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 community service for voting her useless mom’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 normal election.

However the judge 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 hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in all just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to expenses, regardless of widespread belief 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 Courtroom Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to affect the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was incorrect and I’m ready to just accept the implications handed down by the court docket.”

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

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

“The one approach to forestall voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no manner to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting someone else’s poll, and said nobody received jail time in these circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply acknowledged, over a protracted period of time, in voluminous instances, 67 instances, no person in this state for similar circumstances, in comparable context ... no one acquired jail time,” Henze stated. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson stated jail time was necessary because the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most circumstances concerned people voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election folks had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the judge. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a giant drawback and I’m just going to slip in underneath the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of 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 think the attitude you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

LaBianca mentioned that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she informed the investigator what she wished: 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 courtroom would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the file here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, except your own fraud, such statements usually are not unlawful so far as I know,” the decide continued.