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

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a girl o two years of felony probation, fines and group 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 the very least 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, 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 Judge Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee said 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 advised LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was improper and I’m prepared to accept the implications handed down by the court.”

Both 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 before early ballots had been mailed to voters.

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

“The only technique to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no manner to ensure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s ballot, and stated no one received jail time in these circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with fairness.

“Merely said, over a protracted time period, in voluminous instances, 67 instances, nobody on this state for similar cases, in similar context ... nobody acquired jail time,” Henze stated. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was essential because the type of case has changed. While in years previous, most cases involved people voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election individuals had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson advised the choose. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big problem and I’m simply going to slide in underneath 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 attitude you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

LaBianca said that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told the investigator what she wanted: 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 might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the document right here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

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