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

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

However the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to expenses, 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 other 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 before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to influence the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was mistaken and I’m prepared to accept the results handed down by the courtroom.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, have 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 were mailed to voters.

Assistant Legal professional Common Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his workplace where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

“The one strategy to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee told the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no approach to make sure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for related violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and mentioned nobody bought jail time in those instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply said, over an extended time frame, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, nobody in this state for similar instances, in similar context ... no one bought jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was important as a result of the type of case has modified. While in years previous, most circumstances concerned folks voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in both states, within 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 told the choose. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous drawback and I’m simply going to slip in under the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everyone 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 opposite instances.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the record here doesn't show 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 own fraud, such statements are not unlawful so far as I know,” the choose continued.