Fact check: Colorado governor’s misleading rationale for freeing election denier Tina Peters
Fact Check: Colorado Governor’s Misleading Rationale for Freeing Election Denier Tina Peters
Fact check – Colorado Governor Jared Polis has sparked debate by releasing Tina Peters, a former county clerk accused of election-related misconduct, under a commutation that halved her sentence. The decision, announced last Friday, has drawn criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, with concerns over how the governor framed her case to downplay its connection to broader efforts to challenge the 2020 election. Peters, who was set to serve a nine-year prison term, will now be freed in two weeks after her sentence was reduced to 4 ½ years. While Polis emphasized that the shortened term was “tough but fair,” critics argue his reasoning obscures the role Peters’ actions played in the larger narrative of election denial.
A Case of Conviction and Controversy
In 2021, a jury found Tina Peters guilty of conspiring with allies of former President Donald Trump to tamper with voting systems in Mesa County. The crime, which involved copying election software before an update, was part of a broader strategy to cast doubt on the accuracy of the 2020 election results. Although the specific act occurred after Trump had left office, the evidence presented during the trial highlighted its intent to bolster claims of widespread fraud. The original sentence, nine years, was based on a conviction that included charges of official misconduct and failure to follow election protocols. Polis’ intervention, however, reshaped the perception of her crime, framing it as a punishment for her beliefs rather than her actions.
Polis, a term-limited Democrat, defended the decision in a series of interviews, including with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. He asserted that the new sentence was “tough but fair,” but also claimed the court had “effectively resented her” due to a recent ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals. The appeals court’s decision, which overturned part of the original sentence, focused on the trial judge’s reliance on Peters’ protected speech about election integrity. Polis used this ruling to argue that her conviction was disproportionate, even as it clarified that her actions were motivated by a desire to support the 2020 election denier movement.
Three Dubious Claims Under Scrutiny
During post-clemency interviews, Polis made three key arguments to justify his decision. First, he minimized the significance of Peters’ crime by stating it was “a small municipal election” and not connected to the presidential race. “This was after the 2021 election,” he said on CNN, “and the results were counted without any compromise. She just copied software before the update, so it had nothing to do with Trump’s election.” This claim, however, ignores the broader context in which Peters’ actions were taken. The trial records show her efforts were part of a coordinated campaign to undermine confidence in the 2020 election.
Second, Polis accused Trump of misrepresenting Peters’ case, claiming the former president “thought” it was about the 2020 election when it wasn’t. “He does not understand this case,” Polis told local news affiliate KCNC. “It did not have anything to do with the 2020 election. The focus was on a local contest, and the outcome was already determined.” This argument, while technically true, fails to acknowledge that Peters’ actions were inspired by the same movement that sought to overturn the 2020 results. Her crime was not isolated but part of a larger effort to discredit election processes, as demonstrated by her association with Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO known for his role in spreading election conspiracy theories.
Third, Polis framed Peters’ release as a victory for free speech, suggesting she was unfairly targeted for her beliefs. “She holds crazy and dangerous ideas about the election,” he said, “but her punishment was excessive because she was just expressing them.” This reasoning, however, sidesteps the fact that her actions involved deceitful conduct, such as altering procedures to gather evidence of fraud. The appeals court’s ruling, which Polis cited, acknowledged this by stating that Peters’ offense stemmed from her “deceitful actions” rather than her belief in election irregularities. Yet, the governor’s emphasis on the First Amendment overlooks the intent behind her actions, which were aimed at influencing the public’s perception of the 2020 election.
Backlash from Prosecutors and Officials
The governor’s defense has faced sharp criticism from those directly involved in the case. Dan Rubinstein, the Mesa County prosecutor who prosecuted Peters, countered that her actions were inherently tied to the 2020 election. “She wasn’t specifically trying to prove the vote count was wrong,” he told CNN. “But she was looking for evidence of machine-based fraud that could support the broader claim that the 2020 election was illegitimate.” Rubinstein, a Republican, argued that Polis’ portrayal of the case as unrelated to the national election was misleading, as Peters’ work was part of a systemic effort to challenge the results.
Colorado’s attorney general also criticized Polis’ rationale, calling it “mind-boggling” and “wrong as a matter of basic justice.” The legal team emphasized that while the First Amendment protects individual speech, it does not shield criminal behavior. Peters’ actions, including the unauthorized copying of software, were not just expressions of belief but deliberate attempts to manipulate election procedures. The appeals court’s ruling, which Polis highlighted, confirmed this by stating that her offense was not her belief in election fraud but her efforts to “substantiate a theory” of it through deceitful practices.
A Pattern of Political Justifications
Polis’ reasoning for Peters’ release aligns with a trend seen in other high-profile clemency decisions. During his first term, former President Donald Trump was known for making sweeping claims to justify pardons and reduced sentences, often downplaying the relevance of specific cases to the broader political landscape. Similarly, former President Joe Biden faced backlash for his 2024 pardon of his son, which some viewed as a political move to shield him from scrutiny. Polis’ defense of Peters echoes this pattern, using the First Amendment as a shield to distance her case from its implications for election integrity.
Despite these criticisms, the governor maintained that his decision was rooted in fairness and the principle of proportionality. He argued that Peters’ actions, while serious, were not as egregious as the broader efforts to undermine the 2020 election. However, her case exemplifies how clemency decisions can be used to reshape narratives, especially when they serve political or ideological purposes. The reduction of her sentence, while legally justified, raises questions about the balance between individual rights and the public’s trust in the electoral process.
In a statement to CNN, Polis’ spokesperson Eric Maruyama reiterated the governor’s stance, stating, “Peters’ criminal activity, for which she was correctly convicted, occurred in 2021, well after the 2020 election was certified. Whether the 2020 election or random conspiracy theories were an inspiration for her illegal actions, she was not accused of, or charged with, trying to manipulate the 2020 election results.” This explanation, while technically accurate, still frames the case in a way that minimizes its impact on the larger discourse about election fraud. The debate over Peters’ release highlights the tension between individual accountability and the political use of clemency to advance a specific agenda.
