Lady avoids jail for voting useless mother’s ballot in Arizona

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

But the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at least 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to expenses, regardless of widespread perception 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said 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 told LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was incorrect and I’m ready to simply accept the consequences handed down by the courtroom.”

Each 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 earlier than early ballots had been mailed to voters.

Assistant Attorney Basic Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his workplace where she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, 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 bought jail time in these circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely acknowledged, over a protracted time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, nobody in this state for related cases, in similar context ... no one received jail time,” Henze said. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson stated jail time was vital as a result of the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most cases concerned individuals voting in two states as a result of they both 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 listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson instructed the choose. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant downside and I’m just going to slip in below 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 said. “And I believe the angle you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other circumstances.”

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

“And if there were evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be known as for, the courtroom may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the file here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, besides your individual fraud, such statements aren't unlawful so far as I do know,” the judge continued.