Lady avoids jail for voting dead mom’s poll 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 lifeless mom’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 basic election.

However the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at least 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, regardless of widespread perception amongst 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 Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to influence the 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 improper and I’m prepared to just accept the consequences handed down by the courtroom.”

Both McKee and her mom, 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 were mailed to voters.

Assistant Lawyer Basic Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along 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 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 means to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for related violations of voting someone else’s poll, and mentioned no one received jail time in these instances. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional issues of fairness.

“Simply said, over a protracted period of time, in voluminous cases, 67 circumstances, no person on this state for similar cases, in related context ... no person bought jail time,” Henze stated. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

However Lawson stated jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has modified. While in years previous, most instances involved folks voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election individuals had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson told the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant drawback and I’m simply going to slip in underneath 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 said. “And I feel the angle you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

LaBianca said that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she advised 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 called for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “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, besides your own fraud, such statements will not be illegal so far as I know,” the judge continued.