Lady avoids jail for voting dead mom’s poll in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and neighborhood service for voting her dead mom’s poll in Arizona in the 2020 general election.

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

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to expenses, despite widespread belief amongst 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Judge 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 impression the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was improper and I’m prepared to simply accept the results handed down by the court docket.”

Each 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 had been mailed to voters.

Assistant Lawyer Normal Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his workplace the place she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The only approach to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I imply, there’s no means to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s poll, and said nobody obtained jail time in these circumstances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply stated, over a long time period, in voluminous cases, 67 circumstances, nobody on this state for comparable cases, in related context ... nobody bought jail time,” Henze said. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson said jail time was vital because the type of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most cases involved individuals voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election individuals had purchased 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 here is someone who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big downside and I’m simply going to slip in under the radar. And I’m going to do it because everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he mentioned. “And I believe the perspective you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

LaBianca said that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told 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 could also be known as for, the court docket would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the report here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your individual fraud, such statements aren't illegal so far as I do know,” the judge continued.