Girl avoids jail for voting lifeless mother’s poll in Arizona

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

But the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve not less than 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in all only a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to expenses, 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 Court docket Choose Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to influence the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was wrong and I’m ready to accept the implications handed down by the court.”

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

Assistant Attorney Common Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his workplace where she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s poll.

“The only solution to forestall voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I mean, there’s no means to ensure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting someone else’s poll, and said nobody obtained jail time in those cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply stated, over a long period of time, in voluminous instances, 67 instances, no person on this state for related instances, in similar context ... no one acquired jail time,” Henze said. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was important because the kind of case has modified. While in years previous, most instances concerned people voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election individuals had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big drawback and I’m just going to slide in under 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 at all,” he stated. “And I think the attitude you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

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

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

“And abhorrent as it might be for somebody like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any evidence, except your personal fraud, such statements should not unlawful so far as I do know,” the decide continued.