Lady avoids jail for voting lifeless mom’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 useless mother’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 basic election.

But the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at least 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to charges, 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Choose Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to impact the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was improper and I’m prepared to simply accept the implications handed down by the courtroom.”

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

Assistant Lawyer Common Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his workplace the place she stated 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 physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee informed 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 method to make sure a fair election.

“And I don’t believe that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do believe 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 related violations of voting someone else’s poll, and mentioned no one acquired jail time in those circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely said, over a protracted time frame, in voluminous cases, 67 instances, no person in this state for related cases, in comparable context ... nobody received jail time,” Henze said. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson said jail time was vital as a result of the kind of case has changed. While in years previous, most cases concerned people voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election people had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson instructed the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing right 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 under the radar. And I’m going to do it because all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

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

LaBianca mentioned that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she advised 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 called for, the courtroom may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the record right here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

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