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

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

However the judge 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 among just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, 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 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 Decide Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to impact the outcome of the election.

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

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

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

“The one way to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no way to ensure a fair election.

“And I don’t believe that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do consider there was a whole lot 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 someone else’s ballot, and mentioned nobody got jail time in those instances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with fairness.

“Merely stated, over a long period of time, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, no one in this state for related cases, in comparable context ... no person obtained jail time,” Henze stated. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson said jail time was essential because the type of case has modified. While in years previous, most instances concerned people voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election individuals had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson instructed the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant downside and I’m just going to slip in under 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 stated. “And I think the perspective you hear within 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 informed the investigator what she wanted: going after individuals who dedicated 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 court docket may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the report here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your individual fraud, such statements should not unlawful so far as I know,” the judge continued.