Lady avoids jail for voting lifeless mom’s ballot in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a woman o two years of felony probation, fines and community service for voting her useless mother’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 general election.

But the decide 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 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 which 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 Decide Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to affect the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was improper and I’m prepared to just accept the consequences handed down by the court docket.”

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

“The only option to forestall voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no means to ensure a fair election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do imagine there was a whole 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 another person’s ballot, and stated nobody got jail time in those circumstances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely stated, over a protracted time period, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, no person on this state for similar circumstances, in similar context ... nobody obtained jail time,” Henze said. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson said jail time was necessary because the type of case has modified. While in years past, most cases concerned individuals voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election individuals had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson advised the choose. “And basically what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous problem 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 stated. “And I feel the perspective you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the file right here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, besides your personal fraud, such statements usually are not illegal as far as I know,” the choose continued.