Following her conviction on 52 counts of voter fraud, a woman from Iowa faces the possibility of spending several years in prison. Kim Phuong Taylor, a resident of Sioux City, was found guilty on 26 counts of providing false information in both registration and voting, along with three counts of fraudulent registration and 23 counts of fraudulent voting, as confirmed by the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The case is interconnected with Taylor's husband, Jeremy, who ran as a Republican for Congress in Iowa's 4th district. However, he placed third in the race, falling behind Randy Feenstra, the eventual winner, and the incumbent Steve King, as reported by Ballotpedia. Additionally, Jeremy Taylor was successfully elected to the Woodbury County Board of Supervisors during the 2020 general election, a position he presently holds.
Kim Taylor allegedly assisted others in submitting fraudulent voting registrations, absentee ballots, and applications for absentee ballots, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ further claims that Taylor finalized and signed voter forms without obtaining permission from the voters themselves. Additionally, she encouraged others to sign on behalf of absent relatives.
Kim Taylor was apprehended in January and is awaiting sentencing, which will occur at a later date, according to the DOJ. Each of the 52 counts she faces carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.
During a recent board meeting, Matthew Ung, the chairman of the Woodbury County Board of Supervisors, expressed his belief that Jeremy Taylor should resign from his position, as reported by KCAU. Ung went on to state that Kim Taylor was unfairly manipulated to take responsibility for their actions. Furthermore, Ung made it clear that he was aware of his wife's involvement in supporting his campaign.
The intricate details of this case highlight the serious nature of voter fraud and its potential consequences. The legal proceedings and subsequent actions taken by those involved continue to unfold, illustrating the importance of integrity and transparency in the electoral process.
Comments