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

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

But the choose 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 maintain those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in all just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to costs, despite widespread belief among 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Choose Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to influence the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was flawed and I’m ready to just accept the consequences handed down by the court docket.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, have been registered Republicans, though she was not requested 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 played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace where she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s poll.

“The only approach to forestall voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee advised the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I imply, there’s no way to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting someone else’s poll, and stated nobody acquired jail time in these instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely stated, over an extended time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 instances, no person in this state for comparable cases, in related context ... nobody acquired jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson stated jail time was essential because the kind of case has changed. While in years past, most cases concerned people voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, within 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 advised the choose. “And basically what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant problem and I’m just 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 think the angle you hear in the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

LaBianca mentioned that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed 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 may be referred to as for, the court docket would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the document right here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for someone like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, except your own fraud, such statements are not illegal as far as I know,” the judge continued.