Woman avoids jail for voting useless mom’s ballot in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A decide in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and neighborhood service for voting her dead mom’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 normal election.

However the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve no less than 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to prices, 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 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 Choose Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impression the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was unsuitable and I’m ready to just accept the results handed down by the court docket.”

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

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

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and mentioned nobody bought jail time in these circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with fairness.

“Merely acknowledged, over a long time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, nobody on this state for similar cases, in similar context ... no person acquired jail time,” Henze said. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson said jail time was important as a result of the type of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most circumstances concerned individuals voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election folks had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson informed the decide. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big problem and I’m simply going to slip in underneath 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 stated. “And I believe the perspective you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

LaBianca said that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she informed the investigator what she wanted: 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 known as for, the courtroom may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the report here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

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