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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a girl o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her dead mom’s poll in Arizona in the 2020 common election.

However the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve not less than 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to charges, despite widespread perception among 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 Courtroom Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to impact the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was incorrect and I’m prepared to simply accept the consequences handed down by the courtroom.”

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

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

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

“And I don’t consider that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do believe 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 comparable violations of voting another person’s ballot, and said nobody got jail time in these cases. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with fairness.

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

But Lawson mentioned jail time was essential because the type of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most cases concerned folks voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election people 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 basically what we’re seeing right 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 underneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because everyone 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 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 instructed the investigator what she wished: 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 called for, the courtroom may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the file right here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for somebody like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your personal fraud, such statements are not illegal as far as I know,” the decide continued.