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

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

However the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the very least 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 of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to fees, 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 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 Judge Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to affect the end result of the election.

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

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

Assistant Attorney Normal Todd Lawson played 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 mother’s ballot.

“The only way to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee told the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I imply, there’s no method to ensure a good election.

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

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

“Merely acknowledged, over an extended period of time, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, no one in this state for comparable cases, in similar context ... no person bought jail time,” Henze stated. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson said jail time was necessary because the type of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most cases involved people voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in each 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 on the market,” Lawson advised the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s an enormous problem and I’m just going to slide in underneath the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everyone 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 mentioned that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told the investigator what she wanted: going after individuals who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the report right here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone just like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, besides your own fraud, such statements aren't illegal so far as I know,” the decide continued.