Statement on the Colorado Court of Appeals upholding Tina Peters conviction for election tampering

[LetMyPeopleVote]

This statement made me smile

Link to tweet

https://coag.gov/press-releases/weiser-statement-on-the-colorado-court-of-appeals-upholding-tina-peters-conviction
April 2, 2026 (DENVER) – Attorney General Phil Weiser released the following statement regarding today’s decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals in The People of the State of Colorado v. Tina Peters:

“The original sentence that the court imposed on Tina Peters for illegally tampering with election equipment was fair and appropriate. The Court of Appeals raised concerns about the length of the sentence and asked a district court judge to reevaluate the sentence. Ms. Peters is in prison because of her own criminal conduct to prove false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 elections, and she has not shown any remorse for her actions.

“Whatever happens with her sentence, Tina Peters will always be a convicted felon who violated her duty as Mesa County clerk, put other lives at risk, and threatened our democracy. Nothing will remove that stain.

“Moreover, the court affirmed that the president’s pardon of Tina Peters is meaningless and won’t free her from prison. Presidential pardons do not extend to state crimes, and the president cannot wipe away Ms. Peters’ conviction with a stroke of a pen.”

###

[hlthe2b]

1. So, Governor Polis. The appeals court gave your a big gift so back off the commutation talk...

(and consideration)... Now that the request to reevaluate sentence is in the court's hand, you can ignore it and I dearly hope that holds even if the sentencing judge does NOT lower the sentence.

[mountain grammy]

2. She belongs in prison

I believe messing with our right to vote is a violent offense. One of the most fair sentences in my lifetime, 9 years.. Read a book, Tina. Ya only got a few more years.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Deadline Legal Blog-Court orders resentencing for Tina Peters but says Trump can't pardon her state crimes

Colorado’s appeals court said her lengthy sentence “was based in part on improper consideration of her exercise of her right to free speech.”

Court orders resentencing for Tina Peters but says Trump can’t pardon her state crimes - MS NOW

apple.news/A8YUuqsUdQ2i...

— (@oc88.bsky.social) 2026-04-04T17:51:53.064Z

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/court-orders-resentencing-for-tina-peters-but-says-trump-cant-pardon-her-state-crimes

A Colorado state appeals court on Thursday ordered a new sentencing for Tina Peters in the former county clerk’s 2020 election interference case, reasoning that her almost nine-year term “was based in part on improper consideration of her exercise of her right to free speech.”

It’s a qualified win for Peters, because the appeals court still upheld her trial convictions for attempting to influence a public servant and conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failure to comply with requirements of the secretary of state.

The appeals court also said that President Donald Trump’s attempt to pardon her state crimes has no effect in her favor — the presidential pardon power is for federal crimes — and that she wasn’t immune from prosecution.

But the appeals court agreed with Peters that the trial judge violated her constitutional rights by punishing her for protected speech regarding alleged election fraud. The appeals court said the trial judge’s comments about her belief in the existence of such fraud in the 2020 election “went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing.” .....

The appeals court conceded that many of the trial judge’s statements were completely appropriate, including when it came to the judge’s view that Peters was motivated by self-promotion and self-interest.

“But several specific statements can be read only as the infliction of punishment because of Peters’s beliefs and statements about election fraud. For example, the court noted that her ‘words’ were particularly damaging because of the position of influence she held; and it noted that every time her beliefs were refuted, she would make a new claim,” the appeals court said. It sent the case back for a new sentencing but rejected Peters’ request to assign it to a different judge.

I am strong supporter of the First Amendment. I am glad that the conviction was upheld. The same judge will now have to reconsider the sentence because some of Peters' statement may be protected speech. Normally statements made in court are not protected speech and I hope that the sentence is affirmed or at best not reduced materially