Lady 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 neighborhood service for voting her useless mother’s ballot in Arizona within the 2020 normal election.

But the judge 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 considered one of just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to costs, 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 other battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however 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 mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impression the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was flawed and I’m prepared to simply accept the results handed down by the court.”

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 had been mailed to voters.

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

“The only technique to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee advised the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no approach to ensure a fair election.

“And I don’t imagine that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do consider there was a number 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 related violations of voting someone else’s poll, and mentioned nobody got jail time in these cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply stated, over an extended time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, nobody on this state for similar cases, in similar context ... no one bought jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson stated jail time was vital as a result of the kind of case has modified. Whereas in years previous, most instances involved folks 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 listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson told the choose. “And basically what we’re seeing here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous downside and I’m simply going to slip in below 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 at all,” he said. “And I think the perspective you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the record 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 proof, except your personal fraud, such statements usually are not unlawful so far as I know,” the decide continued.