Woman 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 community service for voting her useless mom’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 normal election.

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve not less than 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to charges, 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to impact the outcome of the election.

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

Both McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, were registered Republicans, though 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 General Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his office where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The one approach to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee informed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I imply, there’s no means to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s ballot, and stated nobody obtained jail time in those circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of equity.

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

But Lawson said jail time was essential as a result of the kind of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most cases concerned individuals voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson instructed the choose. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a giant problem and I’m simply going to slide 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 in any respect,” he mentioned. “And I believe the attitude you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

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

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be called for, the court docket might order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the report right 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 own fraud, such statements usually are not unlawful as far as I do know,” the decide continued.