Girl avoids jail for voting dead mother’s ballot in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a girl o two years of felony probation, fines and community service for voting her dead mother’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 normal election.

However the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the very 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 certainly one of only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to prices, regardless of widespread belief 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Choose Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned 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 behavior. What I did was unsuitable and I’m ready to just accept the consequences handed down by the courtroom.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, although she was not asked if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days before early ballots have been mailed to voters.

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

“The one technique to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee informed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I imply, there’s no way to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s poll, and mentioned nobody got jail time in those circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

“Merely stated, over a protracted period of time, in voluminous instances, 67 cases, no one in this state for comparable circumstances, in comparable context ... no person received jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was essential because the kind of case has modified. While in years previous, most circumstances involved people voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election people had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson told the decide. “And primarily what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big downside 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 said. “And I think the attitude you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite cases.”

LaBianca said that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told the investigator what she wanted: 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 known as for, the court docket may order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the report right here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

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