Tina Peters, a former Colorado county clerk, is serving a nine-year sentence after a state jury convicted her in a post-2020 election scheme, and her attorney says she has been threatened and physically attacked behind bars. Her lawyer, Peter Ticktin, claims she was targeted, moved between units, and denied placement in a safer housing unit despite repeated applications. Ticktin sent a letter to President Donald Trump arguing the president can use his pardon power in her case, and the situation has drawn national attention and political debate. Colorado leaders have pushed back and say state law must be respected.
The story centers on a harsh sentence for a political ally of former President Trump and allegations of mistreatment in custody. According to Ticktin, Mrs. Peters was threatened with violence and then assaulted multiple times after being moved to a different unit. “About 6 months ago, Mrs. Peters was threatened with harm. Her life was threatened by a group of inmates, to stab her and to kill her. This was reported to the FBI and DOJ, which had agents interview her. She was moved to a different unit,” Ticktin wrote.
Ticktin’s letter continues with a grim portrait of repeated attacks while Peters was in custody. “In the new unit, she was attacked by other prisoners three times in different locations where guards had to pull inmates off of her,” the letter continued. “There is actually a safe unit where inmates who do not cause problems can be assigned. She has applied to be put into that unit but was denied six times without a valid reason.”
Beyond the claims of violence, the legal argument in Ticktin’s letter presses President Trump to consider using the pardon power even though Peters was convicted under state law. Ticktin frames the issue as a constitutional question about the reach and meaning of the presidential pardon. He writes about the phrasing of the pardon clause and argues that the president has broader authority to act in extraordinary cases.
“The reason that many pundits opine that you have only the power to grant pardons for federal offenses is that we all understand the ‘United States’ to be the federal government of our country,” he wrote, referring to the text of the pardon power in the Constitution. “We have one country, and it is called the ‘United States,'” he added before making a lengthy argument about the phrasing of the pardon power.
Peters’ conviction stems from her role in a scheme that targeted Mesa County voting systems after the 2020 election, conduct a jury found criminal. She later sought release through the courts, arguing her free speech rights were violated, but a judge refused that request this year. Those legal failures have not quieted the political defense mounted by allies who call her a political prisoner and demand intervention.
Supporters portray Peters as a victim of political overreach and harsh punishment for standing up to alleged election irregularities. They point to the nine-year sentence as unusually severe for a county clerk and say the treatment she describes in custody raises questions about equal protection and basic safety for inmates. The national attention has amplified those claims and made Peters a rallying figure for some conservatives.
President Trump has publicly spoken in Peters’ defense, using strong language that casts her treatment as part of a broader partisan campaign. “Tina is an innocent Political Prisoner being horribly and unjustly punished in the form of Cruel and Unusual Punishment. This is a Communist persecution by the Radical Left Democrats to cover up their Election crimes and misdeeds in 2020,” he wrote on Truth Social in May. “The same Democrat Party that flies to El Salvador to try to free an MS-13 Terrorist, is cruelly imprisoning, perhaps for life, a grandmother whose brave and heroic son gave his life for America.”
Those comments underscore how Peters’ case has become symbolic for a segment of the right that views post-2020 prosecutions as selective and politically motivated. Her supporters argue that if the federal executive can intervene, it would correct what they see as an unjust sentence and dangerous conditions behind bars. Critics counter that state prosecutions and sentences must be respected and that federal interference in state convictions would set a fraught precedent.
Colorado officials have pushed back firmly against any outside interference and insisted that state law must run its course. Governor Jared Polis has refused to participate in any deal to override Colorado’s judicial outcomes and said he will not pardon Peters as part of a bargain with federal actors. That stance reflects a broader insistence among state leaders that accountability under their laws cannot be sidestepped for political reasons.
The mix of legal questions, claims of violence in custody, and sharp political rhetoric guarantees this case will stay in the headlines. Peters remains in a Colorado facility under a lengthy sentence, her legal team pressing arguments and her backers demanding action. For conservatives who view her as emblematic of a larger fight over 2020, the case is more than an individual prosecution; it is a touchstone in the battle over how political dissent after the election is treated.
As the debate continues, the central facts stay the same: a former clerk convicted in connection with post-2020 actions, a lawyer alleging threats and assaults in prison, a plea to the former president for clemency, and state leaders resisting federal intervention. How those competing forces resolve themselves will shape perceptions of justice and political fairness well beyond Colorado.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.