A Colorado appeals court threw out former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters' nine-year prison sentence on Thursday, ruling that the trial judge who locked her up had punished her, in part, for speech protected by the First Amendment. The conviction itself stands, but the sentence does not.
Judge Ted Tow, writing for the Colorado Court of Appeals in a 74-page ruling, did not mince words about the lower court's error. AP News reported Tow wrote that "the trial court obviously erred by imposing sentence at least partially based on Peters' protected speech." The case now goes back to a lower court for resentencing, a ruling that could significantly shorten the time Peters spends behind bars.
Peters, a first-time, non-violent offender, was convicted in 2024 on seven counts, including three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, and failure to comply with requirements of the secretary of state. Those convictions arose from a 2021 incident in which Peters allowed an outside computer expert, an associate of MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, to copy the county's Dominion Voting Systems election computer server during an annual software update.
Her lawyers did not deny that Peters used a local man's security badge to facilitate access. What they argued, and what the appeals court partly accepted, was that sentencing Judge Matthew Barrett crossed a constitutional line when he factored Peters' public statements about election fraud into her punishment.
Barrett had been blunt from the bench. He called Peters a "charlatan" who used her position to "peddle snake oil." Those words drew sharp attention from the appellate panel. National Review reported the appeals judges wrote that "the trial court's comments about Peters's belief in the existence of 2020 election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing."
The distinction the appeals court drew matters. Peters broke the law, the conviction was upheld. But her beliefs about election fraud, however contested, are constitutionally protected speech. A judge may sentence a defendant for criminal conduct. He may not add years because the defendant kept saying things he found offensive.
The appellate panel put it plainly: "Her offense was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud; it was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud."
That line captures the whole case. Peters did something illegal. She also said things the judge didn't like. The appeals court said those two things must be kept separate at sentencing. Colorado, a state that has seen recent high-profile court battles over free speech, now has a fresh appellate ruling reinforcing that principle.
Peters has already served roughly 540 days. Her attorney, John Case, said he would likely ask at resentencing for the court to credit that time served. If a new judge agrees, Peters could walk free, or close to it.
Case framed the ruling as a vindication of free expression, telling reporters:
"Tina Peters was punished for words that she used to criticize our insecure and illegal voting system. The decision affirms that people are free to speak what they believe in Colorado as well as the rest of the United States of America."
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat who is running for governor, pushed back. He called the original nine-year sentence "fair and appropriate" and issued a pointed statement, as Newsmax reported:
"Whatever happens with her sentence, Tina Peters will always be a convicted felon who violated her duty as Mesa County clerk, put other lives at risk, and threatened our democracy. Nothing will remove that stain."
Weiser's language reveals the political stakes. He is not just commenting on a court ruling, he is running for higher office in a state where the Peters case has become a proxy fight over election integrity, free speech, and federal-state power.
President Trump announced a pardon for Peters in December, calling her a patriot. The Washington Examiner noted Trump wrote that Peters was "a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest." In February, Trump said Colorado was "suffering a big price" for refusing to release her and threatened "harsh measures" against the state.
The appeals court addressed that question head-on, and shut the door. The judges wrote: "We have found no instance where the presidential pardon power has been stretched in such a way as to invade an individual state's sovereignty." They concluded the pardon had "no impact" on the state case.
The court also rejected the argument from Peters' attorneys that her actions had been carried out while "defending a federal interest." The judges noted that Peters is no longer serving as an election clerk.
The Justice Department had inserted itself into Peters' bid to be released while her state appeal was considered. The federal Bureau of Prisons also tried to get Peters moved to a federal prison. Neither effort changed the outcome.
The broader question of how courts balance free speech protections against government action has been a recurring theme in Colorado litigation, and this ruling adds another chapter.
Democratic Governor Jared Polis said in January that he was considering granting clemency for Peters, calling her sentence "unusual and harsh" for a first-time, non-violent offender. That a Democratic governor used those words about a Trump-allied defendant's sentence tells you something about how far outside the norm the original punishment was perceived to be, even across party lines.
Weiser, meanwhile, accused the Trump administration of waging a revenge campaign by choking off funds and ending federal programs over the state's refusal to free Peters. Whether those claims hold up, the political fight over Peters has clearly spilled well beyond the courtroom in Mesa County, in the far western part of Colorado, where jurors originally convicted her.
Peters' lawyers maintained throughout the case that she wanted to preserve election data and determine whether any outside actor had accessed the system while ballots were being counted. Prosecutors said she broke the law to do it. The appeals court agreed with both propositions, and then said the sentencing judge let his frustration with Peters' public statements tip the scales.
Nine years is a long time for a non-violent, first-time offender. Even the Democratic governor thought so. When an appeals court finds that a sentencing judge punished a defendant partly for her speech, speech the court explicitly called protected, the remedy is not optional. It is required.
Peters broke the law. The conviction stands. But a judge who calls a defendant a "charlatan" from the bench and then hands down a sentence inflated by displeasure at her public statements has not delivered justice. He has delivered a message. And the Colorado Court of Appeals, in 74 pages, said that message violated the Constitution.
The resentencing will determine how much longer Peters stays locked up. But the appeals court already settled the bigger question: in Colorado, as everywhere else in America, you can punish someone for what she did, not for what she said.
