Woman avoids jail for voting dead mother’s ballot in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a woman o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her dead mom’s poll in Arizona in the 2020 common election.

However the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve no less than 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to fees, regardless of widespread perception 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 Decide Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to impact the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was improper and I’m prepared to just accept the implications handed down by the courtroom.”

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

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

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

“And I don’t believe 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 instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and stated no one got jail time in these cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply said, over a protracted time period, in voluminous instances, 67 circumstances, nobody on this state for comparable instances, in similar context ... no one obtained jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was important as a result of the kind of case has modified. While in years previous, most circumstances concerned people voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election individuals had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the judge. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Nicely, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous drawback and I’m just going to slip in under 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 believe the angle you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

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

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the courtroom may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the file right here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

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