Federal Magistrate Denies Tina Peters’ Request For Release During State Appeal

A federal magistrate judge on Monday declined to free former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters while she appeals a state-court conviction tied to a data breach prosecutors say was motivated by false claims of voting-machine fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Ruling Leaves State Sentence Intact

Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak ruled that Peters did not demonstrate a legal basis for federal courts to intervene and overturn or stay the state-imposed sentence. Peters is serving a nine-year prison term handed down by State Judge Matthew Barrett in October 2024.

Arguments From Both Sides

Peters’ federal lawsuit sought release on bond while her state appeal is pending. Her attorneys argued that Judge Barrett violated her First Amendment rights by punishing her speech about alleged election fraud. In a statement, Peters’ attorney John Case said the team was disappointed and reiterated Peters’ innocence.

“When Tina is released, and she will be released in time, hopefully soon, it will mean that we are healing from the atrocities which have befallen Tina and the people of Colorado,” Case wrote.

Prosecutors countered that the U.S. Supreme Court permits sentencing judges to consider a defendant’s speech when it is relevant to the offense or to public safety. At sentencing, Barrett called Peters a “charlatan” and said her actions posed a danger by spreading falsehoods that undermined the democratic process. Peters has repeatedly defended her conduct as attempts to expose fraud she believed existed.

Political Attention And Federal Involvement

Peters has drawn national attention and support from high-profile figures. Former President Donald Trump and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn publicly urged her release; Trump posted on Truth Social in August calling for her to be freed. The Trump administration also sent a letter to Colorado prison officials requesting Peters be transferred to federal custody.

Separately, the U.S. Justice Department filed a statement saying it had "reasonable concerns" about the prosecution and was reviewing whether the case was motivated by political aims rather than legitimate law-enforcement objectives. Colorado officials and the state objected to the DOJ’s intervention, describing it as a partisan attempt to influence the proceedings.

Local Officials, Legal Context And Next Steps

Colorado county clerks and state officials maintain there is no evidence of widespread fraud in the state’s elections. Peters was prosecuted by an elected Republican district attorney, and conservative local supervisors backed the prosecution. Her lawyers have cited past federal decisions that ordered releases of state-convicted defendants in narrowly tailored First Amendment circumstances, including a 1977 case involving activist Russell Means.

Peters is also pursuing relief through habeas corpus petitions challenging the legality of her detention. With the magistrate’s ruling, Peters remains in state custody while the appeals and other federal legal maneuvers continue.

Associated Press reporting and contributions from Mead Gruver in Fort Collins, Colorado.