A federal magistrate judge has dismissed former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’ bid to secure release from a Colorado prison while she appeals her state conviction of tampering with voting machines after the 2020 presidential election.
In a ruling issued December 8, 2025, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak concluded Peters’ request to be released on bond can’t be heard in federal court right now and must be thrown out, because federal courts aren’t allowed to step into an ongoing state case except in extraordinary circumstances.
Newsweek contacted attorneys for Peters for comment via email outside of normal business hours on Tuesday.
Why It Matters
A federal judge’s decision to dismiss Tina Peters’ request for release while she appeals her conviction underscores the limits of federal intervention in state criminal cases and highlights the broader stakes surrounding election security and political misinformation.
Peters’ case has become a national flashpoint, drawing in high-profile political figures and testing claims that First Amendment protections shield election-related misconduct.
By ruling that Colorado’s courts must resolve her constitutional arguments before any federal review, the decision reinforces state authority over election prosecutions at a time when trust in election systems and the rule of law remains under intense scrutiny.
What To Know
Legal Challenge Centers on First Amendment Claim
Tina Peters, 70, was convicted in October 2024 of facilitating unauthorized access to Mesa County’s voting systems, seeking to uncover evidence of alleged election fraud. This breach led to sensitive election data being leaked online. She was later sentenced to nine years in prison at La Vista Correctional Facility.
Peters is serving a sentence of at least eight years following her October 2024 conviction on charges related to allowing unauthorized access to Mesa County voting systems in 2021.
Her federal application did not challenge the convictions themselves; instead, she argued that Colorado courts violated her First Amendment rights by denying her bond while her appeal proceeds.
State prosecutors urged the court to deny Peters’ bond request, arguing it had already been settled, she remained a flight and public-safety risk, had not disputed the conduct at issue, relied on invalid defenses, and was unlikely to succeed on appeal.
At sentencing, Mesa County District Judge Matthew Barrett sharply criticized Peters’ conduct, describing her as a “charlatan” who had “undermined our democratic processes” and “betrayed [her] oath.”
He concluded that she posed “a danger to our community.”
These statements became central to Peters’ First Amendment argument.
Why The Federal Court Rejected Her Bid
But Judge Varholak found that federal courts cannot intervene while Peters’ state appeal remains active.
Colorado’s Court of Appeals has already denied her motion for bond, and her underlying appeal of the conviction is still pending.
This ongoing state process satisfied all three mandatory elements of Younger abstention, the magistrate judge wrote.
He noted: “Under the Younger abstention doctrine, federal courts are prohibited from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary or special circumstances,” adding that the doctrine is “non-discretionary” once its requirements are met.
Peters’ legal team argued that Younger should not apply because the federal court’s ruling on bond would not affect the ultimate outcome of her state appeal.
The judge rejected this reasoning, saying Peters had already raised the same issues before Colorado’s courts and that a federal ruling “will necessarily impact the ongoing criminal proceedings.”
Political Pressure Meets State Pushback
Peters has become a prominent figure in election-related controversies since 2021, and her case has drawn national political attention.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for her release, writing in August 2025: “Let Tina Peters out of jail, RIGHT NOW. She did nothing wrong, except catching the Democrats cheat in the Election.”
Her supporters, including retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, have argued she should be placed in federal custody.
Colorado officials, including Republican prosecutors in Mesa County, dispute these characterizations, emphasizing that Peters’ actions compromised secure election systems and violated state law.
In dismissing the case, the federal court stressed that constitutional questions raised by Peters—particularly those concerning her claims of retaliatory sentencing—must first be resolved by Colorado’s appellate courts.
“Because this question remains pending before Colorado courts, this Court must abstain,” Judge Varholak wrote.
For now, Peters will remain at La Vista Correctional Facility, awaiting the outcome of her state appeal.
What People Are Saying
Tina Peters at her sentencing hearing, said: “I have never done anything with malice to break the law. I’ve only wanted to serve the people of Mesa County,” and appealing for mercy, added “I am remorseful. I’m asking for leniency.”
In a post-conviction public statement she wrote: “I will continue to fight until the Truth is revealed that was not allowed to be brought during this trial … We WILL win in the end.”
What Happens Next
Tina Peters now awaits a ruling from the Colorado Court of Appeals, which will decide whether her 2024 conviction or sentence should be overturned; until that process concludes, she must remain in state custody because the federal court ruled it cannot intervene while her state case is ongoing.
She may refile her federal habeas petition only after fully exhausting all state appeals, including any review by the Colorado Supreme Court.
Peters could separately seek clemency from the governor, though she has not done so, and political pressure from national figures has no legal effect on her case.
