Have courts ruled on the admissibility or authenticity of data allegedly taken by Tina Peters?
Executive summary
Federal magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak declined to intervene in Tina Peters’ challenge to her 2024 state conviction and rejected her bid for release pending appeal, ruling that federal courts must let Colorado state proceedings and appeals play out first [1] [2]. Peters was convicted in state court for participating in a scheme to access and expose voting system data; her federal habeas request and bond motion were dismissed because she did not show the rare circumstances that permit federal interruption of ongoing state criminal matters [3] [4].
1. Federal court steps back — abstention and exhaustion explained
Magistrate Judge Varholak dismissed Peters’ federal habeas petition and bond request primarily on abstention grounds: he said federal courts cannot generally intervene while state appeals remain pending and that Peters failed to show the extraordinary circumstances required to do so, meaning Colorado courts must first address her claims about the trial and sentence [1] [2].
2. What the federal filing argued — First Amendment, federal records law and supremacy
Peters’ federal filings contended the state trial judge violated her First Amendment rights by punishing her speech at sentencing and that state courts ignored federal statutes such as records-preservation rules and the supremacy clause. Varholak acknowledged the “important constitutional questions” raised but concluded any First Amendment error could and should be corrected in state appellate proceedings before federal relief is sought [5] [4].
3. The underlying state conviction — data access and exposure
State prosecutors convicted Peters in 2024 for her role in a scheme to access and expose voting-system data from Mesa County’s election equipment. News reports consistently describe the conviction as tied to breaching or tampering with voting systems and publicly exposing data, which underlies the criminal sentence she is now seeking to overturn or stay [3] [6].
4. Relief denied, not a merits ruling on authenticity or admissibility
Varholak’s order rejects federal intervention at this procedural posture; it is not a substantive decision about whether the data Peters allegedly took are authentic or admissible as evidence in other proceedings. The federal ruling does not resolve evidentiary questions about the dataset itself — available sources do not mention any federal finding on the authenticity or admissibility of the specific data Peters is accused of exposing [1] [2].
5. Where evidentiary fights are occurring — state court posture and sealed records
Reporting and local analyses indicate Colorado courts have litigated access to grand jury materials and limited disclosure of certain records, and that portions of the record have been sealed or restricted in state proceedings — matters directly implicated in Peters’ appeals and in arguments about what evidence jurors or appellate judges could consider [7]. Those state-level rulings, not the recent federal abstention order, will be the primary venues to settle disputes over what evidence was admitted and whether full records should be reviewed.
6. Competing narratives and political pressure
Peters and many allies portray her as a political prisoner and argue she sought the data to preserve federal records; supporters including high-profile conservatives have publicly demanded her release. State officials and prosecutors frame her conduct as a criminal scheme that undermined election security and warrants the convictions and sentence she received. Varholak explicitly noted the intense public interest and political commentary but limited his ruling to procedural principles, citing the narrow circumstances under which federal courts can step in while state appeals are pending [1] [8].
7. What to watch next — appeals, sealed materials, and possible federal review
The immediate next steps are state appellate proceedings and challenges to any sealing or evidentiary rulings at the state level; those outcomes will determine whether a federal court can or should revisit Peters’ constitutional claims. Commentators have flagged larger legal questions — including whether presidential pardon power could implicate state convictions when federal duties are asserted — but those issues remain in early stages of debate and are tied to the ongoing state appellate record [7].
8. Bottom line for readers seeking the truth about the data
There is no federal court ruling here declaring the data Peters allegedly took authentic or admissible; the recent federal decision only says the federal court will not interrupt the state process now. Factual and evidentiary disputes about how the data were obtained, what the data show, and whether they should have been admitted are matters currently being litigated in Colorado’s courts and in sealed appellate filings — not resolved by the December 2025 federal order [1] [2].