Colorado’s political class has spent years trying to write the ending to Tina Peters’ story. They talk as if the law is settled, the door is closed, and the voters have no say in the matter. But the law isn’t written in press releases or talking‑points. It’s written in the state constitution, in statute, and in the long record of how Colorado treats ballot access. And when you read those sources plainly, without the noise, the answer is straightforward: Tina Peters can legally run for public office in Colorado.
Colorado’s constitution draws a bright line between running for office and holding office. The state has never barred a candidate from appearing on the ballot because of a felony conviction. It doesn’t bar them from campaigning, fundraising, or being elected. The only restriction applies at the moment of taking office, and even then it is narrow: a person cannot hold office while they are in prison, on parole, or on probation for a felony. That’s the entire rule. Nothing more. Nothing less.
This matters because Peters’ case is still on appeal, and the appellate court has already expedited review. Under Colorado law, a conviction under appeal is not treated as final. It is not a settled legal status. If the appellate court reverses or sends the case back, the barrier disappears entirely. The political class may want the public to believe the matter is closed, but the courts have not said that — and until they do, the law treats her as a candidate with full ballot access.
Even if the conviction were upheld, Colorado law still provides clear, lawful pathways for an elected candidate to assume office. If her appeal succeeds, she is fully eligible. If her probation ends before the swearing‑in date, the constitutional restriction evaporates. And like every other Coloradan, she has access to executive clemency — a power governors have used in far less consequential cases. None of these are loopholes. They are the mechanisms the state has always used to balance accountability with the fundamental right of voters to choose their representatives.
Colorado’s own history reinforces this. The state has repeatedly allowed candidates with pending cases, active appeals, and felony histories to run. Courts have consistently leaned toward voter choice, not bureaucratic gatekeeping. The legal tradition here is simple: the ballot belongs to the people, not to the political establishment.
Whether one supports Peters or not, the principle at stake is larger than any single candidate. Colorado’s constitutional structure protects broad ballot access because the alternative is a government that decides who the public is allowed to vote for. That is not how a republic functions. The law is clear, the pathways are defined, and the decision — as it should be — rests with the voters.
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. 