In a troubling development, Tina Peters—a 70-year-old Gold Star mother—has been placed in solitary confinement at a Colorado prison where she has been held for over a year. Peters’ situation escalated after she filed a grievance against a prison teacher who allegedly made distressing comments to other inmates. According to Peters, the teacher suggested that she “was never going to leave prison” and that the state would “never let her out.” This led to a confrontation in which the teacher and a group of inmates began to verbally attack her.
Following these events, Peters was moved to the medical unit for evaluation before being transferred to solitary confinement for up to 17 days, labeled as part of an “internal affairs investigation.” Although she has access to her iPad, her communication is severely limited. Peters cannot connect with her approved contacts or attorneys unless specific conditions are met within the prison.
This incident follows a request from the federal Bureau of Prisons to transfer Peters to federal custody while her conviction is under appeal. This request has faced strong opposition from Colorado’s Attorney General and the Mesa County District Attorney. Both officials expressed grave concerns about Peters’ actions, arguing they put the community at risk and violated public trust. They emphasized that her prosecution was authorized by an elected Republican official, indicating a belief that her case should remain in state hands.
Compounding the issue, the Colorado County Clerks Association has been vocal in calling for the denial of Peters’ transfer, alleging that she deliberately violated election security protocols. They referenced specific actions—such as turning off security cameras and permitting unauthorized individuals access to sensitive areas—that reportedly jeopardized election integrity. However, several of their claims are contested. For instance, turning off the cameras was not illegal at the time, and Peters contends that she needed to bring in extra technical support to conduct crucial forensic work.
The CCCA’s argument also hinges on the assertion that Peters has propagated false narratives, leading to harassment of election officials. They have suggested that transferring her to federal custody could facilitate her continued public statements, raising alarming implications for her First Amendment rights. This line of reasoning could be seen as advocating for censorship rather than addressing legitimate concerns about election integrity.
Furthermore, Peters’ trial raised significant questions about the fairness of the proceedings. Key evidence supporting her case, including the Mesa Reports from credentialed computer scientists, was not allowed. Experts like Mark Cook and retired Air Force Colonel Shawn Smith have publicly stated that had their findings been presented during the trial, the outcome may have been different. Their reports indicate serious anomalies in the election process that contradict the state’s narrative.
The ongoing situation surrounding Tina Peters illustrates the tensions between legal accountability and First Amendment rights. It raises serious concerns about the treatment of individuals involved in contentious political issues and the implications for free speech. As her case continues to unfold, many are closely watching how the balance between these competing interests will be maintained.
"*" indicates required fields
