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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a girl o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her dead mom’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 basic 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 against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to costs, regardless of widespread perception amongst 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Judge Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to affect the end result of the election.

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

Each 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 have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Lawyer General Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his workplace where she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The only strategy to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee informed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I imply, there’s no approach to ensure a good election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do consider there was numerous 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 related violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and said no one obtained jail time in those instances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with equity.

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

But Lawson said jail time was important as a result of the type of case has modified. While in years past, most instances concerned people voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson informed the decide. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a giant problem and I’m simply going to slide in underneath 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 mentioned. “And I feel the angle you hear in the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other circumstances.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be known as for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the document right here doesn't present 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 evidence, except your individual fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful so far as I know,” the choose continued.