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

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

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

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to costs, 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 other battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Choose Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to impact the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was incorrect and I’m ready to accept the results handed down by the court.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, had been 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 Legal professional Basic Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his office where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for similar violations of voting another person’s ballot, and mentioned nobody acquired jail time in those instances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with fairness.

“Simply stated, over an extended time period, in voluminous instances, 67 cases, no person in this state for similar cases, in similar context ... nobody got jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court 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 previous, most cases concerned individuals voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election individuals had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson informed the judge. “And primarily what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big problem and I’m simply going to slip in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because everybody else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he stated. “And I feel the angle you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be called for, the courtroom would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “But the document here doesn't show 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 with none evidence, except your personal fraud, such statements aren't illegal so far as I do know,” the decide continued.