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

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her dead mother’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 normal election.

But the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve not less than 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain 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 instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to costs, despite widespread belief 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 Choose Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mom and had no intent to affect the end result of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee instructed LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was mistaken and I’m ready to simply accept the consequences handed down by the court docket.”

Each McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, though she was not requested if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days before early ballots have been mailed to voters.

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

“The one technique to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee told the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no way to ensure a good election.

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

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

“Simply acknowledged, over a long time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 instances, no person in this state for comparable circumstances, in similar context ... no one obtained jail time,” Henze stated. “The court didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson stated jail time was vital because the kind of case has modified. Whereas in years past, most instances involved folks voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in both states, in the 2020 election people had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson informed the choose. “And basically what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous drawback and I’m just going to slip in below the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of all people 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 angle you hear in the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

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 have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be known as for, the court might order jail time,” LaBianca mentioned. “However the document here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for someone just like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, except your personal fraud, such statements aren't illegal so far as I do know,” the decide continued.