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

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at least 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to prices, regardless of widespread perception amongst 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 earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to impression the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was mistaken and I’m ready to just accept the consequences 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 before early ballots have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Legal professional General Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s poll.

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s ballot, and said no one obtained jail time in these circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely said, over an extended time period, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, no one in this state for similar circumstances, in similar context ... nobody received jail time,” Henze stated. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson stated jail time was essential because the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most cases concerned folks voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in each 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 informed the judge. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big downside and I’m just going to slip in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of all people 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 angle you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

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

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be known as for, the courtroom would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the document here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody just like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, besides your individual fraud, such statements should not illegal so far as I know,” the decide continued.