Denver's latest courtroom drama unfolded Wednesday as a Colorado appeals panel cast doubt on the sentencing of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who received nine years in prison for a data breach involving election equipment.
On Wednesday, a three-judge appeals panel in Denver scrutinized the nine-year sentence handed to Peters, convicted of state crimes tied to breaching Mesa County’s election systems.
The panel expressed concern over District Court Judge Matthew Barrett’s sentencing remarks, which referenced Peters’ promotion of election conspiracy theories. They also questioned whether one of her felony convictions for criminal impersonation was improperly presented to the jury as a misdemeanor charge.
The issue has sparked intense debate among legal observers and political figures alike, with Peters’ case becoming a rallying point for those questioning election integrity.
Her conviction stems from actions prosecutors say were fueled by false claims about voting machine fraud following the 2020 presidential election. President Donald Trump has vocally supported Peters, even issuing a pardon last month that does not apply to her state crimes.
Let’s be clear: the skepticism from the appeals panel isn’t about whether Peters broke the law—she was convicted for orchestrating a breach by using another person’s security badge to allow access to election systems. But when Judge Barrett called her a “charlatan” during sentencing, it raised eyebrows. Was this about her crimes or her outspoken views?
The judges hammered this point, with one reportedly saying, “The court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights,” per courtroom accounts. That’s a sharp reminder that even controversial speech shouldn’t factor into a prison term. If the panel rules Barrett overstepped, Peters could face resentencing.
Peters didn’t deny the deception, claiming she acted to preserve election records under federal duty—a defense the panel sharply dismissed, the Associated Press reported. Still, her supporters, who lined up for hours to pack the Denver courtroom, cheered when the sentencing issue arose. This case isn’t just legal; it’s personal for many who feel the system targets election skeptics.
Trump’s involvement adds fuel to the fire, with his pardon attempt and threats of “harsh measures” against Colorado if Peters isn’t freed. His administration has already frozen federal funding for some state programs and targeted the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder for dismantling. This isn’t just a local spat—it’s a national standoff.
Meanwhile, Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, has called the sentence “harsh” and hinted at possible clemency. Peters’ legal team, including Peter Ticktin, seems confident Polis might step in. But should a governor override a court’s decision based on political pressure?
The courtroom tension isn’t the only drama—social media posts from Jake Lang, pardoned by Trump for January 6-related charges, warned of “January 6er Patriots” storming a Colorado prison if Peters isn’t released by month’s end. Peters distanced herself from such threats via her X account, denouncing any violence. Yet, the rhetoric shows how charged this situation has become.
Back to the legal nitty-gritty: the appeals panel was troubled by Barrett’s reliance on Peters’s debunked claims during sentencing, as argued by Senior Assistant Attorney General Lisa Michaels, who noted, “She made it relevant.” But justifying a sentence with speech, even misleading speech, treads on dangerous ground. Courts aren’t the thought police.
Another glitch—Peters’ lawyers argue Barrett factored in a contempt conviction from a related case that was later tossed out. If true, that’s a procedural misstep begging for a do-over on sentencing. The panel’s ruling, whenever it comes, could shake up this entire case.
Prosecutors laid out a damning timeline: Peters got tangled with activists like MyPillow’s Mike Lindell and Ohio’s Douglas Frank, fixating on voting issues post-2020. She allowed Conan Hayes, tied to Lindell, to copy election system hard drives during a software update, with passwords later leaking online. Hayes wasn’t charged, but Peters took the fall.
Now, Peters sits in a Pueblo state prison, her release a cause célèbre for the election integrity crowd. Her team’s push for Trump’s pardon to apply, ignored in Wednesday’s arguments due to time constraints, signals they’re not done fighting. The federal court already denied her release pending appeal last month, so the stakes are high.
