What evidence do prosecutors allege Tina Peters stole or copied from election equipment?
Executive summary
Prosecutors say former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters orchestrated a 2021 scheme that allowed an unauthorized person into a secure elections area, stole a county employee’s security badge, and produced or enabled copies of voting-system data and hard drives that later appeared online — actions that prosecutors tied to attempts to influence officials and compromise election equipment [1] [2] [3]. She was convicted on multiple state counts related to that breach and sentenced to nine years; reporting and court filings focus on her role in granting access, misrepresenting identities, and facilitating copying of machine data rather than on altering vote totals [1] [4] [5].
1. What prosecutors allege she did: granted unauthorized access and enabled copying
Prosecutors say Peters let an unauthorized man into Mesa County’s secure election systems during a May 2021 software update, a breach that included use of a security card and resulted in images and copies of machine hard drives and passwords being posted online — the alleged central acts underpinning the state charges [3] [1] [2].
2. Badge theft and impersonation allegations that gave the breach cover
Authorities allege Peters stole a security badge from a county employee and used or helped others use someone else’s identity so an imposter could enter the secure area; that impersonation and misuse of credentials are the factual core of the prosecution’s narrative [2] [3] [6].
3. What was copied — hard drives, passwords and system images, not proven vote changes
Reporting and prosecutor statements emphasize that copies of hard drives, passwords and system images from Mesa County voting equipment were created and circulated online after the breach; none of the cited sources document prosecutors proving that vote counts were changed, and the legal theory focused on tampering with equipment and attempting to influence the administration of elections [3] [1] [5].
4. How prosecutors link Peters to motive and coordination
Prosecutors presented Peters as acting to validate false claims of widespread fraud promoted by outside figures; they tied her conduct to efforts by election deniers and to public promotion of the material once it surfaced online, portraying her actions as part of a broader scheme to sow distrust — a narrative emphasized by the Colorado secretary of state and in multiple news reports [1] [4] [3].
5. Criminal charges and convictions that followed
A jury convicted Peters on several state counts tied to the breach, including attempts to influence a public servant, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and misdemeanor election-official misconduct; she was acquitted on some impersonation-related counts, but overall the convictions centered on the access-and-breach conduct that prosecutors described [6] [4] [1].
6. Consequences recounted by officials and reporting
Authorities and local officials said the breach forced replacement or seizure of equipment and prompted investigations; reporting notes seized computer equipment tied to the incident and that the episode intensified threats to election workers and costs to taxpayers, per prosecutors and local officials cited in coverage [6] [7].
7. Defenses and limits of the public record
Peters and her supporters say she was preserving records and raising legitimate concerns about election security; she has argued First Amendment protections and claimed she acted in the public interest, a defense raised in appeals and filings [8]. Available sources do not mention independent evidence that Peters altered vote totals; they focus on unauthorized access, copying of system data, and use of stolen credentials as the criminal behavior alleged and prosecuted [3] [1].
8. Broader political context and federal interest
The case became political. The Department of Justice announced a review of the state conviction, and the matter drew attention and advocacy from national political figures, including President Trump; Colorado officials and local clerks pushed back, framing the case as criminal conduct that harmed election integrity and worker safety [3] [9] [10].
Limitations: this summary relies only on the provided reporting and prosecutor accounts; court filings and evidence exhibits would provide fuller forensic detail but are not in the supplied sources.