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

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

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

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to prices, despite widespread belief amongst 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 Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to influence the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was unsuitable and I’m ready to accept the results handed down by the court.”

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

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

“The only method to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no means to ensure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for similar violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and said nobody obtained jail time in those cases. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely acknowledged, over a long period of time, in voluminous cases, 67 instances, no person in this state for related instances, in comparable context ... no one obtained jail time,” Henze stated. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

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

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a giant downside and I’m simply going to slip in under 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 in any respect,” he said. “And I think the perspective you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be known as for, the court might order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “But the report right here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, besides your personal fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful so far as I know,” the choose continued.