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

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

However the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the least 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to costs, 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 different battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impact the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was incorrect and I’m prepared to accept the results 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 earlier than early ballots have been mailed to voters.

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

“The one strategy to forestall voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no way to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, 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 no one got jail time in these cases. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply said, over an extended time period, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, no one in this state for related circumstances, in related context ... nobody got jail time,” Henze said. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson said jail time was important because the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most circumstances involved folks voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson advised the judge. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a giant drawback and I’m simply going to slip in underneath 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 feel the perspective you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

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

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be called for, the court might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the report here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your personal fraud, such statements aren't unlawful so far as I know,” the choose continued.