Woman avoids jail for voting lifeless mother’s ballot in Arizona

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

However the choose rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve not less than 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 one in all only a handful of voter fraud circumstances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to costs, despite 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 however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Choose Margaret LaBianca earlier than the choose handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned 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 want to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my behavior. What I did was incorrect and I’m ready to just accept the results handed down by the court.”

Each McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, were registered Republicans, although she was not requested if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days earlier than early ballots were mailed to voters.

Assistant Attorney Basic Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his office where she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s ballot.

“The one solution to prevent voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee told the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no approach to make sure a fair election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of instances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for comparable violations of voting someone else’s ballot, and said nobody obtained jail time in those cases. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee ought to do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of equity.

“Simply said, over an extended time frame, in voluminous cases, 67 circumstances, no one on this state for related cases, in similar context ... nobody acquired jail time,” Henze stated. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson said jail time was important because the type of case has changed. While in years past, most instances concerned people voting in two states as a result of they either lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson informed the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a giant downside and I’m simply going to slip 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 in any respect,” he mentioned. “And I think the angle you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite cases.”

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

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be known as for, the courtroom might order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “But the document here doesn't present that this crime is on the rise.

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