Lady avoids jail for voting lifeless mom’s poll in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge 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 basic election.

However the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the very least 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 considered one of just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, despite widespread belief amongst 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 Judge Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to affect the outcome 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 mistaken and I’m ready to just accept the implications handed down by the court docket.”

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

Assistant Attorney Basic Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his workplace where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

“The one solution to forestall voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee told the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no way to make sure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s poll, and said no one obtained jail time in these instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

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

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

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the choose. “And primarily what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big 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 at all,” he stated. “And I believe the angle you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite cases.”

LaBianca mentioned that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she needed: going after individuals 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. “However the file here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

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