What specific files or databases prosecutors claim Tina Peters copied from county election systems?
Executive summary
Prosecutors say Tina Peters helped copy election-system data from Mesa County’s Election Division, specifically “Election Division hard drives” and credentials/passwords for the county’s voting systems, which investigators say were later shared with outside activists and shown at events [1] [2]. Authorities alleged she stole a security badge to allow others to access voter systems and copied hard drives as part of a scheme to “breach” secure voting equipment [3] [1].
1. The core allegation: copied Election Division hard drives
State investigators and the Colorado secretary of state’s office have identified the principal items prosecutors say were taken as “Election Division hard drives,” which an official investigation concluded were copied by Peters and at least two others; those hard drives are described in contemporaneous reporting as containing county election-system files that should have remained secure [1] [4].
2. Passwords and credentials: what prosecutors say was leaked
Reporting cites an allegation that Peters leaked Mesa County election-system passwords in 2020 and that those credentials were shared with outside right‑wing activists; prosecutors point to that transfer of login information as part of the misconduct underlying her conviction [2] [1].
3. Physical access and alleged badge theft to reach systems
Prosecutors say Peters not only authorized copying but allegedly took steps to enable it: court documents and reporting state she stole a county employee’s security badge so a third party could access voter systems in May 2021, facilitating the copying or extraction of data [3].
4. Where the copied material showed up — public events and outside actors
After the alleged copying, material purportedly originating from Mesa County systems surfaced at high‑profile events and in the hands of outside figures. News accounts describe data shown at conferences and shared with activists, which prosecutors used to demonstrate that secure county files left authorized custody [1] [2].
5. Legal framing used by prosecutors
Prosecutors charged Peters with orchestrating a data‑breach scheme to access and copy secure voting system data; their theory emphasizes unlawful copying of election‑division hard drives and mishandling of system credentials rather than, for example, lawful preservation of records [1] [5].
6. Claims from Peters and supporters — a competing narrative
Peters and some allies say she was preserving election records that other counties deleted and that she acted as a whistleblower invoking federal preservation duties; her attorneys have framed the same files as legitimate "preservation" evidence and sought federal review and even a pardon request citing broader election‑integrity questions [4] [6] [7].
7. How authorities and courts treated those competing claims
Courts and state officials rejected the preservation defense in Peters’ state prosecution: a jury convicted her of participating in a scheme to breach county voting systems, and judges sentenced her on the basis that she misused official data and enabled unauthorized access [5] [8]. Available sources do not mention any court finding that copying those specific files was lawful preservation under federal statute (not found in current reporting).
8. What the sources do and do not specify about file names or databases
The public reporting cited uses the broad phrases “Election Division hard drives,” “election system passwords,” and “voter systems” but does not publish precise filenames, specific database names, or a full inventory of individual files prosecutors say were copied; raw lists of files or database‑table names are not provided in the cited coverage [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention the exact filenames or database table names prosecutors allege were copied (not found in current reporting).
9. Why those distinctions matter for the public record
Whether material was full system images, specific exported databases, passwords, or other artifacts affects legal and policy questions about evidence preservation, privacy and election security. Reporting shows disagreement: prosecutors characterize the acts as illegal breaches of secure systems, while Peters’ camp says she preserved records; the sources show courts sided with prosecutors [1] [4] [5].
10. Bottom line and limitations of the record
Prosecutors identify “Election Division hard drives,” system passwords/credentials and materially enabling access (badge theft) as the specific categories of items Peters is accused of copying or facilitating access to [1] [2] [3]. The public sources cited do not publish a granular inventory of file names, database schemas or an exhaustive list of individual files prosecutors say were taken; those details either are absent from reporting or remain in court filings not included among these sources [1] [2].