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 community service for voting her dead mother’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 common election.

But the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at least 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 one in all only a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to fees, despite widespread belief 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 choose handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impact the outcome of the election.

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

Both McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, although she was not asked if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days earlier than early ballots were mailed to voters.

Assistant Attorney Common Todd Lawson performed 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 ballot.

“The one way to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee informed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no manner to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for related violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and said nobody obtained jail time in these cases. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely acknowledged, over a protracted time period, in voluminous cases, 67 instances, no one in this state for related circumstances, in similar context ... nobody obtained jail time,” Henze said. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson stated jail time was necessary because the type of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most cases involved folks voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election individuals had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” 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 big problem and I’m just going to slip in under 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 mentioned. “And I think the attitude you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

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

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be referred to as for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the file here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, except your own fraud, such statements aren't illegal as far as I know,” the judge continued.