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

PHOENIX (AP) — A decide in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a girl o two years of felony probation, fines and neighborhood service for voting her useless mother’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 general election.

But 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 hold these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to expenses, regardless of 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 Choose Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to impact the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was mistaken and I’m ready to simply accept the consequences handed down by the courtroom.”

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 have been mailed to voters.

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

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

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

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

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

But Lawson stated jail time was essential 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 either lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson instructed the judge. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is someone 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 slip in below the radar. And I’m going to do it because everyone 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 attitude you hear in the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

LaBianca stated that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed 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 referred to as for, the court docket might order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the record here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for somebody just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your individual fraud, such statements usually are not unlawful as far as I know,” the decide continued.