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

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

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at least 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, 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 different 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 judge handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to influence the end result of the election.

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

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

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

“The only solution 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 sure. I mean, there’s no approach to ensure a fair election.

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

“Merely acknowledged, over a long period of time, in voluminous instances, 67 cases, no one on this state for related instances, in similar context ... no person acquired jail time,” Henze stated. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson stated jail time was necessary because the type of case has modified. While in years past, most instances concerned individuals voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson instructed the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous problem and I’m just going to slide in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he said. “And I believe the attitude you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other circumstances.”

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

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be referred to as for, the courtroom would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the record here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, besides your own fraud, such statements usually are not unlawful so far as I do know,” the decide continued.