In a move that has ignited a nationwide legal and political firestorm, President Donald Trump announced this week that he has pardoned former Colorado elections clerk Tina Peters, who is currently serving a nine-year state prison sentence for her role in breaching secure voting machines following the 2020 presidential election.
Yet within hours of Trump’s declaration, Colorado’s top state officials delivered a blunt message: he can’t.

The confrontation has rapidly become a defining moment in the evolving battle between federal authority, states’ rights, and the future of American election law—drawing intense attention from legal experts, political analysts, and voters across the country.

Tina Peters, once the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder, was convicted on seven state charges including:

Her case has been widely cited within election denial circles, where she is portrayed as a whistleblower rather than a criminal. But legally, her offenses were tried and sentenced under Colorado state law—a crucial detail that shapes this unfolding conflict.

The U.S. Constitution grants presidents the power to pardon federal crimes only. State convictions fall under the jurisdiction of governors or state clemency boards—not the Oval Office.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser responded quickly and unequivocally, stating that Trump’s announcement “has no precedent in American law” and “will not hold up.”
Secretary of State Jena Griswold echoed that message, underscoring that the president “has no constitutional authority” to intervene in a state criminal sentence.

Their statements draw a firm legal line: regardless of Trump’s proclamation, Peters’ conviction and imprisonment remain under state control.

In a Truth Social post, Trump claimed Peters was targeted for trying to ensure “Fair and Honest Elections,” reviving his long-running, unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Trump’s message positions Peters as a political martyr within the broader election-integrity movement—a strategy that resonates strongly with parts of his base. Her name has become a rallying cry in online communities that continue to challenge the legitimacy of the 2020 results.

For Trump, this attempted pardon serves two political purposes:

Peters’ case symbolizes the broader narrative that individuals who “expose corruption” are being punished by political enemies.

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has issued high-profile pardons to several allies, including former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former attorney Rudy Giuliani. The Peters proclamation fits this pattern—though in this case, it likely exceeds his legal reach.

At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental constitutional question:
Can the president pardon someone convicted of state crimes?

Legal scholars overwhelmingly say no. The Constitution’s pardon clause explicitly outlines federal jurisdiction, and for over two centuries, no president has successfully attempted to wipe away a state conviction.

State sovereignty is a bedrock principle of America’s legal framework. Each state maintains its own criminal justice system, courts, sentencing guidelines, and clemency process. The president can no more overturn a state conviction than a governor can erase a federal one.

Colorado officials were quick to defend that boundary. AG Weiser emphasized:
“One of the most basic constitutional principles is that states manage their own criminal justice systems without federal interference.”

If Trump attempts to enforce the pardon or issue directives to release Peters, the matter could escalate into a significant constitutional dispute—potentially landing before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even years after the 2020 election, the Tina Peters saga continues to hold symbolic power. Her actions—allowing unauthorized individuals to copy voting-machine software—were widely condemned by election-security experts, who warned it could have compromised systems statewide and fueled misinformation.

Yet among segments of the electorate skeptical of official election results, Peters is hailed as proof that “insiders” are persecuted when questioning voting processes. Advocacy groups have organized rallies, fundraising campaigns, and petitions calling for her release.

This clash over her pardon amplifies broader national debates over:

As the 2026 midterms approach, analysts say this conflict could influence messaging around election law and deepen partisan divides.

Despite Trump’s public declaration, Tina Peters remains incarcerated under state authority. Colorado officials say nothing has changed—and nothing can change unless the case goes through proper state legal channels.

But Trump’s statement ensures the issue won’t fade quietly. His supporters view the attempted pardon as a moral victory, while critics see it as another escalation in his long-running challenge to democratic institutions.

What unfolds next may shape the balance of state and federal power for years to come.