By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice
In a jailhouse visit marked by resilience, revelation and restrained emotion, former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters offered a window into the chapter of her life that has largely unfolded behind bars.
For two-and-a-half hours on May 18, we sat across from each other in a controlled visitation room. No pens or paper were allowed, so what follows is drawn from a memory still sharp with immediacy, and a recorded voice memo I made in my truck just moments after we said goodbye.
Peters wore standard prison-issued clothing and a DOC patch with her name and inmate number sewn on. I bought her a cappuccino from the vending machine and a Butterfinger, which I had to unwrap and place on a paper plate before handing it to her across the table. She smiled and said it was a rare treat – something she doesn’t get to experience very often.
What followed was not a defensive rant or a political sermon – but a conversation.
The twist they didn’t see coming
“They didn’t think there was a chance in hell I’d have that evidence still,” Peters said. “But I had it.”
She was referring to the Signal chat screenshots introduced during her trial – screenshots the prosecution reportedly didn’t expect her to possess. According to Peters, it was her two early attorneys who, sensing what might lie ahead, insisted on taking her phone and iPad. “Trust us,” they told her. “You’ll thank us later.”
They were right. The chats contradicted testimony from individuals who had denied involvement in conversations related to the Mesa County forensic images. And Peters was able to present them in court.
Peters was ultimately convicted on seven of ten counts, including three felony charges of attempting to influence a public servant. But the jury also acquitted her of three charges: criminal impersonation, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation – and identity theft. Those acquittals followed the introduction of the Signal chat evidence and testimony from key witnesses.
What the jury never heard
Despite the bombshell, Peters said she was blocked from referencing any of the Mesa County forensic reports during her trial.
Those reports, based on forensic images taken before a state-mandated software update wiped critical data from county voting machines, documented what she calls the core of her concern: nearly 30,000 deleted or overwritten election records, use of uncertified or noncompliant voting software and evidence of cellular and Wi-Fi access to systems.
She was jailed in October 2024. The fourth Mesa County report was released in February 2025. Peters has not yet read it, but she remains adamant that the earlier reports contained material evidence that should have been allowed in court.
“I wasn’t even allowed to talk about the reports,” she said. “But the reports are why I’m here.”
Tears and a moment of betrayal
There was only one moment in our conversation when Peters became visibly emotional.
When I asked about former colleagues Belinda Knisley and Sandye Brown, she paused. And then she cried. Belinda, she said, had been like a sister to her. Someone she trusted deeply. “I told her, just tell the truth. It will come out.”
The betrayal she felt was raw. The pain lingered beneath the surface. And still, she said she forgives them.
Then came the pivot. When I asked how she’d respond to people who believe she acted recklessly, she didn’t hesitate. “I think they were reckless – for not preserving their election records.”
She said it with such speed and clarity that I laughed out loud.
What comes next: hand counts and local control
Peters doesn’t believe machines need to be eliminated. She believes they need to be verified.
Her proposal is simple: allow bipartisan volunteer teams to perform hand counts at the same time ballots are being tabulated by machine. It would be local, immediate and entirely legal.
“You don’t even have to get rid of the machines,” she said. “Just verify them. It’s not hard.”
She emphasized that clerks have more authority than they realize – and that election integrity begins with local action.
Behind bars, speaking for those without a voice
Peters currently shares a dorm unit with five other women. She described conflict, addiction, mold in the cells and food labeled “not for human consumption.” She described one woman in her unit – just 35 years old and previously healthy – who kept getting sick after being housed near a cell with mold. Peters said the woman developed bacterial pneumonia and, over time, was diagnosed with congestive heart failure.
She recalled walking out of church earlier that same day when a fellow inmate turned to her and asked, “Tina, when you get out, are you going to forget us?” Peters shook her head and told her no – she wouldn’t forget.
That moment, she said, captured the heart of why she continues to speak out. “They wanted to know what I was going to say next,” she said of jail staff in Larimer County, who she alleges monitored her after she appeared on podcasts about inmate conditions. “But I wasn’t speaking for myself – I was speaking for the women who don’t have a voice.”
The strength behind the stand
Peters is adamant that the strength she has to keep enduring does not come from herself. She said that when her kids were younger and told her they couldn’t do something, she would always quote Philippians 4:13.
Eventually, they started saying it before she could. “I know, Mom – I know what you’re going to say,” and they’d say, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”
Peters said that fear has never been a driver in her life. Throughout this entire ordeal, she said, there was only one moment when she truly felt afraid: returning to her hotel room a few months after she went public about the forensic imaging she facilitated – and finding the door broken open. She still doesn’t know who did it – but the message, she said, was clear.
But she’s still speaking out – for herself, and for those who can’t.
The legal road ahead
Peters is currently seeking relief through a federal habeas corpus petition, a legal filing that allows individuals to challenge the basis of their detention. The petition follows her unsuccessful appeal at the state level. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a statement of interest in her case, raising questions about whether Peters’ prosecution was politically motivated. The review is ongoing, with further filings expected soon.
Editor’s Note: Accessing the Mesa Reports
Tina Peters referenced the Mesa County forensic reports during our conversation. These documents were not permitted as evidence during her trial. For transparency, we are providing access to the reports here for readers to examine directly: