Girl avoids jail for voting dead mother’s ballot in Arizona

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

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

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of only a handful of voter fraud circumstances 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 Court Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to influence the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was incorrect and I’m ready to accept the results handed down by the court.”

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 have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Legal professional General Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along 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 one option to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee told the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no approach to make sure a fair election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do consider there was a variety 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 comparable violations of voting another person’s poll, and stated nobody bought jail time in those instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional problems with equity.

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

However Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary because the type of case has modified. While in years past, most instances concerned people voting in two states as a result of they both lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the choose. “And essentially what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big drawback and I’m just going to slide in underneath 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 stated. “And I think the perspective you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other cases.”

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

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be referred to as for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the record here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for somebody just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any evidence, besides your own fraud, such statements are not unlawful as far as I know,” the choose continued.