UMVA has learned that a federal civil-rights criminal referral has been filed with the U.S. Department of Justice, targeting Colorado officials who jailed former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters for her First Amendment-protected views on election integrity.
The referral, filed by Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, was submitted to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon on the same day Peters was released from prison. The move marks a significant escalation in the case, which has sparked concerns about the constitutionality of Peters' punishment.
Peters was sentenced to nearly nine years in prison in October 2024 for nonviolent offenses related to alleged election interference. However, the Colorado Court of Appeals subsequently raised concerns that the sentence was excessive and that Peters had been improperly punished for exercising her First Amendment rights.
The case took a dramatic turn when Colorado Governor Jared Polis commuted Peters' sentence, citing concerns about free speech. However, some officials, including Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and Secretary of State Jena Griswold, publicly condemned the commutation, with Griswold even penning an op-ed arguing that Peters should have served her full sentence.
The Article III Project's referral invokes 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy to violate rights) and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights), and calls for a federal criminal investigation into the actions of Colorado officials, including Mesa County District Judge Matthew Barrett, Attorney General Phil Weiser, and Secretary of State Jena Griswold.
"Colorado government officials illegally conspired to severely, unconstitutionally, and criminally punish Tina Peters because of her First Amendment-protected views on election integrity," Davis wrote. "No one is above the law. Not secretaries of state, not district attorneys, not attorneys general, and not judges."
The referral demands accountability from officials who may have acted with impunity, and raises questions about the limits of prosecutorial discretion and judicial immunity. As the case unfolds, one thing is clear: Tina Peters' ordeal has sparked a fierce debate about the intersection of free speech, election integrity, and the rule of law.
