The legal team for former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters said they are weighing next steps after a Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that she was improperly sentenced in 2024 and should receive a new sentencing hearing. Peters’ team is considering a new sentencing hearing, a potential challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court over federal issues raised at trial, and is also urging Democratic Gov. Jared Polis to commute her sentence and release her from state custody.
“It would be best if the governor could save us all the drudgery of going through another sentencing hearing by intervening with clemency, to finally put an end to the whole ordeal Tina Peters has suffered and continues to suffer,” said attorney Peter Ticktin.
The court of appeals upheld Peters’ original conviction related to tampering with Mesa County’s election equipment in search of voter fraud in the 2020 election, but said the court punished her for her protected free speech when she received a nearly nine-year sentence.
The opinion, authored by Court of Appeals Judge Ted Tow, said 21st Judicial District Judge Matthew Barrett made it clear that the sentence length was necessary, at least in part, to prevent her from continuing to espouse views the court deemed “damaging.”
Ticktin said while he agrees the sentence was too long and violated her constitutional rights, he said the court got the rest of its decision wrong: “I just think it was a major disappointment. I thought that there was going to be a different kind of court than it apparently is.”
Ticktin said the five-member legal team is determining the best strategy and next steps, such as re-sentencing, or an appeal to the State Supreme Court, or the U.S. Supreme Court over federal concerns. Ticktin argues that President Donald Trump’s pardon was constitutional even though Peters was convicted of state crimes.
“Isn't it important for the president to be able to curtail these things where federal matters are involved by pardoning people who have committed offenses that involve laws of the state that are totally intertwined with the laws of the federal government regarding federal elections?” he said.
Ticktin also has concerns about the supremacy clause, which mandates federal laws take supremacy over conflicting state laws.
“If she’s acting to make sure she’s in compliance with federal law, and in the course of doing that, a state law is transgressed, then that is not a crime,” Ticktin said.
The Colorado Court of Appeals said the presidential pardon was not valid and that 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 court also said Peters’ trial was properly conducted.
To read more stories from Colorado Public Radio, visit www.cpr.org.
