Woman avoids jail for voting lifeless mom’s poll in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a woman o two years of felony probation, fines and community service for voting her lifeless mother’s poll in Arizona in the 2020 basic election.

But the judge 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 those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to expenses, regardless of widespread perception 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 Court Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to impression the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was improper and I’m ready to simply accept the consequences handed down by the courtroom.”

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 earlier than early ballots were mailed to voters.

Assistant Legal professional General Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his office the place she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s poll.

“The only method to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” 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 manner to ensure a good election.

“And I don’t imagine 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 instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for comparable violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and mentioned nobody acquired jail time in these circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely said, over a long period of time, in voluminous cases, 67 circumstances, no one in this state for similar instances, in similar context ... no person bought jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was important because the kind of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most cases involved individuals voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson told the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous problem and I’m just going to slide in below the radar. And I’m going to do it because everybody else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he stated. “And I believe the attitude you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

LaBianca stated that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she advised the investigator what she needed: going after individuals who dedicated 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 would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the file here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for someone just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your personal fraud, such statements should not unlawful so far as I know,” the decide continued.