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

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

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to fees, 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 different battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Decide Margaret LaBianca before the choose handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to affect the outcome of the election.

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

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

Assistant Attorney Basic Todd Lawson performed 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 ballot.

“The one way to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee told the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I mean, there’s no approach to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s poll, and mentioned no one bought jail time in those circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely stated, over a long time period, in voluminous circumstances, 67 instances, no person in this state for similar circumstances, in comparable context ... nobody obtained jail time,” Henze stated. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

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

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson told the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant problem and I’m just going to slip 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 at all,” he stated. “And I think the angle you hear in the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be called for, the court docket may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the file here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, besides your individual fraud, such statements should not illegal as far as I know,” the decide continued.