By RMV Editorial Board
What began as a state prosecution of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters now sits at the junction of presidential pardon pertaining to federal election law and state authority. Colorado barred key evidence from the jury, sealed portions of the grand jury record, then fought to keep those materials from appellate review.
A recent analysis by Amuse asserts that the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a presidential pardon can neutralize a state conviction when the conduct arises from a federal duty. Amuse also argues that when a state interferes with administering a federal election, those prosecutions become offenses against the United States—whatever the state calls them.
Appeals filings and a federal habeas petition state that Peters’ actions were shaped by federal record retention law.
Evidence Colorado hid from the jury
Federal law requires election officers to preserve all election records for twenty two months. DOJ guidance states that this duty includes digital records and rests on election officials with federal criminal penalties for willful violations.
The habeas petition explains that the controversy underlying Peters’ prosecution stems from this duty under 52 U.S.C. § 20701. It recounts that state and vendor representatives told her a trusted build would delete programs and data—and that she was unwilling to violate federal law by participating in the destruction of records she was required to preserve.
She engaged a cybersecurity specialist to create forensic images of the county’s election server before and after the update. Doing so preserved data that would have been lost.
The trial court barred the statute from being presented and barred Peters from explaining her federal duty. During a pretrial hearing, the judge said that whether she had a duty to take the image does not matter—and that whether the machine worked or not does not matter either.
Federal retention statute and DOJ guidance that Peters’ defense was not allowed to present to the jury.
What the forensic reports showed
Report 1 compared a pre-update server image to one taken after the trusted build and found thousands of deleted or overwritten log files and wiped election databases and system logs. Peters later stated that all evidence and all log files were deleted.
Green shows log files that remained after the trusted build. Orange shows files that were deleted or overwritten. These images appear on pages 34 through 75 of Mesa County Forensic Report Number One on TinaPeters.us in the Reports and Filings tab.
Report 2 found thirty six wireless devices on a system described as air gapped, an SQL configuration allowing remote access from any computer able to reach an open port, and uncertified software outside the Dominion certification. Peters wrote that the system appeared to have been illegally certified and configured so that vote totals can easily be changed.
SQL Server protocols Shared Memory Named Pipes and TCP/IP were all enabled creating three network paths into the election database. This image is from page 27 of Mesa County Forensic Report Number Two on TinaPeters.us under Reports and Filings.
Peters warned commissioners in this March 1, 2022 letter that the EMS system was illegally certified and configured in a way that allowed vote totals to be changed and revealed thirty six wireless devices. This document appears in the appendix to the November 17 2024 bond motion on TinaPeters.us in the Reports and Filings tab.
Report 3 found ballot batches reprocessed at speeds physically impossible for real rescanning missing adjudication records and sharp shifts in adjudication counts between original and reloaded batches. The authors concluded that the chain of custody for thousands of ballots could not be verified from the digital record.
This screenshot from Mesa County forensic report number three shows that Dominion’s EMS server created new Adjudication and Tabulation databases on October 21 at 2:18 p.m replacing the original databases created October 1. These images appear on page 10 of the report available at TinaPeters.us under the Reports and Filings tab.
GAO warned in 2005 that vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems could compromise ballots, votes, and vote totals.
A 2018 National Academies report found that no existing technology can guarantee the secrecy, security and verifiability of electronic vote casting or tabulation.
In 2019, Senators Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden and Congressman Mark Pocan warned that election systems were under serious threat.
In Curling v. Raffensperger, a federal court recognized a broad consensus among cybersecurity experts about the capacity for the unobserved injection of malware into election systems.
A clerk in Williamson County, Tenn. uncovered a Dominion software anomaly that produced incorrect vote counts prompting a state and federal review.
Peters’ reports placed Mesa County inside the same national pattern, and Colorado kept that context away from jurors.
How Colorado turned speech into confinement
The sentencing hearing revealed how the state viewed Peters’ warnings.
From the bench the judge called her “a charlatan” and said she “undermined the belief and confidence in our election systems.” He said the “damage that is caused and continues to be caused is just as bad if not worse than the physical violence this court sees.”
He concluded that “prison is for those folks where we send people who are a danger to all of us, whether it be by the pen or the sword or the word of the mouth.”
Those remarks became the basis for denying bond pending appeal, though Colorado law allows bond for nonviolent offenders who are not flight risks, do not present danger and have nonfrivolous appeals.
The habeas petition explains that the trial court relied almost entirely on Peters’ speech, and that the Court of Appeals then denied bond in a one sentence order.
These comments collide with Counterman v. Colorado, Brandenburg v. Ohio and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware. Political speech on matters of public concern receives the highest protection. It cannot be punished or used to justify incarceration unless it meets the narrow definitions of a true threat or intentional incitement of imminent lawless action.
Peters’ statements meet neither threshold.
The grand jury record Colorado worked to shield
In 2022, a district judge granted the prosecution’s motion to release grand jury transcripts and exhibits to counsel under strict confidentiality. When Peters moved to unseal those materials, the court denied her request citing secrecy and an ongoing federal investigation. The prosecution opposed unsealing and noted that the DOJ already had access.
Peters’ counsel then learned that despite designating the transcripts for the appellate record the district court instructed the clerk not to transmit them.
The Court of Appeals issued a March 24, 2025 order stating that it was unclear whether access had been granted and directed Peters to provide any orders and explain the relevance of the sealed materials.
Appellant’s counsel filed the 2022 release order and explained that the transcripts and exhibits were necessary to show that prosecutors misled the grand jury on fact and law and that suppression of federal duty and forensic context began at the charging stage.
Shown here are the filings that governed appellate access to the grand jury record including the prosecution’s objection after Judge Barrett’s December 13, 2024 order and the appellate court’s March 2025 orders. These documents appear in the case files on TinaPeters.us in the Reports and Filings tab.
These screenshots show Appellant’s Response to Order 3/14/25 including the district court’s 2022 access order the Oaths of Compliance and the explanation of why the grand jury materials are relevant to this appeal. The full filing is available on TinaPeters.us under Reports and Filings.
The federal interest no one will explain
The federal dimension deepened when the Bureau of Prisons asked Colorado to transfer Peters to federal custody. The letter contains heavy redactions. The corrections department refused to disclose details claiming that release would be contrary to the public interest. Rasmussen highlighted the secrecy.
Newser reported that Peters’ attorney said Colorado officials want to keep her from testifying or speaking publicly about computerized voting systems.
Context beyond Colorado
Lara Logan’s interview with Gary Berntsen and Ralph Pezzullo adds perspective. Pezzullo claimed that in many election disputes, evidence has been kept out of court.
Whatever one thinks of that broader claim, the Colorado record is documented.
Peters was blocked from presenting federal statutes, the forensic findings, and the experts who wrote the reports.
Clemency in the real world
The President’s Pardon Powers analysis by Amuse notes that pardons are unlimited regarding federal offenses, extend to every offense known to the law and may be issued preemptively before indictment or conviction.
President Biden’s clemency record shows that sweeping categorical and preemptive grants have become standard. He issued more acts of clemency than any prior president, including broad categorical pardons and controversial preemptive pardons for family members and political allies.
Against that backdrop the question is not whether President Trump can issue a pardon for Tina Peters.
It is whether that pardon would be effective against a state conviction, and if Colorado resists how the Supreme Court will resolve the conflict.
The collision the Framers anticipated
The habeas petition cites Cunningham v. Neagle for the principle that an individual acting pursuant to federal law cannot be guilty of a state crime for those acts and explains that supremacy immunity extends to any person acting under a federal duty.
In Peters’ case that duty arises from statute and DOJ guidance.
Colorado barred her from presenting that duty and then imprisoned her for speaking about what her experts found.
If President Trump pardons her for actions taken to comply with federal election record retention law, Colorado must decide whether to accept the pardon or claim that its conviction overrides the federal interest in protecting election records.
The question the Supreme Court may soon face
This case asks whether a state can criminalize compliance with federal record retention law, silence federal duties in its courtroom, then punish the resulting speech—and whether the pardon power reaches a state conviction when the conduct that was prosecuted fulfills a federal obligation.
Whatever one thinks of Tina Peters, the Constitution demands clarity.
All that remains is for President Trump to sign a pardon for Tina Peters and give the Supreme Court a chance to say whether state courts may override federal election law.
![FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B[1]](https://rockymountainvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B1-300x300.png)