Woman avoids jail for voting dead mom’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 useless mom’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 basic election.

But the decide 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 in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of only a handful of voter fraud circumstances 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 different battleground states.

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

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

Both McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, have 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 were mailed to voters.

Assistant Lawyer Basic Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his office the place she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The only approach to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee informed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I imply, there’s no manner to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for similar violations of voting another person’s ballot, and said no one got jail time in these circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply said, over a protracted time frame, in voluminous cases, 67 cases, no person on this state for similar cases, in comparable context ... nobody received jail time,” Henze stated. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was vital as a result of the type of case has modified. While in years past, most cases concerned people voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the decide. “And basically what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous drawback and I’m simply going to slide in beneath 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 at all,” he mentioned. “And I feel the perspective you hear in 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 advised the investigator what she needed: going after individuals who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be referred to as for, the court docket might order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the file here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for somebody like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any evidence, besides your individual fraud, such statements usually are not unlawful so far as I do know,” the judge continued.