Lady avoids jail for voting dead mother’s poll in Arizona

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

But the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the least 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain those 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 that have led to costs, 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 Decide Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to influence the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was improper and I’m prepared to just accept the implications handed down by the court docket.”

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

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

“The only method to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee informed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no approach to make sure a fair election.

“And I don’t imagine that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do imagine there was a whole 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 someone else’s poll, and said nobody obtained jail time in those cases. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely said, over a long period of time, in voluminous circumstances, 67 cases, no person on this state for similar instances, in related context ... no one acquired jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson mentioned jail time was important because the type of case has changed. While in years previous, most cases involved individuals voting in two states as a result of they either 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 listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson told the decide. “And primarily what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a giant downside and I’m just going to slip in below the radar. And I’m going to do it because all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he mentioned. “And I think the angle you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the opposite cases.”

LaBianca mentioned that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she advised the investigator what she wanted: going after individuals who committed voter fraud.

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be known as for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the record right here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, except your individual fraud, such statements are usually not illegal so far as I do know,” the judge continued.