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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a woman 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 judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at least 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to costs, despite 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to influence the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was mistaken and I’m ready to simply accept the implications handed down by the courtroom.”

Each McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, were registered Republicans, though 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 Common Todd Lawson played 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 poll.

“The one approach to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I imply, there’s no manner to make sure a fair election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do consider there was a lot 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 similar violations of voting another person’s poll, and said no one bought jail time in these instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply said, over a protracted period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 instances, no one on this state for related cases, in similar context ... nobody got jail time,” Henze said. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was essential as a result of the type of case has changed. While in years previous, most instances involved people voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson told the decide. “And essentially 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 slide in under the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of 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 think the angle you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be called for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the file here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

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