A Colorado appeals court ruled Thursday that former Mesa County elections clerk Tina Peters should be resentenced, finding that the trial judge improperly weighed her speech when handing down a nine-year prison term. The court sent the case back to the trial judge for a new sentencing hearing while leaving her convictions intact.

Peters was convicted on seven of the ten counts she faced, including three counts of attempting to influence a public servant and one count each of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, and failure to comply with the requirements of the Secretary of State.

Prosecutors said she sneaked in a man associated with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to make a copy of the county's voter systems, The Hill reported.

The Colorado Court of Appeals explained its reasoning plainly: "We reverse her sentence because it was based in part on improper consideration of her exercise of her right to free speech."

That finding is significant. Whatever one thinks of Peters or her actions, the principle that a judge cannot pile on additional punishment because of a defendant's speech is foundational. The appeals court didn't free Peters. It didn't say she was innocent. It said the sentencing was tainted by considerations that have no place in an American courtroom.

The sentencing that drew scrutiny

At her 2024 sentencing, District Judge Matthew Barrett delivered what amounted to a public excoriation. He criticized Peters for her apparent lack of remorse, called her a "charlatan" who abused her role to "peddle snake oil," and made clear he viewed her attitude as an aggravating factor.

"I am convinced you would do it all over again if you could."

"You're as defiant as any defendant this court has ever seen."

The appeals court looked at this record, including the references to Peters's continued promotion of 2020 election fraud claims, and concluded that the sentence was shaped in part by her speech rather than solely by her criminal conduct. Nine years is a serious sentence. When a court determines that even a portion of that sentence rested on constitutionally protected expression, resentencing isn't a technicality. It's a correction.

The pardon question remains unresolved

President Trump issued Peters a symbolic pardon last year, attributing it to her efforts to "expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election." The appeals court, however, formally rejected the notion that the president has the power to pardon an individual for state offenses.

The court addressed Peters's own argument on this point directly:

"The crux of Peters's argument is that the phrase 'Offences against the United States' includes an offense against any of the states in the union."

"We join what appears to us to be every other appellate court that has addressed the issue and reject such an expansive reading of the phrase."

This is not a surprise. The constitutional boundary between state and federal pardon power is well established. Only Colorado's Democratic governor, Jared Polis, has the power to grant Peters a pardon for state crimes. Polis has indicated he could be open to clemency for Peters. President Trump has for months pressured Polis to free her, threatening "harsh measures" if he fails to act.

The Trump administration also sought to transfer Peters from state to federal custody, but its request was denied.

Colorado's secretary of state weighs in

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold called Trump's attempt to pardon Peters "unlawful" and argued that Peters's actions have been used to "spread conspiracy theories, amplify falsehoods and fuel dangerous election lies." Following the appeals court ruling, Griswold made her position on resentencing clear: "Peters should not receive any special treatment as the District Court considers re-sentencing."

Griswold has been one of the most aggressively partisan secretaries of state in the country. Her framing is predictable. What's worth noting is the irony: an elected official whose office exists to administer elections fairly is publicly lobbying for a particular sentencing outcome. The same officials who insist election integrity concerns are "dangerous" seem remarkably comfortable using their platforms to influence judicial proceedings when it suits them.

What comes next

Peters's convictions stand. She is not walking free. But the resentencing creates a new inflection point in a case that has become a national proxy fight over election integrity, prosecutorial discretion, and the limits of judicial commentary.

Peters insisted before her sentencing that her efforts were in service of the greater good. The trial judge saw defiance. The appeals court saw a First Amendment problem baked into the punishment. Those are not the same conclusions, and the distinction matters.

The case now returns to the same trial court, where a new sentence will have to be crafted without leaning on Peters's public statements. Whether the result changes dramatically or barely at all, the appeals court established something important: you can convict someone for their actions, but you cannot sentence them for their words.

That principle protects everyone. Even people the state finds defiant.