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

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

But the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the least 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 certainly one of just a handful of voter fraud instances 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 Court Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to influence the outcome of the election.

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

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

Assistant Legal professional Normal Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his office the place she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

“The one technique 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 as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I mean, there’s no approach to ensure a fair election.

“And I don’t believe 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 cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for similar violations of voting another person’s ballot, and said no one got jail time in these circumstances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with fairness.

“Merely stated, over an extended time period, in voluminous instances, 67 instances, no one on this state for similar cases, in similar context ... no one received jail time,” Henze stated. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson said 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 either lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the decide. “And basically what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big drawback and I’m just going to slide in underneath 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 perspective you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

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

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be referred to as for, the court docket might order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the report right here does not show 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 with none evidence, except your individual fraud, such statements usually are not unlawful so far as I know,” the choose continued.