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

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

However the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve not less than 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of only a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to expenses, 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 Decide Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to impact the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was flawed and I’m ready to just accept the implications handed down by the court docket.”

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 Legal professional Common Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator 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 one method to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee advised the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no method to ensure a good election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do believe there was a number of 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 related violations of voting another person’s poll, and mentioned nobody bought jail time in these instances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply stated, over a long time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, no person on this state for comparable cases, in related context ... no person acquired jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson stated jail time was vital because the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most cases concerned folks voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election individuals had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson instructed the judge. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant downside and I’m simply going to slip in underneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he said. “And I feel the attitude you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

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

“And if there were evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be called for, the court might order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the record right here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone just like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, except your personal fraud, such statements should not illegal so far as I know,” the judge continued.