Tina Peters, the former Colorado election clerk convicted of misconduct after retaining 2020 election data, is appealing her nine-year sentence and framing the case as a test of First Amendment protections.
At a Glance
- Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters faces nine years for retaining 2020 election data
- Peters claims her actions were protected by the First Amendment and federal record laws
- A federal magistrate recommended dismissing her habeas corpus request over “mixed petition” issues
- Peters’ legal team cites health issues and due process violations in bid for release on bond
- Allies like Mike Lindell warn her prosecution could silence other election officials
Free Speech or Criminal Misconduct?
Tina Peters’ legal battle has reignited fierce debate over election integrity, public transparency, and constitutional rights. The former Mesa County Clerk, convicted of misconduct and attempting to influence a public servant, is now seeking temporary release on a $25,000 bond as her appeal winds through the courts.
The charges stem from Peters’ decision to retain 2020 election data in defiance of deletion protocols. Prosecutors said she enabled unauthorized access to sensitive systems, triggering the decertification of Mesa County’s voting machines. But Peters argues she was preserving vital records as allowed under federal law, not sabotaging the electoral process.
Her legal team now claims that the state has violated her First Amendment and due process rights by criminalizing actions taken in the public interest.
Judge Rejects Habeas—for Now
Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak dealt Peters’ team a blow by recommending her habeas corpus claim be dismissed, citing a failure to exhaust all state remedies. Peters’ defense maintains those remedies are either exhausted or unnecessary given the constitutional nature of her claims.
Varholak emphasized the procedural rule against “mixed petitions” in federal court, noting Peters previewed—but didn’t fully argue—her constitutional claims during her state bond appeal. “These claims were not fairly presented,” he wrote, adding that “[federal habeas corpus] is subject to dismissal unless state-court remedies have been exhausted for all of the claims raised.”
Health Issues and Political Fallout
Beyond legal arguments, Peters’ defense also cites her deteriorating health—including fibromyalgia and a recurrence of lung cancer—as grounds for release. Supporters argue that keeping her behind bars while the appeal is pending is both inhumane and politically motivated.
MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has taken up her cause, warning that her case sends a chilling message. “[Clerk Peters] was the one they charged and put in prison, but we have many clerks across the country who are afraid now… for fear of being ‘Tina Petered,’” he told reporters.
Meanwhile, Peters continues to assert that she acted not out of malice or defiance, but from a sense of duty. “[Her actions] were both a right and a responsibility,” said her legal team, casting her as a bellwether for future cases at the intersection of state compliance and civil liberties.
As her federal appeal moves forward, Tina Peters’ case may become a defining moment for how far public officials can go in questioning the systems they oversee—and how much protection the Constitution offers when they do.
