Governor Polis, Do Not Pardon Tina Peters
An open letter and a plea to retain the integrity of our elections.
January 16, 2026
DEAR GOVERNOR JARED Polis,
I understand you’re considering pardoning Tina Peters.
Please don’t.
I’m the former elected recorder for Maricopa County, Arizona and had a front-row seat to elections over the past six years. I’m intimately familiar with the efforts to sow doubt in our elections and how delicate faith in our democracy has become. I urge you to let the normal process run its course. Tina Peters is eligible for parole in 2028, and her current sentence could be shortened on appeal. Intervening now would tell the whole country that we do not value safeguarding our elections. It would strike a devastating blow to the confidence in our election laws.
For years, Donald Trump and his allies have warned us election administrators that our time is coming, that we will be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for our supposed crimes in 2020.
The reality, as you know, is that we didn’t steal the election.
In fact, despite all the court cases, post-election audits, independent fraud sleuthing, Trump-initiated investigations, DOJ investigations, and state investigations, only one single, solitary election administrator—out of tens of thousands of us throughout the United States—has been criminally convicted in connection with the 2020 presidential election.
That one, of course, is Tina Peters.
She was convicted because she betrayed the responsibilities of an election administrator. As Mesa County clerk and recorder, Tina Peters allowed unauthorized amateurs to copy sensitive voting data in 2021 to prove “debunked claims of election fraud.”
While other election administrators will often work frantic sixteen-hour days for many weeks to administer an election—all to ensure that it is conducted in a lawful, accurate, and ethical manner—Tina Peters sent encrypted messages and encouraged employees who had witnessed her illegal actions to purchase burner phones to evade scrutiny from investigators.
While we conducted post-election audits in public, without partisan favor, and according to clearly-defined rules, Tina Peters gave secret access to election equipment to political allies who wanted to overturn the will of American voters.
While we followed the law, even when it made our jobs harder (the Pennsylvania law not allowing us to pre-process mail ballots immediately comes to mind), Tina Peters knowingly violated Colorado election law and understood the consequences. “I am fucked. I am going to jail,” she said.
And she did.
Tina Peters got the guilty verdict she deserved. As you yourself said, she “was prosecuted by a Republican D.A. in a Republican county, convicted by a jury of her peers in a very Republican area in our state.” Her sentence is consistent with the gravity of our election administration responsibilities and the importance of elections in our country.
But now, it appears, you are open to lessening that sentence. Undoubtedly, the pressure being applied on you and the people in your state by Donald Trump is weighing heavily on this decision. His threats and acts of retribution have made your job harder and their lives more difficult. Colorado doesn’t deserve to have its water sources jeopardized. Colorado doesn’t deserve to lose the U.S. Space Command headquarters. Colorado doesn’t deserve the dismantling of your National Center for Atmospheric Research. And Colorado doesn’t deserve a phony investigation into your prisons.
But any commutation or pardon of Tina Peters’s sentence, outside of the normal parole or appeal process, would send a devastating message—both to the country and to all election officials.
If you grant Tina Peters clemency, how could we then continue to stomach the violent threats, endure the hateful emails, and even tolerate the skepticism of family members who have been fed lies about American elections? Our industry has lost many professionals in recent years. Many more would flee if Tina Peters is pardoned.
The harm wouldn’t stop there.
When Trump gleefully pardoned the January 6th rioters, many political pundits worried that he had invited future consequence-free attacks on election administrators. But we are still protected by state laws. That is, unless you signal otherwise. If you pardon Tina Peters, it would be giving Trump undue influence over state pardon powers. It would erase the two-layered protection built into our legal system. Election administrators would go to work knowing that we can be attacked with impunity if it’s for a cause supported by Trump.
Taking a stand against Trump’s pressure would show election officials in states with closer contests than Colorado’s that their governors have their back. And the public will see the American legal system working as it should: If election administrators break the law, they will face state charges and weighty penalties despite the recklessness of whomever wields the presidential pardon pen.
We tell voters that federalism itself is a safeguard against election interference, and a strength of our election system. There is no singular election tabulation system. There is no all-encompassing voter registration database in the United States. There is no universal set of election procedures. Elections aren’t administered in Colorado in the same way as in Georgia. This makes it very difficult to disrupt American elections across the country.
Trump doesn’t like this federalized system. He wants to build a national voter registration database. He wants tabulation standards and mail-balloting rules to be set by the federal government. He’s even contemplated seizing tabulation machines.
So far, states have resisted. But if you pardon Tina Peters, then Trump will learn that he can flatten federalism if he finds the right leverage.
If you give in, the lives of election administrators will be worse, confidence in American elections will decrease, and our elections will be less secure. So, I plead to you: Do not give in.
Thank you,
Stephen
Stephen Richer is the former elected Maricopa County recorder. He is now CEO of Republic Affairs and a fellow of the Cato Institute.
 | A guest post by
|