1. Freebird
On Friday, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis announced that he would commute Tina Peters’s sentence.
On the one hand, this is a tiny thing. Inconsequential. If we make it out of this period, then it will hardly be worth a footnote in the history of Trumpism.
On the other hand, what Gov. Polis did for Peters is everything. It is the foundational question about how liberalism responds to an illiberal attack.
And I’m going to swerve and tell you that I’m not really sure what I think about it. This might seem like an easy call—but it only seems that way.
Is pardoning Tina Peters the best expression of liberal values? Or is it dangerous capitulation to an illiberal threat? I want to talk through this, together and I’m going to drive you crazy with my on the one hand, on the other hand, on the other other hand routine.
My ask is that whatever your priors are, put them aside to start. I want to give you the best case for every side.
Just a warning: Usually this newsletter is locked for Bulwark+ members. I’m leaving it open for everyone today because it’s important. If this is the kind of discussion you find value in, I hope you’ll consider joining us.
Okay. Let’s go.
On the one hand, it seems like a slam-dunk that Polis has done something terrible.
In 2018, Tina Peters was elected County Clerk in Mesa County, Colorado. She was 62 years old and had never held elected office before. Her professional qualifications were slim—she went to an un-accredited correspondence college and had sold “natural health” supplements. She seems to have been a flight attendant for some period.
Her life in that moment was at a crossroads. In 2017, her son died in a parachuting accident and her marriage was falling apart. She and her husband divorced and she later became embroiled in a civil lawsuit with him. Her only living child, a daughter named Cayce, would eventually enter the suit on the side of her father. Make of that what you will.
Oh, and Donald Trump had just become president.
This was the moment Tina Peters chose to enter politics.
After the 2020 presidential election, Peters became convinced that massive voter fraud had stolen the election from President Trump—not just nationally, but specifically in Mesa County.
It is worth noting here that Mesa is a Republican stronghold and even though Joe Biden won Colorado by 13 points, Trump won Mesa by 28 points.
So Peters believed that some sort of fraud in her home county prevented Trump from winning by . . . even more?
This belief was insane. Let’s compare the results in Mesa County from 2016—a year in which, as far as I can tell, Peters never claimed there was any fraud—to 2020:
Clinton: 21,729 votes (28 percent)
Trump: 49,779 votes (64 percent)
Other: 6,146 votes (8 percent)
Biden: 31,536 votes (35 percent)
Trump: 56,894 votes (63 percent)
Just look at the numbers—the Mesa results in 2020 were broadly in-line with 2016. The big difference was that the 2016 third-party voters went for Biden in 2020.
Did Peters truly believe that there had been massive voting fraud in the 2020 election in Mesa? There are only three possibilities:
She did not genuinely believe there was fraud.
She did genuinely believe there was fraud, because she is too cognitively limited to understand basic math.
She did genuinely believe, because she was not in full control of her faculties.
Whichever answer you pick, we can safely say—again, just based on her acceptance of the 2016 results as valid—that her belief in election fraud was not made on a reasonable basis.
Anyway: Peters went all-in on the idea of election fraud and then committed a number of crimes while attempting to “prove” this non-existent fraud. She used her office to turn off security cameras that monitored the county’s election machinery and then granted access to the machines to an unauthorized person.
Some months later, various conspiracy theorists published data stolen from the Mesa County voting machines. Peters was eventually indicted on ten counts relating to her abuse of office.
Her criminal trial was eventful. She continually fired her lawyers and was, at one point, held in contempt for lying to the judge. Eventually she was convicted on seven counts. She was unrepentant throughout. Literally the day after she was convicted, she appeared on Steve Bannon’s podcast to keep pushing her nonsense.
In sum: Peters was guilty as sin. She did not have a one-time lapse in judgment. She engaged in coordinated criminal behavior over the course of many months. She showed no remorse for her crimes.1
Why would Polis commute her sentence?
2. Details
On the other hand, Mother Jones—Mother Freaking Jones!—makes a compelling case that Polis acted in the interests of liberalism. Because you have to look at the details of what happened after Peters was convicted.
Jeremy Schulman points out that Peters was sentenced to nine years in jail. (Polis’s commutation cuts that to four and a half years.) Why was she given such a lengthy sentence? Because the trial judge, Matthew Barrett, explicitly said he was dropping the hammer because her crimes were committed in the service of election denial. Here’s Schulman:
Among other things, Barrett accused Peters of peddling “a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.”
“So the damage that is caused and continue[s] to be caused is just as bad, if not worse, than the physical violence that this court sees on an all too regular basis,” Barrett declared. “And it’s particularly damaging when those words come from someone who holds a position of influence like you.”
Which at the very least creeps up on First Amendment protections. Again, here’s Schulman:
Last month, three Colorado appellate judges—all of whom were appointed by Polis’ Democratic predecessor—unanimously threw out Peters’ prison sentence, declaring it a clear violation of her First Amendment free speech rights. They ordered Peters to be resentenced, but Polis intervened before that could happen.
“It is apparent that the [trial] court imposed the lengthy sentence it did because Peters continued to espouse the views that led her to commit these crimes,” the appeals court concluded. “The tenor of the [trial] court’s comments makes clear that it felt the sentence length was necessary, at least in part, to prevent her from continuing to espouse views the court deemed ‘damaging.’”
In other words, Peters should have been sentenced for what she actually did, not the bizarre conspiracy theories she espoused. She can be punished for the crimes she committed in her illegal quest to expose non-existent election fraud. But she can’t be punished for loudly voicing her beliefs.
What Polis did, then, was to stand fast for liberalism. He didn’t pardon Peters; he merely commuted her sentence because he was protecting the First Amendment. This is the entire point of the First Amendment and the rule of law: to have processes in place to safeguard the rights of even the worst people. And Polis wasn’t swooping in out of nowhere. The courts were already headed in the direction of reducing Peters’ sentence. Polis was acting in the interests of justice using a power explicitly granted to him by his office for such purpose.2
We hold to liberalism not just when it gives us what we want, but even when it gives us results we do not like. That’s practically the definition of the liberal order.
How are we doing so far? Are you convinced? Well hold on . . .
3. Context Collapse
On the other other hand, that nice story about Polis standing up for liberal values—even when they are unpopular—really only works when you strip the Peters case of all context.
Let me give you just the tiniest bit of context:
The president of the United States threatened the state of Colorado with financial harm if Gov. Polis did not get Peters out of jail, one way or the other. Therefore it is impossible to say whether Polis came to his decision on principle, or because his state was being extorted.
The Department of Justice is currently pursuing criminal charges against James Comey for having posted a picture of seashells arranged in the characters “8647.” So the First Amendment is being adhered to on a pretty selective basis.
The Trump administration is using masked agents of the state to attack and detain people in a manner so lawless that there have already been more than 10,000 court decisions issued against the regime.
In other words: The federal government that Tina Peters supports takes the exact opposite view of free speech that Polis takes. The federal government is also engaged in a widespread pattern of violent lawlessness. And because of the overt threats made against the state of Colorado by Peters’s patron, the “interests of justice” have been irrevocably muddied.
This is one of those cases where if you know a little bit, it seems obvious that Polis was wrong. If you know a lot, it seems obvious that Polis was right. And if you know absolutely everything . . . well.
Let’s talk about that.
It all boils down to a question about how seriously you take the illiberal project.
If you think that it is not possible for Trumpism to succeed; that [gestures broadly] all of this is roughly normal; that 2026 is no different from 2000, or 1980, or 1960, or 1900?
Well, then, you’re probably where Polis is. You think it’s a forgone conclusion that our current moment is just part of a pendulum swing; it’s coming back around; all’s well that ends well.
On the other hand, if you think that this moment is more unique—that it is closer to the unsettled post-war period of 1865, when a lot of liberal assumptions about America were suddenly up for grabs?
Then you may think Polis is a naïf. You may be asking yourself, right now, “Is liberalism a suicide pact?”
I am in this latter class of alarmists. I do not think that 2026 is like 1980 in any meaningful way. I judge that America has moved to a place where a post-liberal order is more than just theoretically possible.
But I’m also open to the idea that liberalism must hold to liberal values, ideals, and processes as it combats illiberalism. No matter how unsatisfying, or even repugnant, that might feel.
To paraphrase the novelist Eli Cash:
Everyone knows that liberalism isn’t a suicide pact. What this essay presupposes is, “What if it is?”
At the end of the day, we’re not having a moral argument about Tina Peters. We’re having a prudential argument: Which liberal value is more powerful against illiberalism?
Demonstrating the supremacy of process and commitment to free speech of all kinds?
Or demonstrating the supremacy of accountability before the rule of law?
Having written all of this, I think I know where I land on this specific case. I think Polis is incorrect and Peters’ fate should have been left to the legal process. I think that Polis has made a dangerous demonstration of weakness that destined to embolden liberalism’s enemies and persuade exactly no one who was on the fence about.
But I’m open to persuasion.
Here’s my ask for the comments: Tell me where you land, but then tell me what circumstance could make you change your mind.
For instance: I’m inclined to say that Polis should not have commuted Peters’s sentence. However, if Trump had not threatened the state of Colorado, or if Peters had recanted and shown contrition for her crimes, then I might be where Polis is.
For this exercise, I want everyone stretching to see and understand the other side of where they are.
She did express some remorse after Polis commuted her sentence:
I made mistakes, and for those I am sorry. Five years ago I misled the Secretary of State when allowing a person to gain access to county voting equipment. That was wrong. I have learned and grown during my time in prison and going forward I will make sure that my actions always follow the law, and I will avoid the mistakes of the past.
But her remorse is only for her criminal acts; not for the motivations that led her to commit crimes. I guess that’s good but it’s not, like, great? I’m Ron Burgundy?
But! I can hear you shouting, if the courts were already going to adjust Peters’s sentence, why did Polis need to involve himself at all? Justice delayed is justice denied, yadda yadda yadda.
If Polis knew the courts were going to cut down her sentence tomorrow, and he did so today, then that’s justice. If he preempted the courts, then it’s more debatable.
I think one lesson of Reconstruction is that crimes against democracy and the constitution should carry maximum penalties—with any form of clemency reserved only for those who clearly and loudly renounce their crimes.
Polis is a coward and an idiot and a quisling. I believed that before I read this and now, knowing that the legal system was working towards a reduction in this stupid person's sentence for a defensible reason (i.e. to wit the judge improperly punished her for her political beliefs and not the actual crime) I am only reinforced in that belief because Polis did not need to intervene to achieve an equitable result. He did so explicitly to curry favor and avoid punishment from Trump.
What a pathetic little shitweasel.