Lady avoids jail for voting dead mom’s ballot in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A decide in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a girl o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her useless mother’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 because she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of only a handful of voter fraud circumstances 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 but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Choose Margaret LaBianca before the choose handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to impression the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was flawed and I’m ready to just accept the implications handed down by the courtroom.”

Both McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, although she was not requested if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days before early ballots had 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 mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The only technique to forestall voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee told the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no way to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s poll, and stated no one bought jail time in those instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional issues of equity.

“Merely stated, over a long time period, in voluminous cases, 67 circumstances, nobody in this state for similar instances, in comparable context ... no person bought jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The courtroom 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 circumstances concerned individuals voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election individuals had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the decide. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big drawback and I’m simply 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 mentioned. “And I feel the perspective you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

LaBianca stated that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she wished: going after people 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 would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the file here does not 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 with none proof, except your own fraud, such statements are not unlawful as far as I do know,” the choose continued.