Woman avoids jail for voting dead mom’s poll 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 poll in Arizona in the 2020 common 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 those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among just a handful of voter fraud cases 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 Courtroom Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned 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 want to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was flawed and I’m prepared to just accept the results handed down by the court.”

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

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

“The only technique to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee told the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I mean, there’s no method to make sure a fair election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do consider there was numerous 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 similar violations of voting another person’s poll, and said no one acquired jail time in those circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with fairness.

“Merely stated, over an extended time period, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, nobody on this state for similar cases, in comparable context ... no person got jail time,” Henze stated. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

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

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the decide. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s an enormous downside and I’m just going to slip in under 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 think the attitude you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

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

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court docket might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the file here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, besides your personal fraud, such statements usually are not illegal as far as I know,” the decide continued.