Lady avoids jail for voting lifeless mom’s poll in Arizona

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

However the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to prices, 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 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 stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to impression the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was improper and I’m ready to accept the implications handed down by the court.”

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

Assistant Legal professional Normal Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his office where she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The one 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 as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no manner to make sure a good election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do believe 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 similar violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and said nobody received jail time in those circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely said, over a protracted time period, in voluminous cases, 67 instances, no person in this state for related instances, in similar context ... no person acquired jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was essential because the type of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most circumstances concerned people voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in each states, in 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 advised the decide. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant problem and I’m just going to slide in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he stated. “And I feel the attitude you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

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

“And if there were evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be known as for, the court docket may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the report here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

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