Girl avoids jail for voting useless mother’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 lifeless mother’s ballot in Arizona within the 2020 general election.

But the decide 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 hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to charges, 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 other 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 Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to impact the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was fallacious and I’m prepared to just accept the consequences 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 had been mailed to voters.

Assistant Lawyer Basic Todd Lawson played 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 ballot.

“The only strategy to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no method to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s poll, and stated nobody received jail time in these instances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply stated, over a long period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, no person on this state for related circumstances, in similar context ... nobody received jail time,” Henze said. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary because the type of case has changed. While in years past, most cases involved folks voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election folks had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson advised the decide. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big drawback and I’m simply going to slip in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

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

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

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be referred to as for, the courtroom may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the record right here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your personal fraud, such statements are not illegal so far as I do know,” the judge continued.