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

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

However the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the least 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in all only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to fees, regardless of widespread belief 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impact the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was unsuitable and I’m ready to accept the results handed down by the court.”

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

Assistant Legal professional Basic Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his office where she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The only way to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee advised the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no means to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s poll, and said nobody got jail time in those circumstances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

“Merely acknowledged, over an extended period of time, in voluminous cases, 67 cases, no one on this state for similar instances, in comparable context ... nobody received jail time,” Henze stated. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson stated jail time was vital as a result of the kind of case has modified. While in years previous, most instances involved people voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous problem 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 feel the attitude you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

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

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be known as for, the court may order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the record here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for somebody just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, except your own fraud, such statements will not be unlawful so far as I do know,” the judge continued.