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

PHOENIX (AP) — A decide in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and neighborhood service for voting her dead mom’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 general election.

However the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the least 30 days in jail as a result of 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 charges, regardless of widespread belief 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Choose Margaret LaBianca before 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 result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was incorrect and I’m prepared to simply accept the results handed down by the court docket.”

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

Assistant Attorney Common Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his office where she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s poll.

“The one solution to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no way to ensure a fair election.

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

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

“Simply acknowledged, over an extended time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, no person in this state for related instances, in comparable context ... no person received jail time,” Henze stated. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson said jail time was important as a result of the kind of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most cases concerned individuals voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election folks had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson instructed the decide. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous downside and I’m simply 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 attitude you hear in the interview is the perspective 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 needed: 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 referred to as for, the court docket might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the document right here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your individual fraud, such statements will not be illegal so far as I do know,” the decide continued.