By A.L. Goodwin | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
The Colorado County Clerks Association (CCCA) sent a letter urging Governor Polis to block the potential transfer of Tina Peters to federal custody. That request rests on unconstitutional assumptions and a series of demonstrably false claims—many of which CCCA Director Matt Crane repeated in his November 24, 2025 interview on 710 KNUS, spread across two morning segments — Let My Tina Go! and Should Tina Peters Be Pardoned?
1. Matt Crane falsely asserted that Tina was a flight risk and should not be out on bond pending appeal.
“Tina certainly demonstrated before that she’s a flight risk, right? So after the cyber symposium, in 2021 where she went and, you know, hid out … she was gone for at least a month after that, while her staff had to deal with the fallout of her criminal actions.” —Matt Crane, 710KNUS November 24, 2025
This is not true — and Crane knows it.
Tina was not charged until March 2022 and therefore she had no bond conditions whatsoever in 2021. Tina did travel to Texas in August of 2021 due to threats made against her, not to evade anything. She was fully free to travel, remained reachable, stayed in contact with her staff, and continued performing her duties. Most county offices were still operating under COVID remote-work protocols, making her brief travel entirely consistent with normal operations.
And the hard facts speak for themselves:
Once she was placed on bond, Tina Peters remained fully compliant for 31 months without a single incident or violation. She appeared for every hearing, met every requirement, and demonstrated the opposite of “flight risk” behavior.
Crane’s “flight risk” narrative is manufactured from whole cloth. It is one of several false claims now being used to justify suppressing Tina’s speech and keeping her incarcerated.
2. The CCCA is urging the Governor to suppress protected speech.
Elbert County Clerk Rhonda Braun publicly rejected the CCCA’s position in a December 1 letter, arguing that denying the federal transfer based on what Peters “may say” violates First Amendment principles.
Braun’s objection directly contradicts the CCCA’s rationale, which is rooted not in misconduct but in anticipated speech.
In their letter, the CCCA argues that Tina Peters should remain in Colorado custody because they fear what she might say:
“We are deeply concerned that, if transferred, Ms. Peters would continue disseminating the same false narratives…”
“The risks… would only grow if she were allowed to use a new legal narrative…”
This is open censorship.
The CCCA is asking the State to restrict a citizen’s liberty based on her viewpoint—a direct violation of the First Amendment. Their request mirrors the unconstitutional reasoning used at sentencing, where protected political speech was treated as punishable conduct by the Judge.
“Whether by pen or by sword or by word of mouth, you are a danger to society” Judge Barrett at sentencing.
Tina’s Habeas Corpus petition is rooted in this clear violation of her constitutional right to free speech.
Whether anyone agrees with Tina Peters’ views is irrelevant. County Clerks demanding harsher confinement to silence speech they dislike is not only unethical, it may violate 18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy against rights.
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
Given that standard, one must ask:
Will the Republican DA who prosecuted Tina Peters — or the FBI and DOJ who participated in her investigation — open an inquiry into the CCCA and the county clerks who signed a letter openly urging the State to violate her constitutional rights?
3. The CCCA falsely claims Tina is responsible for threats made by others.
In their letter, Matt Crane and the CCCA asserts that Tina’s speech “endangered clerks” and “fueled harassment.” They offer no evidence because none exists.
“There’s no question that Tina’s actions… have led to threats, and in the case of Archuleta County, violence. There’s no question about that.”
— Matt Crane on 710KNUS November 24, 2025
Tina Peters has never advocated violence, threats, or harassment. She has consistently spoken against such behavior, including publicly on her verified X account:
This is not the statement of someone encouraging hostility.
It is the statement of someone urging transparency, accountability, and peace.
Tina is no more responsible for the conduct of unhinged strangers than any public official is responsible for the actions of someone they’ve never met. Assigning her collective guilt for the behavior of unknown individuals is defamatory, irresponsible, and unconstitutional.
Matt Crane and the county clerks who claim she is “responsible” for threats are relying on the same First Amendment protections to shield themselves from defamation suits that they now seek to deny Tina. The hypocrisy is plain: they invoke free speech for themselves while demanding it be stripped from her.
The CCCA’s written summary of the Mesa Reports presents all four documents as “false” and “misleading,” without addressing the underlying forensic evidence.
CCCA’s summary table asserting that each Mesa County forensic report is “false.”
4. No part of the CCCA’s critique withstands even basic technical scrutiny.
The full CCCA critique of the Mesa Reports, published October 20, 2025, is available here.
Matt Crane continues to call the Mesa forensic reports “garbage,” yet he has never refuted the actual findings—because he can’t.
In my October analysis, I documented point-by-point contradictions between the CCCA report and federal voting-system standards.
The CCCA summarized its position in a widely circulated table rebutting the Mesa County forensic findings, including the claim about “unauthorized” databases.
In its October 20 report, the CCCA argued that the Mesa County forensic findings were based on a misunderstanding of standard EMS functions.
The CCCA’s own summary reduces the forensic findings to staff error, as shown in its Report #3 table below.
Excerpt from the CCCA’s October 20, 2025 report asserting that the “unauthorized databases” identified in Mesa Report #3 were routine Election Management System functions created during staff troubleshooting, not malicious code.
“Let’s just stay where the facts are and not go into all this other garbage.”
— Matt Crane on 710KNUS November 24, 2025
The Mesa Reports documented:
- Deletion of federally-required system logs during the Trusted Build in violation of VSS 2.2.5.3.
- Colorado law (C.R.S. § 1-5-601.5) requires all election systems to meet the 2002 Federal Voting System Standards (VSS).
Section 2.2.5.3 provides:
- Colorado law (C.R.S. § 1-5-601.5) requires all election systems to meet the 2002 Federal Voting System Standards (VSS).
These requirements aren’t abstract. They appear verbatim in the 2002 Federal Voting System Standards that Colorado law incorporates.
These audit-log requirements are confirmed in the Mesa forensic reports, which found that the Trusted Build removed the very logs required under federal standards.
Ironically, the DA relied on the log files preserved in the forensic image to argue that Tina made the image — because the very log files they should have had were erased during the Trusted Build, in clear violation of state and federal records-retention requirements.
- Use of an uncertified testing lab, invalidating system certification.
My rebuttal citing EAC’s 2015 Testing & Certification Manual showing Pro V&V’s accreditation expired in 2017.
This requirement exists precisely to prevent the kind of unverifiable data environment the Trusted Build created.
- Presence of uncertified software on the EMS server.
- Duplicate election databases that cannot be dismissed as clerical error.
Screenshot from Mesa County Forensic Report #3 showing two Adjudication and Tabulation databases—one created mid-election.
Excerpt from Mesa County Report #3 showing missing batch load orders 2–59 in the newly created Adjudication database.
- Hardware retaining network-capable components contradicting “air-gapped” claims.
These conclusions came directly from the system images—the only independent forensic review ever done on the actual data. The CCCA identifies no technical expert, cites no forensic counter-analysis, and offers no evidence. They simply attack the reports and those who produced them.
Mesa County’s Forensic Report #1 makes clear that these log files are part of the federally required “Election Records” that must be preserved.
Excerpt from Mesa County Forensic Report #1 stating that both Election Data and Election-Related Data must be preserved under federal voting-system standards.
My October rebuttal makes this point explicit, noting that these audit logs are legally defined election records and cannot be deleted without violating federal standards.
Excerpt from my October rebuttal explaining why OS audit logs constitute federally required election records under the 2002 VSS.
5. Matt Crane’s repeated gaslighting that Tina’s actions cost Mesa County $1million.
“I think facts matter, and the county had to get a new voting system and spend a million dollars because Tina Peters led a criminal endeavor that allowed illegal access to our voting system. That’s why they had to spend a million dollars.” — Matt Crane on 710KNUS November 24, 2025
The Mesa County equipment did not need to be decommissioned and replaced. According to Election Rule 20.6.1 (When Trusted Build Required):
(a) In the event that the Secretary of State determines a trusted build is required in a county, including due to a new certification, modification, or other security issue, the county clerk and voting system provider must coordinate with the Secretary of State to install trusted build on a schedule determined by the Secretary of State’s office.
The Secretary of State did not follow her own rules by requiring Mesa County’s equipment be replaced when a Trusted Build’s Golden Image would have reset anything that might possibly have been “tampered” with.
The direct financial impact on Mesa County from replacing the “compromised” Dominion equipment was minimal, essentially zero up-front cost and only a modest increase in ongoing annual fees. Tina had been discussing with County Commissioners her desire to change vendors to Clear Ballot. The renewal of the Dominion contract in 2021, $825,000 spread out over the 6-year contract, signed with Tina’s stamped signature used without her approval, is a possible motivation for Dominion to have taken the role they played in Tina’s prosecution.
- Mesa County paid $0 out of pocket for the 41 brand-new replacement machines and components in 2021.
- The annual service/maintenance fee went up by roughly $7,300–$7,800 per year (about $600–$650 per month) for the first two years compared to the old contract.
- That small bump also bought them six extra years of service (through 2029) and the new ballot-image audit feature.
6. CCCA is funded with taxpayer dollars and should not be engaging in partisan advocacy.
Although the CCCA calls itself “multi-partisan,” it is funded through dues paid by Colorado’s 64 county clerk offices—public money derived from taxpayer-funded budgets.
A taxpayer-funded association has no business:
- Pushing political narratives,
- Attacking individuals,
- Pressuring the Governor on custody decisions, or
- Using official channels to advance claims that violate the First Amendment.
At minimum, the public has the right to expect neutrality and accuracy from an organization operating on government resources. Instead, the CCCA is using taxpayer funds to promote a partisan position that misrepresents facts, suppresses protected speech, and pressures the executive branch to act on misinformation.
Matt Crane’s repeated narrative that the majority of County Clerks in Colorado are Republicans, or that the DA who prosecuted Tina is a Republican in a Republican county does not support his assertion that the clerks’ unconstitutional demand to silence Tina Peters is apolitical.
Clearly this is a weaponization of the government against an individual’s Constitutional Rights.
Matt Crane likes to say that Tina did not uphold her duty to her oath, yet he is leading the County Clerks to break the oath they took to uphold the Constitution.
Conclusion
The CCCA’s letter is not a neutral advisory. It is a political document that:
- Seeks to silence a defendant’s constitutionally protected speech,
- Blames her for threats she never made or encouraged,
- Attempts to discredit forensic findings without evidence, and
- Uses public funds to advance a partisan narrative.
No elected official should act on fear-based claims or unconstitutional demands. The public deserves accuracy, transparency, and respect for fundamental rights—not taxpayer-funded political messaging disguised as concern.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.
![FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B[1]](https://rockymountainvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B1-300x300.png)