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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a girl o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her dead mom’s ballot in Arizona within the 2020 general 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 maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to fees, regardless of widespread perception 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Choose 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 influence the outcome of the election.

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

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

Assistant Attorney Basic 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 mom’s ballot.

“The only solution to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no means to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, 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 said nobody received jail time in these instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with fairness.

“Simply stated, over a long time period, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, nobody on this state for related circumstances, in comparable context ... no person obtained jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson said jail time was important because the type of case has modified. While in years previous, most circumstances involved people voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the decide. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous problem and I’m simply going to slip in underneath 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 in any respect,” he stated. “And I believe the attitude you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

LaBianca said that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she advised the investigator what she wanted: going after people 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 courtroom would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the report here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody just like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any evidence, besides your own fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful so far as I do know,” the judge continued.