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

PHOENIX (AP) — A decide in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a girl o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her lifeless mom’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 basic election.

But 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 maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, regardless of widespread perception among 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Choose Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impression the result 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 ready to just accept the consequences handed down by the court.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, had 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 had been mailed to voters.

Assistant Lawyer Normal Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his office where she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The only option to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no way to ensure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and mentioned nobody got jail time in those circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply stated, over a long period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, no one in this state for comparable instances, in related context ... no person received jail time,” Henze stated. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary because the type of case has changed. While in years past, most circumstances involved folks voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election people had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson advised the judge. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big problem and I’m simply going to slip in underneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he stated. “And I believe the angle you hear within the interview is the attitude 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 needed: going after individuals who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be referred to as for, the court may order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the file right here doesn't show 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 without any evidence, besides your own fraud, such statements are not illegal so far as I do know,” the decide continued.