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

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and neighborhood service for voting her useless mother’s poll in Arizona in the 2020 general 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 hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to prices, regardless of widespread perception 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 Courtroom Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than 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 want to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was mistaken and I’m ready to simply accept the consequences handed down by the court docket.”

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

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

“The one approach to forestall voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee advised the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no manner to make sure a good election.

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

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

“Merely said, over an extended period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, no person in this state for similar instances, in similar context ... nobody got jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary because the kind of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most circumstances involved folks voting in two states because they either 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 instructed the decide. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a giant problem and I’m simply going to slip in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he mentioned. “And I feel the angle you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

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

“And if there were evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court docket may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the document here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

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