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

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

However the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of only a handful of voter fraud instances 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 different battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Decide Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to affect the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was wrong and I’m prepared to just accept the results handed down by the court.”

Both 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 have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Attorney Normal Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together 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 one method to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I mean, there’s no means to make sure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for similar violations of voting another person’s ballot, and mentioned nobody bought jail time in those cases. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with fairness.

“Merely stated, over a long period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, nobody on this state for related cases, in comparable context ... no person got jail time,” Henze said. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson stated jail time was essential because the type of case has changed. While in years past, most circumstances involved individuals voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in both 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 informed the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big downside and I’m simply going to slide in beneath 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 said. “And I feel the perspective you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

LaBianca said that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she wished: 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 known as for, the courtroom may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the document here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for somebody just like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, besides your own fraud, such statements are usually not illegal as far as I do know,” the decide continued.