U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak wrote six words that expose Colorado’s accountability problem: “Without question, Ms. Peters raises important constitutional questions.”
That’s not judicial hedging. Federal judges use that language when constitutional violations are clear enough they’re not debatable. Yet Tina Peters, the 70-year-old former Mesa County Clerk convicted of allowing unauthorized access to voting equipment, remains in Colorado prison while the state takes its time addressing what Varholak called—without question—important First Amendment violations in her sentencing.
Varholak couldn’t intervene. The Younger abstention doctrine prevents federal courts from stepping into 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 while a state appeal remains active. Colorado’s Court of Appeals won’t hear oral arguments until January 2026. A decision won’t come until mid-2026 at the earliest. That’s more than two years into Peters’ nine-year sentence before the constitutional questions a federal judge found obvious even get addressed.
Peters sits at La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo—part of the same Colorado Department of Corrections that state courts have ordered to fix prison healthcare three times without compliance. The same system now operating at 97 percent capacity with documented constitutional violations across 21 state prisons. The same system where federal intervention just became necessary because state processes proved too slow and ineffective to protect inmates’ constitutional rights.
The Justice Department announced its investigation into Colorado prisons and youth facilities on December 8, one day after Varholak’s ruling. The timing creates the appearance of political retaliation over Peters’ case. But the documented failures giving federal authorities jurisdiction were decades in the making, and Peters’ case illustrates exactly why CRIPA investigations exist—when state remedies prove inadequate to address constitutional violations in any reasonable timeframe.
If Colorado courts take more than two years to address obvious constitutional questions in a single high-profile case where a federal judge already flagged the violations, how long would it take to fix systemic problems across an entire prison system through state court orders? Colorado already has the answer: three court orders to fix prison healthcare went ignored. The state proved it won’t comply even when its own courts demand action.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon announced the investigation under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, examining whether DOC inmates and youth in DYS custody receive their constitutional rights. The investigation will focus on inadequate medical care, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, excessive force against juveniles, and religious rights violations. DOJ specifically noted it will examine “housing biological males in female units”—a Trump administration priority that Colorado’s progressive policies created.
The documented failures run deep. DOC operates at 97 percent capacity, triggering the Prison Population Management Plan for the first time since the 2018 law was enacted. Douglas County’s average hold time for state prisoners awaiting transfer increased from 23 days in 2022 to 31 days in 2025. Weld County now houses an average of 26 state prisoners awaiting pickup, up from 12 in 2024. Severe understaffing forces maintenance workers and teachers to fill in as correctional officers. Programs get canceled. Inmates approaching parole can’t complete required classes.
University of Colorado Boulder research documented extreme temperatures in facilities dating to 1871. Inmates reported cells reaching the upper-90s in summer. In winter, air conditioning left on full blast created ice inside cells. The study found 70 percent of inmates over 70 have chronic health conditions, the fastest-growing age group in DOC. Denver civil rights attorney David Lane, who has decades of experience representing Colorado inmates, said his firm “regularly sues the DOC for human rights violations.”
Technical parole violations increased 20 percent, filling prisons with non-dangerous people for infractions like missing appointments or failing drug tests. State Senator Judy Amabile was blunt: “We are sending people back to prison who are not dangerous.”
Colorado faces an $850 million structural deficit for fiscal year 2026-27. The state projects no TABOR refunds for the first time since the pandemic. Property tax increases take effect as temporary discounts expire. The state can’t afford the infrastructure repairs necessary to bring facilities into compliance with constitutional standards, much less address the three ignored court orders that prove state remedies don’t work.
This investigation should have happened under the Biden administration when the pattern of ignored court orders was already established. CRIPA exists precisely for situations where state courts lack enforcement mechanisms and constitutional violations continue unchecked. The Trump administration is stuck doing the oversight that should have occurred years ago when it became clear Colorado wouldn’t comply with its own courts’ orders.
Democratic governors have held office for 18 of the past 19 years. Democrats have controlled the legislature with trifecta power since 2018. The prison healthcare orders they ignored date to that same period. The systematic failures—cost overruns, declining competitiveness, ignored mandates, and an $850 million deficit that prevents solutions—follow the same pattern documented across Colorado’s Democratic governance.
The Peters case demonstrates why federal CRIPA investigations become necessary. When a federal judge can identify “without question” important constitutional violations but the Younger doctrine prevents intervention, and when state appeals take 2+ years minimum to address those obvious violations, and when an entire prison system ignores three court orders to fix systemic constitutional problems, federal civil rights enforcement becomes the only mechanism that can actually force change in a reasonable timeframe.
Federal courts and federal agencies exist to address exactly this situation—when state governments prove unwilling to enforce their own courts’ orders and state appeal processes move so slowly that constitutional violations compound for years before anyone acts. Colorado’s response shouldn’t be to resist federal oversight but to fix the problems that made it necessary. The three ignored court orders prove state processes failed. CRIPA investigation is what happens when state remedies become inadequate.
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.
