By Jen Schumann | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
If an election official was sentenced to nine years in prison, you might assume they had been caught stuffing ballot boxes or rigging results. But, what if they were convicted for preserving election records?
That’s the case of Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk, whose actions led to a landmark prosecution — one that has now drawn scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Federal authorities are stepping in to review whether her sentence was excessive and whether her prosecution was influenced politically. The case also beckons scrutiny over the intersection of election integrity, the rule of law and the fair application of justice.
The DOJ’s Statement of Interest, filed March 3 by Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth, argues Peters’ prosecution may have resulted in an “exceptionally harsh sentence” for a nonviolent offense.
During a scathing rebuke by Judge Matthew Barrett during sentencing, he reasoned that Peters deserved nine years in prison, despite no criminal background, consideration of her age or the intent of her actions. “This sentence is not only about you, Ms. Peters,” he said. “It is about sending a message that no one is above the law — not even elected officials. The consequences for violating public trust must be severe.”
Beyond sentencing, the DOJ is also examining whether Peters’ prosecution involves broader constitutional issues.
“It also raises concerns about potential First Amendment violations and the denial of bail pending appeal,” Roth wrote in the filing. The federal review of her case is happening as part of a broader effort by the DOJ to investigate whether law enforcement has been used “to punish political opponents, rather than serve justice.”
The DOJ’s review aligns with a broader effort led by the Attorney General’s office, which announced a national initiative on Feb. 5 to restore credibility to the justice system. The announcement noted that “some cases may have been pursued to achieve political goals, rather than uphold the law.”
The initiative follows Trump’s Jan. 20 Executive Order, which directs federal agencies “to review past law enforcement actions to determine whether political influence played a role in prosecutions.”
Dr. Douglas Frank, a physicist and election systems analyst who has worked on election audits in 48 states, met Tina Peters in April 2021 and later helped arrange forensic evaluations of Mesa County’s voting systems.
During closing statements at Peters’ sentencing, Frank pointed out that Peters was prosecuted while a nearly identical situation in Ohio resulted in no legal consequences.
“Just like in Clerk Peters’ situation, a federally licensed white hat hacker was asked by county officials to help evaluate their election systems,” he said. “And both evaluations exposed the fact that their systems were out of compliance with federal standards.”
Despite Frank’s extensive involvement in the forensic imaging and analysis of Mesa County’s election management system, he was not called as a witness in Peters’ trial.
While Peters was prosecuted for her handling of election records, other Colorado officials have faced no consequences for what some describe as similar or more severe breaches.
“Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold publicly leaked BIOS passwords for 300 voting machines, but faced no legal repercussions,” said John Case, Peters’ defense attorney, in a statement to Rocky Mountain Voice.
The differences in how election-related actions are handled across the country raise a fundamental question: Is Peters being held to a different standard? In a Larimer County call Monday, former state Sen. Kevin Lundberg contended she’s a political prisoner.
For nearly four years, Peters has pursued legal remedies to assert her authority over the forensic imaging of Mesa County’s election system.
Peters’ habeas corpus petition, filed on Feb. 7, raises concerns that her trial court proceedings violated fundamental due process protections. The filing argues that Peters was not allowed to present key evidence to the jury — including federal statutes that required her to retain election data.
“The jury was not allowed to hear, and the record was kept scrupulously clear of any reference to the requirements of federal law or the reasons Ms. Peters did what she did,” the petition stated.
Her legal team argues that the sentencing was not just punitive, but a calculated effort to discourage further scrutiny of election integrity issues.
“She was given an unusually harsh sentence to silence her public criticism of the insecure computer voting system used in Colorado,” Case stated.
“The prosecution of her was very effective at scaring other clerks in the country out of investigating their elections,” Frank said in an interview with Rocky Mountain Voice.
Case clarified that the federal review is independent of Peters’ defense and that she may be called to testify.
“This federal investigation is independent of Tina Peters, and her lawyers will not be involved. Tina could be an important witness, and she intends to cooperate fully,” Case said.
Frank shares that President Donald Trump has been aware of Peters’ legal battles for years. He also shared that in February, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell met with Trump and raised concerns about Peters’ situation. Upon hearing Lindell’s concerns, Trump wasted no time in making his stance clear: “Trump pointed his finger at six attorneys who were present and said, ‘Get her out,’” Frank said.
Colorado officials and local prosecutors reject claims that Peters’ prosecution was politically motivated.
Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, who prosecuted the case against Peters, said in a statement to ABC News, “Nothing about the prosecution of Ms. Peters was politically motivated.”
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold told CPR that President Trump’s Justice Department is acting to “normalize fake election conspiracies,” and added, “Shame on them for weaponizing the legal system to push their election lies.”
The DOJ’s intervention in Peters’ case could set a precedent for how election-related prosecutions are handled moving forward. Peters’ legal team argues that her case could shape the legal boundaries between state and federal authority over election data retention.
“She was tried in state court for executing her public duty, imposed by federal statute, to preserve all election data from the 2020 election,” Case said, arguing that Peters’ actions were consistent with federal law.
“If the habeas petition is granted, it could establish a precedent preventing future state prosecutions of election officials who act in compliance with federal law,” Peters’ Writ of Habeas Corpus filing states.
At its core, Peters’ case raises a fundamental question: Can state courts prosecute election officials for actions that align with federal law?
The Colorado Secretary of State’s office, Gov. Jared Polis’ office and the Mesa County District Attorney did not respond to Rocky Mountain Voice’s request for comment. Additionally, the Rocky Mountain Voice unsuccessfully sought comment from White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser’s office replied to Rocky Mountain Voice, “This is an active case and, therefore, we cannot comment at this time.”