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

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

However 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 hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to prices, 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 different battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Choose Margaret LaBianca earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee stated 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 want to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was incorrect and I’m prepared to accept the consequences handed down by the court.”

Both 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 earlier than early ballots were mailed to voters.

Assistant Attorney Normal Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his office where she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

“The one way to forestall voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee advised the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. 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 quite a lot of 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 related violations of voting another person’s poll, and said no one acquired jail time in those instances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with fairness.

“Simply said, over a long time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 instances, nobody on this state for similar cases, in similar context ... no person bought jail time,” Henze said. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was essential as a result of the kind of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most circumstances 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 out there,” Lawson instructed the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s an enormous problem and I’m simply going to slip in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of 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 angle you hear in the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

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

“And if there were evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be referred to as for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the report right here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone just like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your personal fraud, such statements will not be unlawful so far as I know,” the decide continued.