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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a woman o two years of felony probation, fines and neighborhood service for voting her lifeless mother’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 normal election.

But the choose 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 these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, despite widespread perception amongst 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 judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to affect the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was flawed and I’m prepared to simply accept the implications handed down by the court docket.”

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

Assistant Lawyer Basic Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his office the place she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

“The one solution to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee informed 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 means to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s poll, and said no one acquired jail time in these circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely stated, over a protracted time period, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, no one on this state for related circumstances, in comparable context ... nobody received jail time,” Henze said. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson stated jail time was important as a result of the kind of case has changed. While in years past, most circumstances involved individuals voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election individuals had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

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

LaBianca mentioned that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told the investigator what she needed: going after individuals who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be called for, the court may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the file here does not present 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 without any proof, except your own fraud, such statements are usually not illegal as far as I know,” the choose continued.