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

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge 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 within the 2020 normal election.

But the decide 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 maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to fees, despite widespread perception 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 Court Decide Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to influence the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was incorrect and I’m ready to just accept the consequences handed down by the courtroom.”

Both 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 before early ballots have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Attorney General Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his office the place she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting someone else’s poll, and mentioned no one bought jail time in these circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply stated, over a long time period, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, nobody in this state for comparable instances, in related context ... nobody bought jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was vital as a result of the type of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most cases concerned individuals voting in two states as a result of they both 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 listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson informed the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big downside and I’m just going to slip in below 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 at all,” he mentioned. “And I believe the attitude you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

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 evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court docket would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the document here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for someone just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your individual fraud, such statements aren't unlawful as far as I know,” the choose continued.