Lady avoids jail for voting dead 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 useless mother’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 basic election.

However the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve no less than 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 among only a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to prices, regardless of 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 judge handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to affect the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was unsuitable and I’m prepared to simply accept the results handed down by the court.”

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 have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Legal professional Common Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his workplace the place she stated 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 poll,” McKee advised the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I imply, there’s no approach to make sure a fair election.

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

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

“Merely said, over an extended period of time, in voluminous cases, 67 circumstances, no one in this state for related instances, in similar context ... nobody got jail time,” Henze said. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was essential as a result of the type of case has modified. Whereas in years previous, most cases concerned folks voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election folks had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the judge. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous problem and I’m just going to slide in under the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

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

LaBianca stated that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told the investigator what she wished: going after people who dedicated 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 court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “But the record right here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none evidence, besides your own fraud, such statements will not be unlawful so far as I know,” the judge continued.