What defenses has Tina Peters offered in response to the charges and court filings?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tina Peters has advanced multiple defenses in filings and appeals: she argues her conduct was compelled or protected by federal law (invoking the Supremacy Clause and the federal records-preservation statute, 52 U.S.C. § 20701), and she also asserts First Amendment claims that her sentence and bond denial punish protected speech; federal judges have declined to intervene while state appeals proceed [1] [2] [3]. Peters and allies also frame her as a political prisoner and have sought executive intervention, including a pardon push from former President Trump and federal custody transfer efforts [4] [5] [6].
1. Supremacy Clause and federal records duty — a legal shield
Peters’ lawyers told courts that federal law required preservation of election records and therefore preempted state prosecution; their filings say 52 U.S.C. § 20701 imposed a federal duty to preserve digital election records for 22 months and the trial court improperly excluded that theory from jury consideration, so her actions were not criminal but instead carried out under a federal obligation [1]. That argument frames the criminal charges as legally inconsistent with federal statutes and asks federal courts to treat the Supremacy Clause as an immunity from state prosecution [1].
2. First Amendment claims — speech as a defense to punishment
Peters has repeatedly argued that the state punished her for protected speech about election security. Her federal filings and appeals contend that the trial court and post‑conviction rulings infringed her First Amendment rights and that bond denials improperly chilled her speech; she asked federal courts to release her pending appeal on that constitutional basis [4] [2] [3]. Federal magistrate Scott Varholak declined to reach the substance, saying the state appellate process must play out first and that any First Amendment error can be corrected on state appeal [2] [6].
3. Procedural and evidentiary complaints — trial errors asserted
Beyond supremacy and speech claims, Peters’ habeas petition and related filings allege procedural errors at trial — notably that the court prevented the jury from considering the federal record‑preservation requirement and that critical evidence was withheld, which her team says warrants reversal or relief [1]. Those contentions form the backbone of her state‑court appeals even as she presses federal courts for interim relief [1] [3].
4. Political framing and outside pressure — “political prisoner” narrative
Peters’ attorneys and national allies have framed her as a victim of political persecution. Her lawyer criticized court denials as failing to “free an innocent lady,” and President Trump publicly called her a political prisoner and pressed for federal involvement, including seeking custody transfer and later announcing a pardon claim — moves that inject high‑level political pressure into what state prosecutors call a criminal case [7] [4] [5] [6]. Reporting shows Colorado officials and courts have resisted those overtures, noting limits on presidential pardons for state convictions and refusing custody transfers [6] [8].
5. Federal relief requests and why courts refused to act
Peters filed in federal court seeking release from a Colorado prison while appeals proceed, arguing both constitutional and federal‑law defenses. Multiple federal judges and magistrates have dismissed or abstained from hearing those requests, concluding federal courts should not intervene while state appeals remain pending and that Peters failed to meet the narrow standards for extraordinary federal relief [6] [9] [2]. Those rulings explain why Peters remains incarcerated even as her legal arguments continue in state appellate proceedings [6] [2].
6. What reporters and authorities explicitly dispute or do not address
State officials — including Colorado prosecutors and the Attorney General’s office — directly dispute Peters’ First Amendment theory and the claim that she was simply exercising protected speech; the AG’s office has argued her constitutional claims are wrong in filings [10]. Available sources do not mention detailed rebuttals to every factual allegation in Peters’ habeas filing (for instance, full evidentiary records or the trial transcript are not summarized here), and they do not show a federal court acceptance of her Supremacy Clause defense at this stage [1] [2].
Limitations and takeaway: Peters pursues three linked strategies — federal‑law preemption (Supremacy Clause), First Amendment protection for her speech, and procedural trial‑error claims — while political allies press for executive relief. Federal courts have so far declined interim intervention, leaving the claims to be resolved in Colorado’s appellate system and making any final legal victory for Peters contingent on state appellate outcomes [2] [3].