Listen to the article
A Colorado appeals court expressed skepticism Wednesday regarding the nine-year prison sentence given to former county clerk Tina Peters, who was convicted of assisting in a breach of elections equipment following the 2020 presidential election.
During the hearing, judges on the panel showed little sympathy for arguments presented by Peters’ legal team, but simultaneously questioned state prosecutors’ assertions. The judges were particularly critical of claims that Peters should face consequences for spreading election conspiracies.
“The court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights,” Appeals Judge Craig Welling stated firmly during proceedings.
Peters, who served as a county clerk in Mesa County, Colorado, was convicted in October 2024 for her role in allowing unauthorized access to voting systems. According to prosecutors, she permitted an individual named Conan Hayes to observe a software update of her county’s election management system by using another person’s security badge. Prosecutors stated that Hayes made copies of the system’s hard drive before and after the upgrade, with partially redacted security passwords later appearing online. Hayes has not been charged with any wrongdoing.
The case has gained national attention after President Donald Trump pardoned Peters in December 2024. Despite the federal pardon, Peters spent Christmas in a Colorado state prison as authorities have maintained that a presidential pardon does not apply to state-level convictions.
Her legal team argues that a state-level pardon from Colorado Governor Jared Polis is forthcoming. Trump has increased pressure on the state, reportedly threatening a loss of federal funding if Polis doesn’t issue a pardon. Polis himself has described Peters’ nine-year sentence as “harsh,” suggesting potential openness to clemency considerations.
The case highlights ongoing tensions surrounding the 2020 election and its aftermath. Trump has repeatedly championed Peters’ cause on social media, describing her as a “patriot” who was simply seeking to ensure election integrity.
“Instead of protecting Americans and their Tax Dollars, Democrats chose instead to prosecute anyone they can find that wanted Safe and Secure Elections,” Trump posted. “Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest.”
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin, expressed confidence in their legal position: “I have great confidence that the appeal will be determined in Tina’s favor. However, the pardon which was issued by the grace of President Trump and for which we are extremely grateful could have put us in a difficult position.”
Ticktin challenged Colorado’s position on the presidential pardon’s applicability: “Contrary to Colorado’s governor, we see the pardon as applicable to state charges. Hence, the Colorado Court of Appeals may or may not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, which has been pending.”
The case represents a significant legal test concerning the boundaries between federal and state authority in the justice system. Traditionally, presidential pardons apply only to federal offenses, while governors retain pardon power for state-level crimes. However, Peters’ legal team appears to be advancing a novel argument that could potentially expand the reach of presidential pardons.
The appeals process continues as Peters remains incarcerated, creating a unique legal situation where a pardoned individual remains in prison while courts determine the scope and applicability of that pardon. The outcome of this case could establish important precedent regarding the presidential pardon power and its interaction with state criminal justice systems.
The court has not yet announced when it will issue a ruling on Peters’ appeal.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on multiple sides. I’ll be interested to see how the appeals process unfolds and whether it sheds more light on the nuances of this case.
This is a complex issue where reasonable people may disagree. I’ll be following the appeals closely to see how the court navigates the competing concerns around election security, free speech, and the appropriate punishment in this case.
While election integrity is crucial, the judge’s comments about the First Amendment raise important points. I hope the appeals process can provide more clarity on the specifics of this case and the appropriate balance between security and civil liberties.
The judge’s questioning of the sentence severity suggests there may be more to this story than the initial reports indicated. It will be important to follow the appeals process closely to better understand the full context and implications of this case.
This case raises some important questions about the line between protecting election integrity and respecting free speech rights. While the alleged actions of Ms. Peters are concerning, the judge’s skepticism about the severity of the sentence suggests there may be nuance that deserves further examination.
It’s concerning to hear about potential breaches of election equipment, but the judge’s comments indicate the situation may be more complex than initial reports suggested. I’m curious to learn more about the specific details and evidence in this case.
I agree, the judge’s comments about the First Amendment implications are thought-provoking. It’s important to balance election security with civil liberties, and this case seems to highlight the challenges in striking that balance.