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

PHOENIX (AP) — A decide 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 within the 2020 normal election.

However the choose 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 maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to charges, 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 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 mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to affect the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was unsuitable and I’m ready to simply accept the results handed down by the court docket.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, have been 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 Lawyer Basic Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his workplace the place she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The one method to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” 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 fair election,” she continued. “I do consider there was a variety of voter fraud.”

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s ballot, and said nobody got jail time in these cases. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of equity.

“Simply acknowledged, over a long time frame, in voluminous cases, 67 cases, nobody on this state for similar circumstances, in similar context ... no person got jail time,” Henze stated. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson stated jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has modified. While in years past, most circumstances involved individuals voting in two states because 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 on the market,” Lawson advised the decide. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big downside and I’m just going to slide 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 perspective you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other circumstances.”

LaBianca stated that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she wished: going after people who committed voter fraud.

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

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