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

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

But 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 just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to expenses, 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 different 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 earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee said that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to influence the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was wrong and I’m ready to just accept the results handed down by the court.”

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

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

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

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s ballot, and said no one got jail time in these circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely stated, over an extended period of time, in voluminous instances, 67 cases, no person on this state for similar circumstances, in similar context ... no one got jail time,” Henze said. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson stated jail time was important as a result of the kind of case has changed. While in years past, most cases involved people voting in two states as a result of 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 hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the judge. “And primarily what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s an enormous drawback and I’m just going to slide in under the radar. And I’m going to do it because everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he mentioned. “And I think the angle you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the opposite cases.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be known as for, the courtroom may order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the document here does not present 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 individual fraud, such statements aren't unlawful so far as I know,” the choose continued.