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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and community service for voting her lifeless mom’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 normal 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 those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to expenses, regardless of 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Choose Margaret LaBianca before the choose handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to affect the outcome of the election.

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

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

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

“The only approach to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” 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 ensure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s poll, and said nobody got jail time in these circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely acknowledged, over a long period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 instances, nobody on this state for comparable instances, in related context ... nobody got jail time,” Henze said. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was important because the type of case has changed. While in years past, most cases involved people voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson instructed the judge. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big drawback and I’m simply going to slip in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he mentioned. “And I think the angle you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

LaBianca stated that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she informed the investigator what she wanted: going after individuals who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be referred to as for, the courtroom would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the record here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, besides your personal fraud, such statements aren't unlawful so far as I do know,” the choose continued.