1. United States
2. Colo.
3. Letter

Your public remarks on the Tina Peters case represent a serious failure of judgment and a betrayal of the values you claimed to uphold when you were elected. Referring to Peters as a “first-time, non-violent offender” minimizes conduct that struck directly at the integrity of democratic governance. As Mesa County Clerk, she deliberately compromised election security, authorized unauthorized access to voting systems, and enabled the copying and dissemination of sensitive election infrastructure to unknown parties. These were intentional acts, not errors in judgment or technical lapses. A jury convicted her on multiple felony counts because the evidence showed knowing abuse of public office in service of false claims that had already been disproven. While this was not the largest election interference event in United States history, it stands out for its nature and implications. A sworn election official used her lawful authority to undermine the system she was entrusted to protect. That makes this case especially corrosive. The damage extended beyond a single county, forcing costly remediation and fueling nationwide distrust in election administration. This kind of conduct erodes confidence in democratic institutions at a time when that confidence is already dangerously fragile. Describing the offense as non-violent avoids the real harm. Election interference inflicts damage at scale. It weakens the constitutional structure that depends on free and fair elections, diminishes the voice of tens of thousands of voters, and undermines public faith in lawful governance. The harm is systemic, enduring, and fundamentally incompatible with democratic values. Your comments convey misplaced sympathy for the offender while failing to acknowledge the broader consequences for voters, institutions, and the rule of law. That framing signals tolerance for serious abuses of public trust and lowers the standard for accountability in cases that demand clarity and firmness. This issue goes beyond Tina Peters. It speaks to whether you are willing to defend democratic norms without equivocation. You ran as a defender of those norms. Your words now undermine that promise. You may be a lame duck, but your legacy is still being written. History will judge whether you upheld democratic principles when it mattered or chose language that softened accountability at a critical moment.