Lady avoids jail for voting dead mom’s poll 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 useless mom’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 common election.

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

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to fees, regardless of 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 Courtroom Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to impact the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was mistaken and I’m prepared to accept the implications handed down by the courtroom.”

Both McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, although she was not requested if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days earlier than early ballots had been mailed to voters.

Assistant Legal professional Common Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The only way to forestall voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no manner to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and mentioned no one acquired jail time in these instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with equity.

“Merely stated, over a long time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, no one in this state for similar instances, in related context ... no one acquired jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson stated jail time was important as a result of the kind of case has changed. While in years past, most circumstances involved people voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election individuals had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson instructed the decide. “And basically what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big problem and I’m just going to slip in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he mentioned. “And I believe the angle you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other circumstances.”

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

“And if there were evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be known as for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the record right here doesn't 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, except your personal fraud, such statements usually are not illegal so far as I do know,” the choose continued.