Updated at 2:15 p.m. on Dec. 12
The lead attorney for Tina Peters thinks we may be reading the presidential pardon powers all wrong.
In the latest effort to free the former Mesa County Clerk from state prison, Peters’ legal team requested and, in a way, were granted a pardon from President Donald Trump. Trump posted a message on social media Thursday issuing a pardon, though thus far the action has not been reflected by the Office of the Pardon Attorney website. The Department of Justice has not yet responded to a request for comment.
Peters is serving a nearly nine-year sentence at the La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo on convictions related to allowing unauthorized access to county voting equipment.
Legal experts have long said that the president’s ability to pardon people is confined only to federal charges, and not state charges like the ones Peters was convicted on. The Constitution says the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Peter Ticktin, an attorney representing Peters, said it was always assumed that “against the United States” should be interpreted as meaning federal crimes. It wasn’t until he was on a flight watching the 2012 Steven Spielberg film “Lincoln” that he wondered if that assumption was wrong. Specifically, he noted the part of the film — which received 12 Oscar nominations and two Oscar wins, including Daniel Day-Lewis for his performance in the titular role — when the 13th Amendment is read.
Ticktin said it made him believe that “against the United States” should refer to all 50 states and territories, not just federal crimes.
“I realized we've been looking at this whole thing all wrong. I've been looking at it wrong because I'm telling you, four weeks ago I thought it meant only federal crimes,” Ticktin said.
Ticktin argues the distinction has never truly been litigated and this will be the “poster child case” for the question on just how far the president’s pardon capabilities travel.
That legal analysis is not shared by Colorado’s top law enforcement officer. Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement that legal precedent clearly delineates between state and federal law.
“One of the most basic principles of our constitution is that states have independent sovereignty and manage our own criminal justice systems without interference from the federal government,” Weiser’s statement read. “The idea that a president could pardon someone tried and convicted in state court has no precedent in American law, would be an outrageous departure from what our constitution requires, and will not hold up.”
Peters was convicted in the 21st Judicial District. The district attorney there, Dan Rubinstein, has maintained there was nothing political about her prosecution or conviction.
What now?
Ticktin acknowledges that the pardon puts Peters’ case into uncharted legal territory. He says fellow attorneys have been skeptical of his reasoning until he makes his case that Civil War-era changes to the constitution broadened the idea of what is meant by “United States” and federal law more broadly.
“At first, (other attorneys) are reluctant because it's so well entrenched in us that the ‘United States’ is the federal government because that's the world we grew up in and that's the world we know,” Ticktin said, adding that things like the 13th Amendment were meant to apply to every state, not the federal government and that pardon powers could follow suit.
But Ticktin faces myriad hurdles. Initially it appeared he would have to establish for a court that a social media post pardoning Peters was actually written by Trump. Without a document bearing the president’s signature, that could require testimony.
But Friday afternoon, the Office of Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice posted a signed executive grant of clemency for Peters. It is non-specific about what crimes the president wants pardoned, and it is dated Dec. 5, nearly a week before Trump made his social media post about the pardon, and two days before Ticktin sent his letter to Trump requesting a pardon.
"For those offenses she has or may have committed or taken part in related to election integrity and security during the period from Jan. 1, 2020 through Dec. 31, 2021," according to the document. "I HEREBY DESIGNATE, direct, and empower the Pardon Attorney, as my representative, to immediately sign the grant of clemency to the person named herein. The Pardon Attorney shall declare that his action is the act of the President, being performed at my direction."
It appears to have been signed by Trump.
Because this is bound to return to the courts, Ticktin is again going to request that Peters be freed until the legalities can be sorted out. Barring that, he intends to file for a declaratory relief action asking a federal judge to order Peters’ release.
“It would go to the (federal) district court, yes, the district of Colorado. And then from there it would go to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. And, because neither side is going to let this go until it goes to the Supreme Court of the United States. It’s going to take the Supreme Court of the United States to basically make this decision. And that's why she needs to get out now because it doesn't make any sense to hold her.”
As it stands now, Peters will be eligible for parole in three years, but inmates, particularly non-violent inmates, are frequently moved to less restrictive conditions or home confinement as much as 16 months before their parole dates. And Gov. Jared Polis retains the option of pardoning Peters or commuting her sentence, though he said Thursday night that he was inclined to let the presidential pardon play itself out in court, should it come to that.
Editor's note: This story was updated at 2:15 p.m. on Dec. 12, 2025 to reflect that the Office of Pardon Attorney had posted signed direction from President Trump to grant Peters a pardon.
