Woman avoids jail for voting useless mom’s poll in Arizona

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

But the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve no less than 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to costs, despite 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 Court Decide Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to affect the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was flawed and I’m ready to just accept the results handed down by the court.”

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

Assistant Legal professional Normal Todd Lawson performed 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 mom’s poll.

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s ballot, and mentioned no one acquired jail time in those cases. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional issues of equity.

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

But Lawson stated jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has changed. Whereas 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 individuals had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson advised the decide. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big downside and I’m simply going to slide 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 at all,” he said. “And I feel the attitude you hear in 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 informed the investigator what she wanted: going after people who committed voter fraud.

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be referred to as for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the report here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your own fraud, such statements will not be unlawful as far as I do know,” the choose continued.