This story was produced as part of the Colorado Capitol News Alliance. It first appeared at cpr.org.
Tina Peters was improperly sentenced in 2024 and should receive a new sentencing hearing, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday.
The ruling upholds her original conviction.
The Court of Appeals issued the 78-page ruling nearly three months after hearing oral arguments in the case. The opinion, authored by Court of Appeals Judge Ted Tow, sends the case back to the 21st Judicial District for a new sentencing hearing.
“The tenor of the court’s comments makes clear that it felt the sentence length was necessary, at least in part, to prevent her from continuing to espouse views the court deemed ‘damaging,’” Tow wrote in the opinion.
The ruling sides with Peters' argument that, were it not for her public comments about election integrity, the former Mesa County Clerk would have received a lesser sentence.
However, the court affirmed Peters’ conviction, dismissing her claims that the original trial was improperly conducted. In the opinion, Tow said the appeals court agreed with Peters that she was punished based on her protected speech regarding allegations of election fraud and that it impacted her sentence.
“Here, the trial court’s comments about Peters’s belief in the existence of 2020 election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing,” the ruling said. “Her offense was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud; it was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud.”
Twenty-first Judicial District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, whose office prosecuted the case, said the ruling “found no error in the proceedings leading to the convictions” and that the opinion on Peters’ sentence was “more limited.”
“Both parties have already had a full and fair opportunity to present their positions on sentencing, and once jurisdiction returns, I anticipate the trial court will issue a new sentencing order, potentially affirming the prior sentence length, with findings consistent with the appellate court’s guidance,” Rubinstein said.
Notably, Rubinstein said the case will only be remanded to district court if Peters concedes that the conviction was correct. Otherwise, it would go to the Colorado Supreme Court for further review and the district court would not have jurisdiction on the re-sentencing until then.
Jared Polis, who had called Peters' sentence 'harsh,' agreed with the decision
Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said that he agreed with the appellate court and was heartened to see the court protect free speech and a fair and evenly applied justice system for all.
“In weighing clemency applications, I have reviewed many, many sentences during my time as Governor, and Tina Peters’ sentence of nine years was an obvious outlier. My job as Governor is to focus on what is right, not what is popular, and today the court took action to ensure equal justice for all,” Polis said in a statement.
Polis has called Peters’ prison sentence “harsh,” and kicked off a wave of speculation that he might shorten or commute Peters’ sentence. Peters has requested clemency. Right now, the former clerk is eligible for parole in November 2028.
Prosecutors maintained that the 3 ½-year sentence she received for each count of attempting to influence a public servant fell within the middle of the legal sentencing guidelines.
Weiser says 'nothing will remove the stain'
Colorado Attorney General, Democrat Phil Weiser, whose office helped prosecute the case, said Peters’ original sentence for illegally tampering with election equipment was fair and appropriate.
“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,” Weiser said in a statement.
Weiser said regardless of the sentence, “nothing will remove that stain.”
“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,” he said.
Why Tina Peters was sentenced, and how she made her appeal
Peters was sentenced to nearly nine years in prison for her role in permitting unauthorized access to Mesa County voting equipment as part of an effort to prove President Donald Trump’s false claims of election rigging in the 2020 election. Multiple reviews have confirmed that the 2020 election was conducted fairly and accurately across the country.
On appeal, Peters challenged both her conviction and sentence, arguing she was unfairly restricted in the defense she could present at trial and that the eventual sentence was unfairly harsh because of her public comments.
Peters claimed that the trial judge in Grand Junction, Matthew Barrett, violated her First Amendment rights when he strongly rebuked Peters during sentencing, with a blistering critique of her actions and attitude, adding that she was an attention-seeking former official who only thinks about herself. He said she was continuing to push false claims about rigged voting machines and a stolen election.
“You are no hero,” Barrett told Peters in 2024. “You're a charlatan who used, and is still using, your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that's been proven to be junk time and time again.”
The appeals court said Peters is no longer in a position to engage in the conduct that led to her conviction.
“So it cannot be said that the lengthy prison sentence was for specific deterrence. To the contrary, the sentence punished Peters for her persistence in espousing her beliefs regarding the integrity of the 2020 election,” the court said.
Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in a statement that Peters should not receive any special treatment as the District Court reconsiders sentencing.
“Peters will continue to face accountability for coordinating a breach of her own election equipment,” Griswold said.
A key part of her appeal was whether her defense was too limited during the 2024 trial. Her legal team sought to make claims that Peters was immune from prosecution under the supremacy clause of the Constitution and that she should have been able to make a “choice of evils” defense.
Prosecutors said it was necessary to limit Peters’ claims to avoid turning the trial into a debate over election conspiracies. Throughout the criminal trial, Peters’ defense team tried to expand the scope of the defense to include broader election conspiracy arguments and claims. Her legal team argues that Peters was acting in an official capacity as a federal officer and therefore immune from prosecution on state charges.
A case that put Colorado in Trump's crosshairs
The Peters case has been the subject of endless speculation within Colorado political and legal circles and has captured national attention. President Donald Trump mounted a pressure campaign to try to free her from state custody, from issuing a symbolic federal pardon, to requesting the state move Peters to federal custody, all accompanied with plenty of harsh critiques for Polis, calling him a “scumbag” and saying may he “rot in hell.”
The court clearly rejected Trump’s pardon and said when the founders enshrined in the Constitution the President’s power to pardon offenses “against the United States” the founders were referring to the federal government, not individual states.
The state has also filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of inflicting a revenge campaign of punishment against a blue state for exercising independent authority over state courts and elections. Federal agencies have cut millions of dollars in aid and grants to Colorado since Trump took office in 2025.
Weiser said much of the retaliation followed threats related to releasing Peters from prison.
