What evidence do prosecutors allege Tina Peters accessed or copied from Colorado voting systems?
Executive summary
Prosecutors say Tina Peters orchestrated a scheme that allowed unauthorized people to access Mesa County election equipment, capture images and copy system files during a secure software update, and remove voting-system data from county servers — actions that led to her 2024 conviction and a nine‑year sentence [1] [2]. Court filings and Colorado prosecutors specifically allege she helped an unauthorized person use someone else’s identity to attend a secure update and allowed access to election equipment and data in pursuit of debunked fraud claims [3] [2].
1. What prosecutors say she did: arranging access to secure election systems
Prosecutors allege Peters knowingly helped an unauthorized individual impersonate someone else to gain entry to a controlled, secure software update for county election equipment; that person then had access to devices and systems they were not permitted to touch [3]. State filings framed this behavior as “orchestrating a scheme to breach voting machine data,” a central allegation in the criminal case that produced felony convictions [2] [1].
2. Copying and removing data: the alleged technical theft
The prosecution’s narrative describes not just physical presence in a secure setting but active exfiltration of election-related files — including copying, photographing or otherwise removing system data from Mesa County voting machines and county servers. That alleged copying and removal of voting‑system data underlies the characterization of Peters’ conduct as a data‑breach scheme [1] [2].
3. The motive prosecutors offer: searching for fraud tied to the 2020 election
Federal and state accounts present Peters’ actions as driven by false claims of wide‑scale voting‑machine fraud in 2020; prosecutors say she and allies sought to “catch” alleged problems by getting inside systems, not through authorized audits or legal channels [2] [4]. Reporting notes prosecutors tied the breach to efforts to advance those debunked theories, which influenced how authorities framed intent at trial [4] [2].
4. How courts and authorities summarized the evidence in sentencing and appeals
When judges rejected release bids and upheld convictions, court orders and filings repeatedly cited Peters’ orchestration of unauthorized access and the resulting data breach as factual findings supporting her sentence [1] [5]. State prosecutors and the Colorado attorney general argued her conduct went beyond speech about fraud and amounted to criminal tampering with election infrastructure [3] [2].
5. Peters’ and supporters’ counterclaims and the competing narrative
Peters and her legal team have consistently denied criminality, casting their actions as preservation of election records and contesting that the state punished her for speaking about election integrity [3]. Supporters, including some national political figures, describe her as a political prisoner and pushed for federal intervention or transfer; those positions emphasize alleged health concerns and political motivations for prosecution [5] [6]. Colorado officials and many county clerks counter that the actions violated law and election administration duties [7] [8].
6. What reporting documents, and what it does not
Available reporting cites court filings, state prosecutor statements, trial outcomes and sentencing as the evidentiary record used against Peters [1] [2]. Specific forensic‑level details — for example, exact filenames copied, the full chain of digital custody, or public disclosure of forensic reports identifying particular files taken — are not detailed in the stories provided; those technical exhibits are not described in current reporting [1] [3].
7. Why this matters beyond one county
Prosecutors and state officials framed the case as a warning about election‑office insiders facilitating unauthorized access to voting infrastructure, a scenario that can undermine public confidence and potentially imperil chain‑of‑custody and auditability of election systems [2] [8]. Conversely, Peters’ supporters argue the matter reflects political targeting; that dispute informs intense debate over election technology and governance across states [6] [3].
Limitations and final note
This summary relies on contemporary news and court coverage that emphasize the prosecution’s theory, convictions and public reactions [1] [2] [3]. Detailed forensic exhibits and full trial transcripts that would list exact files or methods of copying are not described in the available reporting; those materials are not found in current sources provided [1] [3]. Wherever differing perspectives appear in the reporting, this article cites them so readers can see the competing legal and political claims [3] [6].