Woman avoids jail for voting dead mother’s ballot 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 mother’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 basic 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 maintain those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, 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 other 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 before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to affect the 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 ready to just accept the consequences handed down by the court.”

Each McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, had 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 had been mailed to voters.

Assistant Attorney Common Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace the place she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The only way to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I mean, there’s no way to ensure a fair election.

“And I don’t imagine 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 circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and stated nobody bought jail time in those instances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply acknowledged, over an extended period of time, in voluminous cases, 67 instances, nobody on this state for related instances, in similar context ... nobody received jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson stated jail time was important because the kind of case has modified. While in years previous, most instances involved folks voting in two states because 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 advised the judge. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big problem and I’m just going to slip in beneath 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 said. “And I feel the attitude you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

LaBianca said that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she informed the investigator what she wished: 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 known as for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the record here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for someone like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, except your personal fraud, such statements will not be illegal so far as I do know,” the decide continued.