Washington DC – Former President Donald Trump announced Thursday evening that he will grant clemency to Tina Peters, a former Mesa County clerk in Colorado who is serving a nine-year sentence for her involvement in allowing unauthorized access to voting machines. The move has sparked significant debate, as it challenges the traditional interpretation of the presidential pardon power, which is generally understood to apply only to federal crimes.
What happened: Tina Peters case
Tina Peters was convicted in October 2024 on seven charges, including three counts of attempting to influence a public servant and one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation. His conviction stems from a scheme in which he allegedly allowed an unauthorized person to access Mesa County’s voting machines. Photos of the county’s voting equipment later appeared online, fueling allegations of election fraud, which Peters and others linked largely to Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
The incident occurred in 2021, when Peters became the focus of false claims of voting machine manipulation, which she spread with national celebrities. Peters, a former candidate for Colorado Secretary of State, said his actions were not intended to break the law. However, at her sentencing hearing, Judge Matthew Barrett described her as a “charlatan” and criticized her defiant attitude.
In August 2025, Peters was denied release while he appealed his conviction, after a federal magistrate judge rejected his request for bond. Trump, who has taken a personal interest in his case, warned in a statement that “drastic measures” would be taken if he was not released from custody, and suggested the possibility of a pardon.
Trump’s pardon: legal and constitutional questions
Trump’s announcement of a pardon for Peters has raised eyebrows, as it challenges the traditional limits of presidential power. Under the US Constitution, the President has the authority to grant pardons for “crimes against the United States”, which applies only to federal crimes. However, Peters’ conviction related to violations of state law, which has led legal experts to question whether the pardon power could extend to state-level crimes.
Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin, suggested that Trump’s pardon power could apply in this case, proposing an unconventional theory that the president could pardon state crimes. Ticktin acknowledged that the issue had never been tested in court, and legal scholars have expressed skepticism about the legality of such a move.
Public and legal reactions
Trump’s pardon announcement has drawn sharp reactions from both the legal and political communities. Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold condemned the move, saying “Tina Peters was convicted of state crimes in state court by a jury of her peers” and that Trump’s intervention represents a violation of state sovereignty. Griswold emphasized that presidential interference undermines the integrity of the constitutional separation between federal and state powers.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser also expressed concern, calling the pardon an “outrageous deviation from the requirements of our Constitution.” He further said, “The idea that a president could pardon someone who was tried and convicted in a state court has no precedent in American law.”
Controversy over Trump’s pardon decisions
Trump’s actions in pardoning Peters also reflect his previous decisions, where he pardoned individuals involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including figures in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. His continued focus on individuals promoting baseless election fraud claims has drawn significant criticism from Democrats and legal experts, who argue that it undermines public confidence in the rule of law and the legal system.
What happens next: Legal challenges and state response
As the legal debate rages over Trump’s authority to pardon state crimes, Tina Peters’ case remains under intense scrutiny. Legal experts speculate that the issue could be brought before the courts, potentially setting a new precedent for presidential powers. Meanwhile, Peters’ case continues to divide opinion, with many Colorado officials reaffirming their commitment to maintaining state sovereignty and the independence of the state judicial system.
As the story unfolds, the public will be watching closely to see whether Trump’s pardon of Tina Peters could withstand constitutional challenges and how it affects the ongoing legal and political landscape.
This story may be updated with more information as it becomes available.
