Colorado Court Orders Resentencing for Former County Clerk Convicted in 2020 Election Fraud Scheme

Tina Peters' nine-year sentence was partially based on her continued promotion of election fraud claims, which the court ruled violated her free speech rights.

Apr. 3, 2026 at 8:05am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A dimly lit, cinematic painting of an empty county clerk's office, with sunlight streaming in through the windows and casting deep shadows across the desks and filing cabinets, conceptually representing the complex legal and political issues surrounding election security and free speech.The Colorado appeals court's ruling on Tina Peters' case underscores the ongoing tensions around election integrity and the persistence of unsubstantiated fraud claims.Denver Today

A Colorado appeals court has ruled that former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who was convicted in a scheme to copy her county's election computer system during a software update in 2021, should be resentenced because a judge wrongly punished her for statements protected as free speech. The court upheld Peters' conviction but said the lower court judge should not have considered her continued promotion of election fraud conspiracies when sentencing her in 2024.

Why it matters

This case has become a cause célèbre in the election conspiracy movement, with former President Trump unsuccessfully seeking to pardon Peters and pressuring Colorado to set her free. The court's ruling affirms the importance of free speech protections, even for those who promote unsubstantiated claims of election fraud.

The details

Tina Peters was convicted of state crimes for sneaking in an outside computer expert to make a copy of her county's election computer system during a software update in 2021. A photo and video of confidential voting system passwords were later posted online. Peters was sentenced to nine years in prison, but the appeals court found that the judge wrongly punished her for her continued promotion of election fraud conspiracies, which the court ruled was protected speech.

  • In 2021, Peters copied her county's election computer system during a software update.
  • In 2024, Peters was sentenced to nine years in prison.
  • On April 3, 2026, the Colorado appeals court ruled that Peters should be resentenced.

The players

Tina Peters

The former Mesa County Clerk who was convicted in a scheme that sought to prove fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

John Case

One of Tina Peters' lawyers, who said the court's ruling affirmed the importance of free speech.

Jared Polis

The Democratic governor of Colorado, who praised the court's decision for rejecting Trump's pardon but upholding Peters' free speech rights.

Phil Weiser

The Democratic Colorado Attorney General who is running for governor, and who accused the Trump administration of waging a revenge campaign against the state over its refusal to free Peters.

Matthew Barrett

The judge who originally sentenced Peters, calling her a "charlatan" who had used her position to "peddle snake oil."

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“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.”

— John Case, Lawyer for Tina Peters

“This case has been very challenging and a true test of our resolve as a state to have a fair judicial system, not just for people we agree with but a fair system for Coloradans that we vehemently disagree with.”

— Jared Polis, Governor of Colorado

“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.”

— Phil Weiser, Colorado Attorney General

What’s next

The case will be sent back to a lower court for a judge to issue a new sentence for Tina Peters.

The takeaway

This case highlights the delicate balance between protecting free speech rights and holding public officials accountable for abusing their positions. It also underscores the ongoing tensions around election integrity and the persistence of unsubstantiated fraud claims, even after they have been thoroughly investigated and debunked.