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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a woman o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her lifeless mom’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 normal election.

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

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to fees, 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 other battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to influence the outcome of the election.

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

Each McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, have been 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 Attorney Normal Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his office the place she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

“The one option to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee advised 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 ensure a fair election.

“And I don’t imagine that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do believe there was a number 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 similar violations of voting another person’s ballot, and stated no one acquired jail time in those circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with fairness.

“Simply acknowledged, over a long time frame, in voluminous instances, 67 instances, no one in this state for related circumstances, in similar context ... no one bought jail time,” Henze stated. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson stated jail time was vital as a result of the type of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most cases involved people 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 hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the decide. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big drawback and I’m simply going to slip in below the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everybody else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he stated. “And I think the angle you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

LaBianca mentioned that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she needed: 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 may order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the report right here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, except your personal fraud, such statements will not be unlawful so far as I do know,” the judge continued.