Girl avoids jail for voting useless mom’s ballot in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and community service for voting her useless mother’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 normal 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 maintain those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of only a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to costs, regardless of 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Decide Margaret LaBianca before the choose handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to impression the outcome of the election.

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

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, have 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 General Todd Lawson performed 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 one solution to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee advised the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no means to ensure a fair election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do imagine there was lots 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 someone else’s ballot, and said nobody obtained jail time in those cases. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely acknowledged, over a long time period, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, nobody on this state for similar circumstances, in comparable context ... no one obtained jail time,” Henze said. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was essential because the type of case has modified. Whereas in years previous, most cases involved individuals voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson instructed the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big drawback and I’m just going to slide in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he mentioned. “And I believe the attitude you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

LaBianca mentioned that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told 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 may be referred to as for, the court docket might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the file right here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for somebody like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your own fraud, such statements will not be unlawful as far as I do know,” the judge continued.