Girl avoids jail for voting lifeless mom’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 lifeless mother’s poll in Arizona in the 2020 basic election.

But the choose 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 these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in all only a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, despite 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to influence the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was unsuitable and I’m prepared to accept the implications handed down by the court.”

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

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

“The one option to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee advised the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I imply, there’s no means to ensure a fair election.

“And I don’t believe that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do believe there was quite a lot of voter fraud.”

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of cases 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 mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with equity.

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

However Lawson mentioned jail time was vital as a result of the type of case has modified. While in years past, most cases concerned folks voting in two states as a result of they both 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 listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson instructed the judge. “And primarily 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 drawback and I’m simply going to slip in beneath 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 at all,” he said. “And I think the angle you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

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

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the record right here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

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