Lady avoids jail for voting dead mother’s poll in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her dead mother’s ballot in Arizona within the 2020 common election.

But the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve no less than 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to charges, despite 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 but 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 stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to affect the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was wrong and I’m ready to just accept the implications handed down by the court.”

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

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

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s poll, and said no one bought jail time in those circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely said, over an extended period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, no one on this state for comparable circumstances, in related context ... no one obtained jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary because the type of case has modified. While in years past, most instances concerned people voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election folks had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson instructed the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant problem and I’m just going to slide in below the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everybody else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he said. “And I think the perspective you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite cases.”

LaBianca mentioned that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she needed: going after people who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be referred to as for, the court might order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the document here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your individual fraud, such statements are not illegal so far as I do know,” the choose continued.