“Without question, Ms. Peters raises important constitutional questions concerning whether the trial court improperly punished her more severely because of her protected First Amendment speech.”
Those words from U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak aren’t judicial hedging. They’re the language federal judges use when constitutional violations are so clear they’re not even debatable. Yet Tina Peters, a 70-year-old Gold Star mother and former Mesa County Clerk, sits in Colorado prison serving nine years while the state takes its time with her appeal. Oral arguments aren’t scheduled until January 2026, with a decision likely not until mid-2026 at the earliest.
The timeline benefits the state. The longer Peters stays imprisoned, the less scrutiny Colorado officials face over equal justice questions.
Judge Matthew Barrett made no secret of what drove Peters’ sentence. During the October 2024 sentencing hearing, he called Peters “a charlatan” who used her position to “preach lies” and undermine elections. He declared her “a danger to the community” specifically because releasing her would allow her to continue speaking publicly about election concerns. Barrett explicitly considered her refusal to recant her views as an aggravating factor, noting she kept up “public appearances in broadcasts to sympathetic audiences.”
This is viewpoint-based sentencing. Barrett didn’t just punish Peters’ conduct—allowing a security badge to be used during a voting system software update. He punished the content of her speech, her refusal to change her views, and her intention to keep speaking.
Peters was convicted of seven counts stemming from allowing someone to access Mesa County’s voting equipment during a scheduled Dominion software update in 2021. She turned off security cameras. She facilitated copying hard drive images. Her stated purpose: preserve evidence before the update. The prosecution piled on charges—three separate counts of “attempting to influence a public servant” all from using Gerald Wood’s security badge once.
For this, Peters received nine years. Colorado’s sentencing guidelines: manslaughter (recklessly causing death) carries 2-6 years. First-degree assault: 4-12 years. Criminally negligent homicide: 1-3 years. Peters got a longer sentence than many who kill others. She didn’t physically harm anyone. She didn’t steal anything for personal gain. She accessed equipment she was legally responsible for managing.
Four months before the 2024 election, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s office posted voting system passwords online—passwords for equipment in 34 counties, publicly accessible from June 21 to October 24, 2024. These were BIOS passwords, the same type specifically mentioned in Peters’ indictment, which stated “passwords had been published on the internet” and “the public dissemination of this sensitive information constituted an unauthorized data breach.”
Colorado statute § 1-13-708(2) makes this a Class 5 felony (1-3 years): “Any person who knowingly publishes or causes to be published passwords or other confidential information relating to a voting system shall immediately have their authorized access revoked and is guilty of a class 5 felony.”
This statute was part of the Colorado Election Security Act that Griswold personally championed in 2022—in direct response to Tina Peters’ case. Griswold’s press release announcing the bill stated: “This first-in-the-nation legislation makes it a felony to compromise voting equipment.”
When Griswold’s office committed the same violation, Denver District Attorney Beth McCann investigated and concluded on December 20, 2024: “there were no criminal violations of the law, and the passwords were published ‘in error and not knowingly.'” The employee who posted the spreadsheet “no longer works there.” Cost to taxpayers: $30,000. Criminal charges: zero.
The legal parsing: someone in Griswold’s office knew they were uploading a spreadsheet, they just didn’t know about the hidden tab containing passwords. That same parsing wouldn’t have saved Peters. It didn’t save her deputy Sandra Brown, who got 30 days for her role in the same incident.
Federal Judge Varholak is bound by the Younger abstention doctrine—federal courts can’t intervene in ongoing state criminal proceedings. Peters’ attorneys couldn’t cite a single case in U.S. history where federal courts granted habeas relief for appeal bond in an active state case. Varholak’s hands are tied by proper legal doctrine even though he sees the constitutional problem.
The day after Varholak’s ruling, the U.S. Department of Justice announced an investigation into Colorado’s entire prison system. Former Mesa County DA George Brauchler called for independent prosecutors to investigate Griswold. None were appointed. Denver DA Beth McCann and Attorney General Phil Weiser—both Democrats—have jurisdiction. Weiser represents Griswold, creating an inherent conflict. The investigation went to McCann, who concluded no criminal intent existed.
This is how unequal justice works. Not through dramatic wrongful convictions, but through selective prosecution, disparate sentencing, and bureaucratic delay. Peters committed process violations during a software update. Griswold’s office published passwords for 34 counties for four months. One got nine years. The other got a $30,000 investigation that exonerated everyone.
The federal judge sees it. “Without question,” he wrote. But the state courts will take another six months minimum to address what Varholak called important constitutional questions. By then, Peters will have served years of a sentence a federal judge found constitutionally questionable without debate.
Tina Peters is serving her sentence at La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo. Her state appeal is set for oral arguments in January 2026.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent.
