“She [Peters] is pale, has lost weight, and has difficulties with memory and word-finding,” filing reads
By Jen Schumann | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters has taken her fight to the U.S. District Court in Colorado, claiming her prosecution violated the U.S. Constitution.
On Feb. 7, Peters filed a habeas corpus petition to challenge her incarceration, claiming she was simply doing her duty to preserve election data, as required by federal rules.
The petition, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, contests Peters’ denial of bond pending appeal and claims multiple constitutional violations in her trial.
It asserts that her prosecution is invalid because 52 U.S.C. § 20701 requires election officials to preserve election records for 22 months, a responsibility that, according to her defense, should have shielded her from state charges.
“The substantive controversies at the heart of her state prosecution center on Ms. Peters’ legal duty to preserve digital election records,” the filing states.
Peters’ case was the focus of the Let My Tina Go online event on Saturday, organized by Mark Cook, a cybersecurity expert and election integrity advocate. The event gathered supporters and legal analysts to discuss Peters’ conviction and its broader implications.
Joe Hoft, a journalist and author, was among the featured speakers, along with Dr. Douglas Frank, a physicist known for his work on election data analysis and Shawn Smith, a retired military officer and election security advocate. Clay Parikh, a former election systems tester, also provided insight into electronic voting vulnerabilities.
David Clements, a former law professor and attorney who spoke at the event, framed the issue as a constitutional clash: “As soon as you accept federal election funding, you’re bound by federal laws. There’s just no ‘ifs, ands, or buts’ about it,” Clements said.
The habeas petition echoes this point, pleading, “The Supremacy Clause prohibits actions by states that conflict with federal law. The federal duty in Ms. Peters’ case was expressly imposed by federal statutes, leaving her with ‘no liberty to refuse to perform.'”
Beyond the Supremacy Clause defense, the filing also alleges serious procedural errors in Peters’ trial.
It argues that the judge prevented her legal team from presenting an affirmative defense that would have explained her obligations under federal election law.
“She should have been given a level of immunity. She shouldn’t have been prosecuted. And the sick injustice of her case is that she was deprived of an affirmative defense,” Clements said.
The filing also states that critical evidence was withheld from the jury, particularly the federal requirement for election record retention, which Peters’ defense argues was central to the case.
“The trial court refused to allow the jury to consider the federal statutory command to preserve election records,” the petition reads.
By Clements’ account, Peters was fulfilling a federal mandate — making her prosecution a direct conflict between state and federal authority.
“We live in a federalist system, which means you have dual sovereigns. You’ve got the state in which you are domiciled. But, you’re also a U.S. citizen. What the Supremacy Clause provides is that where you have concurrent jurisdiction — meaning states have something to say about elections, but so does the federal government — federal law prevails,” he stated.
The document further alleges that prosecutors misrepresented key facts about election security.
It states that they repeatedly told the jury that a partial password found on Peters’ phone and later posted online constituted a security breach, even though the prosecutors were aware that security protections remained intact.
“Although the prosecutors were aware of these security protections, they repeatedly told the jury that the single partial password copied on Peters’ cell phone and posted online in early August 2021, without her knowledge or involvement, constituted a security breach,” the filing states.
During the Let My Tina Go event, discussion turned to the potential for federal intervention in Peters’ case. Clements acknowledged concerns about political interference and emphasized the importance of a legally sound approach.
“We don’t want to put any undue influence on the Department of Justice or Pam Bondi, because, you know, we don’t want to be like the radical left and how they’ve weaponized the judiciaries and all those things,” he said.
However, he also suggested that the DOJ could help clarify whether the state of Colorado exceeded its authority: “There’s no reason why Pam Bondi could not file a lawsuit of some kind for a declaratory judgment on whether or not there was a violation of the Supremacy Clause,” Clements said. “If there was a violation, just let us know whether or not the state of Colorado went too far.”
He described such a move as a complementary strategy to Peters’ existing legal efforts.
“I think that would be a beautiful parallel strategy to work with what Tina’s attorneys have already done.”
Peters’ legal team is also seeking her release on bond, citing her deteriorating health and her lack of flight risk.
“She is pale, has lost weight, and has difficulties with memory and word-finding,” the habeas filing states, arguing that she should be allowed to remain at home while awaiting a decision on her appeal.
Her case, now entangled in broader constitutional questions, could set a legal precedent on the relationship between federal and state authority over election administration.
If the federal court agrees with her defense, it may reinforce the argument that election officials must adhere to federal laws over state mandates.
A ruling against her could strengthen state governments’ ability to prosecute election-related offenses independently of federal oversight.
As the legal battle continues, Peters’ attorneys argue that her case is not just about her personal fate but about whether federal mandates will be upheld in the face of state-level prosecution.