Trump’s “Pardon” of Tina Peters Carries No Legal Weight, Experts Say

Former President Donald Trump’s recent social media claim that he has “fully pardoned” Tina Peters, the former Mesa County, Colorado clerk convicted of tampering with voting machines, has created confusion about presidential pardon powers. Legal experts clarify that the announcement carries no legal authority, as presidential pardons can only be applied to federal offenses.

Peters, who was sentenced to nine years in a state penitentiary for allowing unauthorized access to Mesa County voting machines in 2021, remains legally bound to serve her sentence despite Trump’s declaration on his social media platform.

“Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!” Trump wrote in his post, which was widely shared by supporters who interpreted it as an official action.

However, the U.S. Constitution strictly limits presidential pardons to “Offenses against the United States,” meaning federal crimes. State convictions, like Peters’, fall outside presidential authority according to Article II, Section II of the Constitution.

The Library of Congress explicitly states this limitation: “Despite the breadth of the President’s authority under the Pardon Clause, the Constitution’s text provides for at least two limits on the power: first, clemency may only be granted for Offenses against the United States, meaning that state criminal offenses and federal or state civil claims are not covered.”

No official pardon documents or White House statements regarding Peters appear on the White House website. Searches for “pardon” and “Tina Peters” on the official government site return no relevant results, further confirming the symbolic rather than official nature of Trump’s announcement.

Peters’ case has been closely watched as an example of the legal consequences faced by those who participated in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. She was convicted by a Mesa County jury after providing unauthorized access to county voting machines to individuals attempting to find evidence of election fraud. Forensic analysis later showed no tampering with the original election results.

The misunderstanding surrounding Trump’s “pardon” highlights the ongoing confusion about the separation of state and federal jurisdictions in the American legal system. Presidential pardons have historically been used for federal offenses ranging from tax evasion to more serious federal crimes, but state convictions remain under the purview of state governors, who hold pardon powers for offenses within their jurisdictions.

Legal scholars note that while presidential pardons are typically processed through the Office of the Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice, presidents have occasionally announced pardons through various channels. However, even when announced informally, they still require official documentation and only apply to federal offenses.

The Peters case illustrates the complex intersection of politics and the justice system in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Her supporters have championed her as a whistleblower, while prosecutors successfully argued she broke state laws regarding election security and the protection of voting systems.

As Peters’ legal team continues to pursue appeals through the Colorado court system, Trump’s symbolic pardon may provide moral support to her supporters but offers no legal remedy to her state conviction.

State officials in Colorado have not commented on Trump’s statement, which holds no bearing on Peters’ sentence or conviction status under Colorado law.