Lady avoids jail for voting lifeless mother’s poll in Arizona

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

But the choose 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 against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to expenses, 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 Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to impression the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was unsuitable and I’m prepared to simply accept the consequences handed down by the court.”

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

Assistant Attorney Normal Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his office where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s poll.

“The only approach to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee informed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no manner to make sure a fair election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do imagine there was a variety 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 related violations of voting someone else’s poll, and mentioned no one bought jail time in those cases. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply said, over a long period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, nobody on this state for comparable instances, in similar context ... nobody obtained jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has modified. Whereas in years previous, most instances concerned people voting in two states because 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 hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson instructed the choose. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a giant problem and I’m just going to slide 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 at all,” he said. “And I think the attitude you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

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

“And if there were evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the record here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your own fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful so far as I do know,” the decide continued.