What specific charges did Tina Peters face in the Mesa County election case?

1. The core allegation — enabling unauthorized access to election equipment

Prosecutors’ central claim is that Peters allowed or helped an unauthorized individual to misuse a security card and gain access to Mesa County’s voting machines and election system in 2021; multiple outlets describe the conviction as tied to that unauthorized access and a resulting data breach of election system images and passwords ^{[2] [4] [5]}. Reporting notes the breach involved digital images and credentials from Mesa County’s election equipment being shared online, and investigators traced the actions back to Peters’ office ^[1].

2. What the indictment listed — a mix of impersonation, official-misconduct and duty violations

A March 2022 grand jury indictment charged Peters with 10 felony and misdemeanor counts that included criminal impersonation, official misconduct, and violation of duty, as part of an alleged scheme “to influence public servants, breach security protocols, exceed permissible access to voting equipment, and set in motion the eventual distribution of confidential information to unauthorized people,” according to local reporting and summaries ^[1]. University of Denver background reporting also lists attempting to influence a public servant and identity-theft–related counts among the allegations ^[6].

3. Jury verdict and specific convictions described in coverage

Coverage from August and October 2024 says jurors found Peters guilty on seven counts, including four felonies, tied to her role in facilitating unauthorized access and being deceptive about the identity of the person who accessed the equipment ^{[3] [2]}. News reports summarize that convictions centered on her handling of election equipment and deception around who attended secure events or used credentials ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Sentencing and prosecutorial framing

In October 2024 a judge sentenced Peters to nine years in prison for the voting-system data scheme; prosecutors and the Mesa County district attorney framed Peters’ conduct as a deliberate breach of duties designed to stir controversy and undermine election security, while noting community costs stemming from the incident ^{[7] [8]}. The judge publicly criticized Peters’ continued promotion of debunked election-fraud claims during sentencing ^{[2] [9]}.

5. Defense claims and political context

Peters and her supporters have consistently argued she was trying to expose alleged fraud and that her prosecution is political; reporting notes her status as a cause célèbre among election-denial networks and that some conservative commentators and figures have lobbied for her release or framed the case as politically motivated ^{[4] [10]}. The district attorney and prosecutors have explicitly rejected that framing, saying the indictment and conviction were the product of a grand jury and jury of local peers and were nonpartisan enforcement of law ^[10].

6. Federal review and continuing disputes over the case

In March 2025 the U.S. Department of Justice announced it would review the state conviction, citing concerns including the length of the sentence and detention while appeals proceed; this prompted criticism from Colorado officials who said the state prosecution was proper and not politically motivated ^{[4] [10]}. Coverage indicates this federal review does not itself change the underlying state charges but opens another avenue for scrutiny of the conviction and sentence ^{[4] [10]}.

7. What the sources do and do not enumerate

Available reporting lists the broad charge types (criminal impersonation, official misconduct, violation of duty, identity-related counts and other felonies and misdemeanors) and summarizes that Peters was convicted on several counts related to unauthorized access and deception about identity, but the provided sources do not present the full, line-by-line statutory list of every charge and count number from the indictment or the jury’s verdict form in a single consolidated list ^{[1] [3]}. For a complete legal inventory (exact statutory citations, counts convicted and acquittals if any), available sources do not mention the full charging instrument text; consult court records or the Mesa County clerk of court for the formal indictment and judgment documents ^[1].

8. Takeaway — criminal conduct centered on security breach, contested in politics

Reporting uniformly ties Peters’ criminal exposure to facilitating a security breach of election equipment and deceiving officials about who accessed that equipment; convictions and a lengthy sentence followed, while political actors and the DOJ later pushed for review and possible intervention, underscoring how this prosecution sits at the intersection of criminal law, election security and national partisan controversy ^{[2] [10] [4]}.