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

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

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

The case towards Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among only a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Choose Margaret LaBianca before the decide handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to impact the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was incorrect and I’m ready to accept the consequences handed down by the courtroom.”

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

“The only method to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee advised the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no method to make sure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for comparable violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and said nobody got jail time in those cases. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply acknowledged, over a protracted time period, in voluminous circumstances, 67 circumstances, no one on this state for related instances, in related context ... no person acquired jail time,” Henze said. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson said jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most cases concerned individuals voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election folks 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 right here is someone who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big problem and I’m just going to slide in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everybody else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he said. “And I believe the perspective you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

LaBianca mentioned that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told the investigator what she needed: going after individuals who committed voter fraud.

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be referred to as for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the report here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, besides your personal fraud, such statements are usually not illegal as far as I know,” the decide continued.