Peters was convicted of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, one count of official misconduct and one count of failure to comply with the secretary of state, and sentenced to nine years of incarceration in October 2024. She is currently being held at the La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo.

In August 2021, an investigation was opened into Peters by the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office. Secretary of State Jena Griswold decertified Mesa County’s election equipment after Peters couldn’t show they were not compromised, and Peters was later barred from conducting Mesa County’s fall 2021 election.

Peters was accused of allowing an unauthorized person to enter a secure area of the Mesa County Elections Division in May 2021 to make copies of computer hard drives in search of election fraud, and misleading officials in the process.

Peters has appealed the convictions and also filed a habeas corpus request, which would allow her to be released pending her appeal unless a justifiable reason is found for her incarceration, according to court documents. A previous request for bail was denied by the Colorado Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Department of Justice has been going back and forth with Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who is named as a defendant in Peters’ habeas corpus request, about a “statement of interest” the Justice Department filed in relation to the case, which suggested Peters’ prosecution may have been politically motivated and her constitutional rights violated.

Weiser said in a court filing the Justice Department’s interest stems from Peters’ political alignment with U.S. President Donald Trump, and is therefore inappropriate.

Photos by Larry Robinson/The Daily SentinelFILE - Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser speaks at Grand Junction High School to district staff, including principals and teachers, about District 51’s implementation and strategies for its new district-wide phone policy that began earlier this year. Larry Robinson/The Daily Sentinel

A hearing regarding the statement of interest was held April 22.

The Justice Department, Colorado Attorney General’s Office and Peters’ attorneys all filed briefings on the case earlier this week after being given a Tuesday deadline to file any additional briefings related to the statement of interest.

“Respondent cites only one case in which a court has declined to consider a Statement of Interest filed by the United States,” the Justice Department’s brief stated.

Weiser’s brief asked for the entire statement of interest to be stricken, saying, “the Statement of Interest is unhelpful and sets a troubling precedent.”

At minimum, Weiser’s brief stated, the part of the statement of interest suggesting prosecutors abused the criminal justice system to inflict political pain.

Peters was prosecuted by 21st Judicial District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, a Republican.

Rubinstein released a statement on the case, which read in part, “I feel confident that this case was handled by the investigators, prosecutors and courts in an entirely ethical, fair and appropriate manner.”

Photos by Scott Crabtree/The Daily SentinelFILE PHOTO - Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein questions investigator Michael Struwe during former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’ obstruction trial Scott Crabtree

The court is also considering whether the matter of the statement of interest can be taken up by a magistrate judge.

Peters’ attorneys argued Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak, who conducted the April 22 hearing, does not have jurisdiction to grant the motion to strike the statement of interest.

“While a court may address any legal arguments made by the United States that are relevant to the case before it, the court has no authority to ‘strike’ the filing made by the United States, because to do so would intrude upon the discretion of the executive branch,” Peters’ brief stated.

Peters’ brief asked the court to dismiss the motion to strike the statement of interest.

The Justice Department’s brief stated the government has not found case law that addresses a magistrate judge’s statutory authority to strike a statement of interest.

At issue is whether striking the statement of interest would be dispositive or non-dispositive. Magistrate judges are typically have the authority to rule on non-dispositive matters without the consent of all parties in a case, but not in dispositive matters.

Weiser’s brief argued the statement of interest does not have any bearing on the actual case, stating, “the motion to strike will have no effect on the course of the proceedings or the merits of the case.”