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

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a woman o two years of felony probation, fines and neighborhood service for voting her useless mom’s poll in Arizona in the 2020 normal election.

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

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to prices, 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 other 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 Decide Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to influence the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was mistaken and I’m ready to simply accept the results 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 earlier than early ballots had been mailed to voters.

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

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s ballot, and mentioned nobody bought jail time in these instances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely acknowledged, over a long period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, nobody on this state for similar circumstances, in related context ... no person acquired jail time,” Henze stated. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was essential because the kind of case has modified. While in years past, most cases involved individuals voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson advised the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant drawback and I’m simply going to slip in below 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 in any respect,” he said. “And I feel the perspective you hear in the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be known as for, the courtroom would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the record here does not show 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 evidence, except your own fraud, such statements aren't illegal as far as I know,” the decide continued.