Former Mesa County, Colo., elections chief Tina Peters remains unrepentant for her crimes tied to President Trump’s lie about the 2020 election being stolen.
(Scott Crabtree / Associated Press)
By
Mark Z. BarabakColumnist
FollowDec. 21, 2025
3 AM PT
Share via
Close extra sharing options
Email Facebook X LinkedIn Threads Reddit WhatsAppCopy Link URL
Copied!
Tina Peters is serving a nine-year sentence for crimes tied to Trump’s Big Lie about a stolen election.
The president has repeatedly intervened in her case, but his ‘pardon’ of Peters doesn’t affect her state conviction.
DENVER — Just in time for the holidays, President Trump has issued another of his dubious pardons. Or rather, make that a “pardon.”
This one comes on behalf of a former Colorado elections official serving a nine-year sentence for election fraud.
“Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure our elections were fair and honest,” Trump said in a typically gaseous, dissembling post on social media.
Advertisement
“Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections,” the president went on. “Today I am granting Tina a full pardon for her attempts to expose voter fraud in the rigged 2020 Presidential Election.”
Actually, Peters’ crime was conspiring to let an unauthorized person access voting equipment as part of a nutty scheme to “prove” the November 2020 balloting was bogus, then lying and covering up her illegal actions.
And she’s not likely to leave jail anytime soon.
That’s because Trump has precisely zero say over Peters’ fate, given the former Mesa County elections chief was convicted on state charges. The president’s pardon power — which Trump has twisted to a snapping point — extends only to federal cases. If we’re going to play make-believe, then perhaps Foo-Foo the Snoo can personally escort Peters from prison and crown her Queen of the Rockies.
Advertisement
Voices
Barabak: She’s a liar, swindler and cheat. So why wouldn’t Trump pardon her?Elizabeth Holmes stole hundreds of millions of dollars in a phony medical device scheme. Now she’s apparently angling for release from prison by flattering the president and extolling his MAGA movement.
Dec. 7, 2025
That’s not to suggest, however, that Trump’s empty gesture was harmless. (Apologies to Foo-Foo and Dr. Seuss.)
Some extremists, ever ready to do Trump’s malevolent bidding, have taken up Peters’ cause, using the same belligerent language that foreshadowed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. In fact, threats have come from some of the very same thugs whom Trump pardoned in one of the first shameless acts of his presidency.
“WE THE PEOPLE ARE COMING TO BREAK TINA PETERS OUT OF PRISON IN 45 DAYS,” Jake Lang, a rioter who was charged with attacking police with an aluminum baseball bat, said on social media. “If Tina M. Peters is not released from La Vista Prison in Colorado to Federal Authorities by January 31st, 2026; US MARSHALS & JANUARY 6ERS PATRIOTS WILL BE STORMING IN TO FREE TINA!!”’
(Capitalization and random punctuation are apparently the way to show fervency as well as prove one’s MAGA bona fides.)
Enrique Tarrio, the former head of the Proud Boys extremist group whom Trump also pardoned, shared a screenshot of the president’s social media post. “A battle,” Tarrio said, “is coming.”
Trump’s pretend pardon is not the first intervention on Peters’ behalf.
In March, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to free her from prison, saying there were “reasonable concerns” about the length of Peters’ sentence. The judge declined.
Advertisement
In November, the administration wrote the Colorado Department of Corrections and asked that Peters be transferred to federal custody, which would presumably allow for her release. No go.
Earlier this month, apparently looking to up the pressure, the Justice Department announced an investigation of the state’s prison system. (Perhaps Peters was denied the special “magnetic mattress” she requested at her sentencing, to help deal with sleep issues.)
Voices
Barabak: She’s going to prison for Trump’s Big Lie. Others should pay heedThe stiff sentence given disgraced Colorado elections official Tina Peters should serve as a deterrent to others promoting Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election being stolen. The judge was having none of her nonsense.
Oct. 8, 2024
Like any child, when Trump doesn’t get his way he calls people names. On Monday, he set his sights on Colorado’s Democratic governor, Jared Polis — “a weak and pathetic man” — for refusing to spring Peters from state prison.
“The criminals from Venezuela took over sections of Colorado,” Trump said, “and he was afraid to do anything, but he puts Tina in jail for nine years because she caught people cheating.”
The only true part of that statement is that Colorado does, in fact, exist.
While Trump portrays Peters as a martyr, she is nothing of the sort.
As Polis noted in response to Trump’s “pardon,” she was prosecuted by a Republican district attorney and convicted by a jury of her peers — a jury, it should be noted, that was drawn from the citizenry of Mesa County. The place is no liberal playpen. Voters in the rugged enclave on Colorado’s Western Slope backed Trump all three times he ran for president, by margins approaching 2-to-1.
Advertisement
If Peters’ sentence seems harsh — which it does — hear what the judge had to say.
Peters was motivated not by principle or a search for the truth but rather, he suggested, vanity and personal aggrandizement. She betrayed the public trust and eroded faith in an honestly run election to ingratiate herself with Trump and others grifting off his Big Lie.
“You are as privileged as they come and you used that privilege to obtain power, a following and fame,” Judge Matthew Barrett told Peters in a lacerating lecture. “You’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.”
Barabak: In disparaging Reiner, Trump shows the shriveled heart of an us-versus-them presidencyUnlike his predecessors, Trump has repeatedly shown he cares only for his supporters and political allies. While many condemned his cruelty, Republican leaders continue to turn a blind eye.
Dec. 16, 2025
Peters remains unrepentant.
In petitioning Trump for a pardon, her attorney submitted nine pages of cockamamie claims, asserting that Peters was the victim of a conspiracy involving, among others, voting-machine vendors, Colorado’s secretary of state and the Venezuelan government.
To her credit, Peters has rejected calls for violence to set her free.
“Tina categorically DENOUNCES and REJECTS any statements or OPERATIONS, public or private, involving a ‘prison break’ or use of force against La Vista or any other CDOC facility in any way,” a post on social media stated, again with the random capitalization.
Perhaps the parole board will take note of those sentiments when the 70-year-old Peters becomes eligible for conditional release in January 2029, a date that just happens to coincide with the end of Trump’s term.
Which seems fitting.
Keep Peters locked up until then, serving as an example and deterrent to others who might consider emulating her by vandalizing the truth and attacking our democracy.
More to Read
Trump’s pardon of a convicted trafficker undermines his drug war narrativeDec. 2, 2025
Voices
Calmes: Now it’s clear why Trump got rid of the top military lawyersDec. 4, 2025
Trump pardons Texas Democratic Rep. Cuellar in bribery and conspiracy caseDec. 3, 2025
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a
Center Left
point of view.
Learn more about this AI-generated analysisPerspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The pardon Trump issued for Peters is symbolic and legally meaningless because the president’s constitutional power to pardon extends only to federal crimes, not state convictions under which Peters was convicted[1][3].
Peters’ conduct was serious criminal misconduct rather than principled advocacy for election integrity, as she conspired to allow unauthorized access to voting equipment as part of a scheme to falsely prove the 2020 election was fraudulent, then lied and covered up her illegal actions.
Peters was prosecuted by a Republican district attorney and convicted by a jury of her peers drawn from Mesa County, a Republican-leaning area that voted for Trump by margins approaching 2-to-1, demonstrating the prosecution was not politically motivated[1].
The sentencing judge found that Peters was motivated by vanity and personal aggrandizement rather than genuine concern for election integrity, describing her as a charlatan who used her former position to peddle disproven claims.
The pardon fuels violent extremism, as extremists who previously participated in the January 6 Capitol attack have used Trump’s action to justify threats of forcibly breaking Peters out of prison within the coming weeks.
Trump’s gesture has proven ineffective, as his administration’s previous attempts to secure Peters’ release through federal intervention, bail hearings, and a transfer to federal custody have all been rejected by courts and state officials[2].
Different views on the topic
Peters’ lawyer has argued that the constitutional provision allowing presidential pardons for “Offences against the United States” has never been definitively litigated and may extend to state crimes, positioning this case as a potential constitutional test case that should reach the Supreme Court[2].
Peters has been portrayed as attempting to ensure election integrity and expose potential voting machine vulnerabilities, with supporters contending that her nine-year sentence is disproportionately harsh[2].
Peters’ attorney submitted arguments claiming she was the victim of a conspiracy involving voting machine vendors and other entities, and presented the pardon request as justified given alleged procedural concerns about her conviction.
Peters rejected calls for violent prison breaks, publicly denouncing any plans to use force for her release, suggesting she maintains some commitment to lawful processes.