Girl 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 community service for voting her lifeless mother’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 general election.

However the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at least 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold these 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 charges, despite 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 Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned 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 wish to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was improper and I’m ready to just accept the implications handed down by the court.”

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

Assistant Attorney General Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his workplace the place she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s poll.

“The only approach to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I imply, there’s no approach to make sure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting someone else’s poll, and stated no one obtained jail time in those cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely acknowledged, over a long period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, no one in this state for similar circumstances, in related context ... no one acquired jail time,” Henze said. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson stated jail time was vital because the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most cases concerned folks voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the judge. “And primarily what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big drawback and I’m just going to slip in under 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 at all,” he stated. “And I think the attitude you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

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

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be known as for, the court may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the document right here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

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