Woman avoids jail for voting useless mother’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 lifeless mother’s ballot in Arizona within the 2020 common election.

However the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain 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 which 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 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 earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to impact the result of the election.

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

Both 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 performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his office where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The only solution to forestall voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I imply, there’s no means to ensure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s ballot, and stated no one bought jail time in these instances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely stated, over a protracted time period, in voluminous instances, 67 cases, no person on this state for similar cases, in related context ... no one bought jail time,” Henze stated. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary as a result of the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most instances involved folks voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election people had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the choose. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s an enormous downside and I’m simply going to slip in below the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he mentioned. “And I believe the perspective you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

LaBianca said 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 proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the file here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your individual fraud, such statements aren't illegal so far as I know,” the choose continued.