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

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

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the very 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 towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to costs, 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 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 said that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to influence the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was incorrect and I’m ready to just accept the implications handed down by the courtroom.”

Each McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, have been registered Republicans, though 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 Common Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace the place she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

“The one approach to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee advised the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no method to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s poll, and mentioned nobody acquired jail time in these instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

“Merely acknowledged, over a protracted time frame, in voluminous instances, 67 instances, nobody in this state for comparable cases, in related context ... no person got jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most circumstances involved folks voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election folks had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson told the choose. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big problem and I’m simply going to slip in beneath 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 believe the perspective you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

LaBianca stated that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she advised the investigator what she needed: going after individuals who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be known as for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “But the document 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 assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any evidence, except your own fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful as far as I do know,” the decide continued.