Imagine a scenario where a former election official, already serving a lengthy prison sentence, suddenly receives a presidential pardon – but for a state crime. Sound confusing? It is. This is precisely what's unfolding with Tina Peters, a former Colorado county clerk, and it's ignited a firestorm of legal and political debate.
On Thursday evening, President Trump announced he was issuing a pardon to Tina Peters, who is currently serving a nine-year state sentence for allowing unauthorized access to voting machines. But here's where it gets controversial: the widely accepted understanding is that a presidential pardon only applies to federal crimes, not state-level offenses.
President Trump defended his action on Truth Social, claiming, "Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest." He further stated that Peters was imprisoned for the "'crime' of demanding Honest Elections," and asserted she was trying to "expose Voter Fraud" in 2020. It's important to note, however, that Peters was prosecuted by an elected Republican district attorney. Trump has long maintained, without providing substantiating evidence, that the 2020 election was stolen due to widespread fraud – claims amplified by Peters, who previously ran for Colorado Secretary of State.
The response from Colorado officials was swift and critical. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold stated, "Tina Peters was convicted by a jury of her peers for state crimes in a state Court. Trump has no constitutional authority to pardon her. His assault is not just on our democracy, but on states' rights and the American constitution." Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser echoed this sentiment, saying, "One of the most basic principles of our constitution is that states have independent sovereignty and manage our own criminal justice systems without interference from the federal government. The idea that a president could pardon someone tried and convicted in state court has no precedent in American law, would be an outrageous departure from what our constitution requires, and will not hold up."
But this is the part most people miss: what exactly did Peters do to warrant such strong reactions?
Peters, a former Mesa County clerk, was convicted in state court last year on seven charges, including three counts of attempting to influence a public servant and one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation. These charges stemmed from allegations that in 2021, Peters and others orchestrated a scheme to grant unauthorized access to Mesa County's voting machines. Subsequently, images of the county's voting equipment surfaced online. Prosecutors argued that Peters, aligning herself with national figures promoting false claims of rigged voting machines in 2020, became "fixated" on unsubstantiated voting irregularities. At her sentencing hearing, the judge described her as a "charlatan" and the most defiant defendant he had ever seen. Peters, however, has consistently denied any wrongdoing, insisting she acted without malice and never intended to break the law.
Earlier in the week, a federal magistrate judge denied Peters' request for release pending her appeal. Democratic Governor Jared Polis also weighed in, stating, "Tina Peters was convicted by a jury of her peers, prosecuted by a Republican District Attorney and in a Republican county of Colorado and found guilty of violating Colorado state laws including criminal impersonation. No President has jurisdiction over state law nor the power to pardon a person for state convictions. This is a matter for the courts to decide, and we will abide by court orders."
President Trump's interest in the case is not new. He previously warned that he would take "harsh measures" if Peters wasn't released from state custody. The Federal Bureau of Prisons even requested Colorado to transfer Peters to federal custody, a move that drew strong opposition from state officials.
Meanwhile, Peters' attorney has presented a novel legal argument: that the President's pardon power could extend to state crimes. This argument hinges on a less conventional interpretation of the Constitution. And this is a bold claim, considering it "has never been raised in any court," as Peters' lawyer, Peter Ticktin, admitted. The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon "Offences against the United States," which is almost universally interpreted as referring to federal crimes.
CBS News has reached out to the White House and Ticktin for comment.
Trump's intervention on behalf of Peters aligns with his pattern of supporting individuals who promote his unsubstantiated claims of election fraud. He previously offered pardons or commutations to those convicted in the January 6th Capitol riot and granted pardons to individuals accused in state court of attempting to overturn his 2020 election loss, including "alternate state electors" and his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
This situation raises some critical questions: Does the President have the authority to pardon state crimes? Is this a legitimate exercise of executive power or an overreach? And what are the potential implications for the balance of power between the federal government and individual states? What do you think? Could there be scenarios where a presidential pardon for a state crime should be considered? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
