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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a woman o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her useless mother’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 general election.

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, 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 Courtroom Decide Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to impact the outcome of the election.

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

Both McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, were registered Republicans, though she was not asked if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days before early ballots were mailed to voters.

Assistant Attorney Basic Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his office where she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The only option to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I imply, there’s no method to ensure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s poll, and mentioned no one bought jail time in these circumstances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with fairness.

“Merely stated, over a protracted time period, in voluminous cases, 67 circumstances, no one on this state for similar instances, in related context ... nobody received jail time,” Henze stated. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson stated jail time was important because the kind of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most cases concerned people voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in both 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 informed the judge. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant drawback and I’m just going to slide in below 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 at all,” he stated. “And I think the angle you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

LaBianca said that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she wished: 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 referred to as for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the record here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for somebody like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, except your personal fraud, such statements aren't unlawful as far as I do know,” the judge continued.