Girl avoids jail for voting useless mom’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 dead mom’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 general election.

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve no less than 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one of just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to charges, 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 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 docket Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to influence the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was mistaken and I’m prepared to simply accept the results handed down by the court docket.”

Both McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, have 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 together with his office where she stated there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The one strategy to forestall voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a poll,” McKee informed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no means to make sure a good election.

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

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s poll, and stated no one received jail time in those instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional problems with equity.

“Merely acknowledged, over a protracted time frame, in voluminous cases, 67 circumstances, nobody in this state for comparable circumstances, in similar context ... nobody acquired jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson said jail time was vital as a result of the type of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most instances involved people voting in two states because 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 advised the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Well, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a giant drawback and I’m just going to slide in below the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everybody else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

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

LaBianca said that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she told the investigator what she wanted: 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 called for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “However the record right here does not present that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your individual fraud, such statements aren't illegal so far as I know,” the judge continued.