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

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

However the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve not less than 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which 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 different battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Choose Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to influence the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was improper and I’m prepared to just accept the results handed down by the court docket.”

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

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

“The one method to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee informed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I imply, there’s no method to make sure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s ballot, and stated no one got jail time in these cases. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply stated, over a long period of time, in voluminous cases, 67 cases, nobody in this state for similar instances, in similar context ... no person bought jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

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

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the decide. “And primarily what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big problem and I’m simply going to slip in underneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because everybody else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he mentioned. “And I feel the angle you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

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

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court docket may order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the document right here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your personal fraud, such statements should not unlawful as far as I know,” the judge continued.