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

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose 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 in the 2020 basic election.

But the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the very least 30 days in jail because 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 just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to expenses, despite widespread belief 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 docket Choose 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 impression the end result of the election.

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

Each 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 Lawyer Basic Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his workplace the place she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The one option to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee informed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I mean, there’s no method to make sure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for similar 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 raise constitutional issues of equity.

“Simply stated, over a protracted time frame, in voluminous instances, 67 cases, nobody on this state for similar circumstances, in comparable context ... no person obtained jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary as a result of the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most instances involved people voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the decide. “And basically 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 just going to slide in below the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he said. “And I think the attitude you hear within 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 advised the investigator what she wanted: going after individuals who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be known as for, the court may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the report right here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

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