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

However the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the least 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of just a handful of voter fraud instances 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 other battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to influence the outcome of the election.

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

Both McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, though 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 General Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace where she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The only way to prevent 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 positive. I mean, there’s no method to make sure a good election.

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

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

“Simply acknowledged, over a protracted time frame, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, no one on this state for related circumstances, in related context ... nobody acquired jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson said jail time was important as a result of the type of case has modified. While in years past, 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 on the market,” Lawson instructed the judge. “And basically 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 big downside and I’m just going to slide in under the radar. And I’m going to do it because all people 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 angle you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite cases.”

LaBianca said that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she advised the investigator what she needed: going after individuals who committed voter fraud.

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be called for, the courtroom may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the document 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 usually are not unlawful as far as I do know,” the choose continued.