Girl avoids jail for voting useless mom’s ballot 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 dead mom’s ballot in Arizona in 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 these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to costs, despite 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to affect the outcome of the election.

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

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

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

“The one solution to prevent voter fraud is to physically 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 sure. I imply, there’s no way to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s poll, and stated nobody obtained jail time in those circumstances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

“Merely stated, over an extended time frame, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, no one in this state for comparable instances, in related context ... no person obtained jail time,” Henze said. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson stated jail time was vital as a result of the type of case has changed. While in years previous, most circumstances concerned individuals voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in each states, within 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 instructed the decide. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big 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 within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

LaBianca said that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she informed the investigator what she wished: going after people who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be referred to as for, the court docket would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the record here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for somebody just like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, except your own fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful as far as I do know,” the choose continued.