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 neighborhood service for voting her dead mother’s poll in Arizona in the 2020 normal election.

However the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 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 instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to expenses, 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 other battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however 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 impact the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t wish 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, though she was not asked if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days before early ballots have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Legal professional Common Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his workplace the place she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The only way to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed 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 way to ensure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting another person’s ballot, and mentioned nobody bought jail time in those circumstances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

“Simply stated, over a long time period, in voluminous instances, 67 cases, no one on this state for comparable circumstances, in similar context ... no one acquired jail time,” Henze stated. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson said jail time was important because the kind of case has changed. While in years past, most circumstances involved people voting in two states as a result of they either 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 listening to is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson advised the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big drawback and I’m simply going to slip in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

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

LaBianca said that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told the investigator what she wished: going after individuals 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 court may order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the report here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for somebody like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your individual fraud, such statements should not illegal so far as I do know,” the judge continued.