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

PHOENIX (AP) — A decide in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a woman o two years of felony probation, fines and community service for voting her dead mother’s ballot in Arizona within the 2020 common election.

However the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 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 all just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to fees, despite widespread perception 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret LaBianca before the choose handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impact the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was incorrect and I’m ready to simply accept the consequences handed down by the court.”

Both McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, had been 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 Lawyer General Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along 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 one way to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I imply, there’s no means to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s poll, and mentioned no one received jail time in these cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply acknowledged, over a long time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 instances, no one in this state for comparable instances, in related context ... nobody got jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson said jail time was necessary as a result of the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most cases involved folks voting in two states because they both 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 hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the choose. “And basically what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant drawback and I’m just going to slip in below the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everybody else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

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

LaBianca mentioned that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she informed the investigator what she wanted: going after people who committed 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 may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the file here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, except your personal fraud, such statements aren't unlawful so far as I do know,” the judge continued.