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

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

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

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to expenses, 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 different 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 Choose Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impact the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was fallacious and I’m ready to just accept the results handed down by the courtroom.”

Both McKee and her mom, 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 Lawyer Normal Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his office where she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and said nobody got jail time in those instances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply said, over a protracted time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, nobody in this state for comparable cases, in similar context ... nobody obtained jail time,” Henze said. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was essential because the type of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most instances involved people voting in two states as a result of 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 instructed the decide. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s an enormous drawback and I’m simply going to slide in beneath 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 mentioned. “And I believe the perspective you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite cases.”

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

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the file here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for somebody like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, besides your own fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful as far as I know,” the decide continued.