Trump Grants Pardon to Tina Peters, Controversy Surrounds Legality
Former President Donald Trump announced on Thursday evening that he is granting a pardon to Tina Peters, a former county clerk from Colorado, who is currently serving a nine-year sentence for facilitating unauthorized access to voting machines. This decision has sparked significant debate, as the presidential pardon power is traditionally understood to apply solely to federal crimes.
Background of the Case
Peters, who once ran for Secretary of State in Colorado, was convicted in October 2024 on multiple charges, including conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and attempting to influence a public servant. The prosecution alleged that she orchestrated a scheme to permit unauthorized individuals to access voting machines in Mesa County, leading to the unauthorized distribution of sensitive images online. Peters and her defenders argue that her actions were part of a legitimate inquiry into voting integrity, particularly in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, a claim Trump echoed in his statement.
Reactions from State Officials
Colorado officials, including Secretary of State Jena Griswold and Attorney General Phil Weiser, have expressed strong disapproval of Trump’s pardon. “Tina Peters was convicted by a jury of her peers for state crimes in a state court,” Griswold stated, underscoring that the former president lacks the constitutional authority to intervene in state legal matters. Weiser reinforced this sentiment by highlighting the principle of state sovereignty, emphasizing that such a pardon would set a precedent without historical basis.
Democratic Governor Jared Polis also weighed in, reaffirming that Trump’s actions interfere with state law and asserting that the matter should remain under judicial review rather than presidential influence.
Legal Implications
While the U.S. Constitution grants the president the authority to pardon those convicted of federal offenses, this power does not extend to state crimes. Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin, contended in a recent letter that there might be a legal theory for the president’s authority to pardon state convictions, although he acknowledged this has never been addressed in court.
Despite the lack of legal precedent, Ticktin thanked Trump for the pardon, asserting that Peters deserves release while her case is under appeal. The Federal Bureau of Prisons had previously sought to transfer Peters to federal custody, a request met with resistance from state officials.
Ongoing Controversies
Trump has maintained a keen interest in the narratives surrounding the 2020 election, frequently supporting individuals contending that the election was marred by fraud. This includes extending pardons to others entwined in similar controversies, notably those involved in the January 6 Capitol riot and individuals associated with efforts to overturn the election results.
As public discourse continues to evolve around the implications of Trump’s pardon for Peters, the matter raises questions regarding the intersection of federal authority and state law, as well as ongoing tensions within American political and judicial landscapes.
CBS News has reached out to the White House for a response regarding Trump’s pardon decision.