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

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

But the decide 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 towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election which 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Choose Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to impact the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was flawed and I’m ready to accept the results handed down by the court.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, have been registered Republicans, although 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 Attorney Normal Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his workplace where she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The one technique to prevent voter fraud is to bodily 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 certain. I imply, there’s no method to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for similar violations of voting another person’s ballot, and stated no one got jail time in those circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with fairness.

“Merely said, over an extended time period, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, no one on this state for similar instances, in comparable context ... nobody acquired jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson said jail time was essential because the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most cases involved people voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election people had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson advised the decide. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big drawback and I’m just going to slide in underneath the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everybody else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he mentioned. “And I think the angle you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

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

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, besides your individual fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful so far as I do know,” the decide continued.