Lady 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 mom’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 basic election.

But the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve not less than 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to costs, despite 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 Choose Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impression the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was mistaken and I’m ready to simply accept the results handed down by the court docket.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, were 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 General Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace where she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s poll.

“The one approach to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee told the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no approach to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and mentioned nobody received jail time in these cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional issues of fairness.

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

However Lawson said jail time was important because the kind of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most circumstances concerned individuals voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election people had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson instructed the judge. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big drawback and I’m simply going to slip 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 attitude you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

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

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be called for, the courtroom would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “But the record right here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, except your individual fraud, such statements will not be illegal so far as I know,” the judge continued.