Tina Peters’ Lawyer Makes Unprecedented Plea to Trump for State-Level Pardon

Tina Peters’ Attorney Appeals to Trump: A Legal Hail Mary

In a move that defies legal precedent and has sent ripples across the American legal and political landscape, Tina Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin, has made a direct and impassioned appeal to former President Donald Trump. The plea: grant a presidential pardon to Peters, the former Mesa County clerk currently serving a sentence in Colorado state prison for her involvement in a 2021 election equipment breach.

Ticktin’s nine-page letter, sent in early December 2025, attempts to rewrite the boundaries of presidential pardon power. While the U.S. Constitution clearly limits presidential pardons to federal offenses, Ticktin argues that this interpretation is too narrow. He claims that the Constitution’s references to the United States include the individual states, thereby granting the president power to pardon state convictions—a notion legal experts call unprecedented and unsupported.

The Roots of the Case: Election Security and Misinformation

Tina Peters, a Republican and former Mesa County clerk, was convicted in October 2024 for her role in a scheme to breach the security of her own county’s election equipment. According to the prosecution, Peters sought to uncover evidence that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen, echoing conspiracy theories widely circulated among supporters of Donald Trump after his defeat. Her actions, however, resulted in a state court conviction following a trial led by a Republican district attorney.

Despite years of claims to the contrary, no credible evidence has surfaced to suggest that the 2020 election results were compromised. Nor has any proof emerged that Peters’ prosecution was politically motivated or flawed. The case has thus become a flashpoint for ongoing debates about election integrity and the boundaries of political activism.

Presidential Pardon Power: Limits and Legal Reality

Presidential pardons have always been understood to apply exclusively to federal crimes. This is not merely tradition—it’s enshrined in the Constitution and confirmed by centuries of legal practice. As Phil Weiser, Colorado’s Democratic attorney general, told Newsline, “A presidential pardon for someone 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.”

Ticktin’s letter to Trump, however, argues otherwise. He asserts that the matter has never been tested in court and should be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. In his letter, Ticktin frames Peters as a political prisoner, appealing to Trump’s sense of loyalty to those who have championed his unfounded claims about the 2020 election. The letter repeats many of the same arguments and conspiracy theories that have fueled ongoing skepticism about the integrity of American elections.

The Trump team, for its part, has not publicly commented on the specific clemency request. A White House official responded to inquiries with a stock answer: “The White House does not comment on potential clemency requests. The President is the final decider on all pardons.” Newsline has been unable to confirm with the U.S. Department of Justice whether Peters’ petition has been formally received.

Political Stakes and Public Reaction

Tina Peters’ imprisonment has become a rallying point for some on the right who continue to question the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Trump himself has repeatedly called for Colorado to release Peters, while Ed Martin, a Trump ally and the U.S. pardon attorney, has indicated that efforts are underway to free her. The Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, has reportedly taken an active interest in the case.

However, the path to a presidential pardon remains all but closed. Legal scholars from across the political spectrum have dismissed Ticktin’s argument as wishful thinking. The consensus is clear: the Constitution’s pardon power was designed to keep the federal government from interfering in state prosecutions, preserving the delicate balance of federalism that defines the American legal system.

Still, the spectacle surrounding Peters’ case—and the direct appeal to Trump—highlight how election denialism and partisan fervor continue to shape the post-2020 political landscape. For Peters’ supporters, her conviction is seen as proof of a system stacked against dissenters. For her critics, the case is a cautionary tale about the dangers of undermining public trust in democratic institutions.

As of December 2025, Tina Peters, age 70, remains incarcerated at La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado. Her legal team’s audacious bid for a presidential pardon is unlikely to succeed, but it has undeniably amplified the national conversation about the limits of executive power and the ongoing fallout from the 2020 election.

Assessment: The attempt by Tina Peters’ attorney to secure a presidential pardon for a state conviction is a legal moonshot—unprecedented, unsupported by history, and almost certain to fail. Yet, the move is emblematic of a larger trend: the blurring of legal boundaries in the service of political narratives. Even if the courts never rule on this question, the episode reveals how the aftershocks of the 2020 election continue to reverberate through American law and politics, challenging the public’s understanding of both justice and truth.