother’s ballot.

“The one solution to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I mean, there’s no approach to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s poll, and stated no one got jail time in those instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of equity.

“Simply stated, over an extended period of time, in voluminous cases, 67 cases, no person in this state for similar cases, in comparable context ... no person acquired jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson stated jail time was essential as a result of the type of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most instances involved people voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, within 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 advised the choose. “And basically what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant drawback and I’m simply going to slide in underneath 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 in any respect,” he stated. “And I feel the perspective you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

LaBianca said that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she wanted: 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 known as for, the courtroom may order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the file here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

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