Girl avoids jail for voting useless mom’s ballot in Arizona

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

But the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at least 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain those 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 amongst 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 Court Choose Margaret LaBianca earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to impact the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was flawed and I’m ready to just accept the implications handed down by the court.”

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

Assistant Lawyer Common 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 only strategy to forestall voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee informed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I imply, there’s no method to make sure a fair election.

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

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

“Simply stated, over an extended time frame, in voluminous cases, 67 cases, no person in this state for comparable circumstances, in similar context ... no one got jail time,” Henze said. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was vital because the type of case has modified. Whereas in years previous, most circumstances concerned individuals voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election individuals had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big downside and I’m simply going to slide in below the radar. And I’m going to do it because everybody 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 attitude you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

LaBianca stated 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 could also be known as for, the court docket would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the file here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for someone just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any evidence, besides your personal fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful so far as I do know,” the choose continued.