Woman avoids jail for voting dead mom’s ballot in Arizona

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

However the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at least 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in every of just a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to costs, despite 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to affect 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 behavior. What I did was mistaken and I’m ready to simply accept the consequences handed down by the courtroom.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, although 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 Legal professional Basic Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

“The only option to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee informed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I imply, there’s no way to ensure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s ballot, and mentioned no one acquired jail time in these circumstances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional problems with equity.

“Merely stated, over a protracted time frame, in voluminous instances, 67 cases, no one on this state for related instances, in related context ... nobody bought jail time,” Henze stated. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson stated jail time was necessary as a result of the type of case has changed. Whereas in years previous, most instances involved people voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in both 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 instructed the decide. “And primarily what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big problem and I’m just going to slip in beneath 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 in any respect,” he said. “And I feel the perspective you hear within the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

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

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court docket might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the file right here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody just like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections without any evidence, besides your personal fraud, such statements aren't illegal as far as I do know,” the decide continued.