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

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

However the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve not less than 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to costs, despite widespread belief 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Judge Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to impression the outcome of the election.

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

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

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

“The one way to forestall 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 positive. I mean, there’s no approach to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s poll, and stated nobody received jail time in these instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with fairness.

“Merely acknowledged, over a long time period, in voluminous cases, 67 cases, nobody on this state for similar instances, in comparable context ... no one obtained jail time,” Henze stated. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson stated jail time was necessary as a result of the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most instances involved folks voting in two states because they either 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 hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson told the choose. “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 an enormous problem and I’m just going to slide in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he stated. “And I think the angle you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

LaBianca mentioned that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told the investigator what she wanted: 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 called for, the courtroom would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “But the record here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any evidence, except your own fraud, such statements are not illegal as far as I do know,” the choose continued.