Colorado Appeals Court Questions Sentence of Pro-Trump Clerk Tina Peters Following Presidential Pardon
DENVER, Colo. — A Colorado appeals court on Wednesday cast doubt on the appropriateness of the sentence handed down to Tina Peters, a former county clerk known for her staunch support of former President Donald Trump and her involvement in a high-profile election equipment breach case. Peters, who was convicted by a state jury for her role in compromising Mesa County’s voting systems in 2020, received a sweeping pardon from President Trump in December 2025. However, the state-level legal proceedings continue to unfold amid questions about the limits of punishment for election-related conduct.
During the hearing, the panel of appeals judges scrutinized both the defense and prosecution arguments, showing little sympathy for Peters but also challenging the state’s rationale for her sentencing. Judge Craig Welling notably emphasized the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment, stating, “The court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights.” This remark came in response to prosecutors’ claims that Peters should be held accountable for spreading election conspiracies during the contentious 2020 election cycle.
The case centers on Peters’ use of another employee’s security badge to grant access to a former surfer named Conan Hayes, who observed a software update to the county’s election management system. Prosecutors allege Hayes copied the system’s hard drive before and after the update, and that sensitive security passwords, albeit partially redacted, were later leaked online. Despite this, Hayes was not charged with any wrongdoing in connection to the incident.
Peters, who has been a polarizing figure in Colorado politics, is currently serving a nine-year sentence following her conviction. Her supporters argue that her actions were motivated by concerns over election integrity, while critics contend that her conduct undermined public trust in the electoral process. The presidential pardon, which is documented on the White House official website, has further complicated the legal landscape, as it applies only to federal offenses and does not absolve state charges.
Legal experts note that the ongoing state proceedings highlight the complex interplay between federal pardons and state judicial authority. The Colorado appeals court’s skepticism signals a careful judicial approach to balancing constitutional rights with accountability for election-related misconduct. The case has drawn national attention, reflecting broader debates over election security and the limits of executive clemency.
Observers can follow updates on the case through the Colorado Judicial Branch, which provides official court documents and rulings. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice continues to oversee federal matters related to election security, underscoring the multi-layered nature of election law enforcement.
As the appeals court deliberates, the outcome could set important precedents regarding the treatment of election officials accused of misconduct and the scope of First Amendment protections in politically charged cases. The legal community and political observers alike await further developments in this contentious and closely watched case.
Leave a Reply