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

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her useless mother’s ballot in Arizona within the 2020 general 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 hold these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to expenses, 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to impression the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was improper and I’m ready to just accept the implications handed down by the courtroom.”

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

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

“The only strategy to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee advised the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no means to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for related violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and mentioned nobody acquired jail time in those circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with fairness.

“Simply said, over a protracted time period, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, no person in this state for similar cases, in comparable context ... no one obtained jail time,” Henze stated. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary because the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most circumstances concerned people voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in both states, in 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 instructed the judge. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s an enormous problem and I’m just going to slide in below 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 mentioned. “And I believe the attitude you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

LaBianca stated that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she wanted: going after people who dedicated 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 courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the record here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

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