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

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

However the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at 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 towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances 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 different battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Decide Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impression the outcome of the election.

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

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

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

“The only approach to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” 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 means to ensure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and stated nobody received jail time in those cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of equity.

“Simply stated, over a long time period, in voluminous instances, 67 instances, no person on this state for related cases, in similar context ... no one got jail time,” Henze said. “The court docket 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 previous, most cases involved individuals voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election folks had bought 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 essentially what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big problem and I’m simply going to slide in underneath the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of 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 perspective you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be referred to as for, the court docket may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the file right here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

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