Lady avoids jail for voting lifeless mother’s ballot in Arizona

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

But the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the least 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

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

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

Both McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, have been registered Republicans, although she was not requested if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days earlier than early ballots have been mailed to voters.

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

“The one way to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no means to ensure a fair election.

“And I don’t believe that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do consider there was loads 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 similar violations of voting another person’s ballot, and mentioned nobody got jail time in these circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply acknowledged, over a protracted period of time, in voluminous instances, 67 cases, nobody on this state for related cases, in comparable context ... nobody acquired jail time,” Henze said. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most cases involved individuals voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson advised the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big problem and I’m just going to slide in underneath 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 in any respect,” he stated. “And I feel the attitude you hear in the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

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

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be known as for, the court docket might order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the report here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, besides your individual fraud, such statements will not be unlawful so far as I know,” the judge continued.