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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and community service for voting her lifeless mother’s ballot in Arizona within the 2020 basic election.

But the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the least 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in all just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to expenses, despite 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 Courtroom Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to affect the end result of the election.

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

Both McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, although she was not requested if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days earlier than early ballots have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Legal professional Common Todd Lawson played 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 ballot.

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

“And I don’t consider that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do believe 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 received jail time in those instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of equity.

“Simply said, over an extended period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, no person in this state for comparable circumstances, in comparable context ... no person obtained jail time,” Henze stated. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was important as a result of the type of case has modified. Whereas in years previous, most cases involved individuals voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election individuals had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the judge. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big drawback and I’m simply going to slip in under 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 stated. “And I believe the perspective 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 committed voter fraud.

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be referred to as for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the document here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for someone just like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, except your individual fraud, such statements will not be illegal so far as I know,” the decide continued.