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 community service for voting her dead mother’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 common election.

However the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to costs, 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 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 docket Judge Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to impact the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was wrong and I’m ready to simply accept the implications handed down by the court docket.”

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

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

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s poll, and stated nobody acquired jail time in these circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with fairness.

“Simply said, over an extended period of time, in voluminous cases, 67 cases, no person in this state for related instances, in related context ... nobody got jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson stated jail time was important as a result of the type of case has modified. While in years previous, most cases concerned individuals voting in two states because they either 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 hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson advised the decide. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s an enormous problem and I’m just 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 stated. “And I feel the attitude you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

LaBianca stated that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she informed the investigator what she wanted: going after people who committed voter fraud.

“And if there were evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be referred to as for, the court docket may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the report here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

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