The Unpardonable Assault: Federal Power, State Sovereignty, and the Defense of Democracy

The Facts of the Case

As the nation approaches the fifth anniversary of the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, a significant legal and constitutional battle is unfolding that tests the very foundations of American democracy. The central figure in this drama is Tina Peters, the former Mesa County, Colorado clerk who was convicted in 2024 on seven counts related to her attempts to compromise election security systems. Peters allowed an associate of MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to improperly access county election equipment using a security card under false pretenses—a scheme that constituted a direct attack on election integrity.

The facts are clear and well-documented through judicial proceedings. A Republican district attorney prosecuted the case, demonstrating this was not a partisan witch hunt but a straightforward application of state law. Judge Matthew Barrett sentenced Peters to nine years in prison, delivering a blistering assessment of her actions: “Your lies are well documented and these convictions are serious. I’m convinced you would do it all over again if you could. You’re as defiant as a defendant as this court has ever seen. You are no hero. You abused your position. And you’re a charlatan.”

The Constitutional Context

The constitutional framework governing presidential pardon power is explicitly limited to federal offenses. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” This language has been consistently interpreted throughout American history as applying solely to federal crimes. State crimes fall under the jurisdiction of state governors’ pardon powers, a crucial distinction that preserves the balance between federal and state authority.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold correctly noted that “the president does not have authority to issue pardons for state convictions. That’s very clear in the Constitution.” This isn’t a matter of interpretation but of plain constitutional text. The attempt to extend pardon power to state crimes represents not just a legal overreach but a fundamental misunderstanding of American federalism.

The Political Pressure Campaign

President Trump’s public campaign to free Tina Peters has included social media declarations of pardon and direct pressure on Colorado officials. In August, he threatened “harsh measures” if Peters wasn’t released, creating an atmosphere of intimidation against state officials simply doing their constitutional duty. This pattern mirrors his earlier pardon of approximately 1,500 individuals involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including prominent figures like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

The psychological impact of such pressure cannot be overstated. Secretary Griswold articulated the real-world consequences: “What happens with Trump is, he tries to push the line, tries to push, people pretending he has authority that he does not. And if they refuse an unlawful order or an unlawful executive order or request, then the retaliation starts from him, but also the far right.” This creates a chilling effect on law enforcement and judicial independence at the state level.

The Dangerous Legal Fiction

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this case is the legal theory being advanced by Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin. Drawing inspiration from the film “Lincoln,” Ticktin argues that the Constitution’s pardon power should be reinterpreted in light of post-Civil War changes to federal authority. He contends that when the framers wrote “offenses against the United States,” they weren’t contemplating the modern federal-state relationship.

This argument represents a dangerous historical revisionism. The constitutional framework for federalism was carefully constructed and has been maintained for over two centuries. The suggestion that we should reinterpret clear constitutional language based on cinematic interpretations rather than legal precedent threatens the entire structure of American governance. As Ticktin himself admits when asked for examples of presidents pardoning state crimes, “I really need to delve into it a little bit deeper”—a telling admission that this theory lacks historical foundation.

The Rule of Law Imperative

At its core, this case represents a fundamental test of whether the United States remains a nation governed by laws rather than individuals. The rule of law depends on consistent application regardless of political connections or ideological alignment. Tina Peters was convicted through due process for specific criminal acts that undermined election security. Her conviction came not from political enemies but from her own documented actions.

Secretary Griswold’s warning about the precedent-setting nature of this case should alarm every American who values democracy: “It would set the precedent that people can attack our elections and potentially disenfranchise Americans without any type of consequences. It would also set the precedent that, if people break the law and our friends with Donald Trump, they won’t face consequences. That’s a direct assault to the rule of law in this country.”

The Broader Implications for Democracy

The attempt to free Tina Peters through extra-legal means is part of a larger pattern of undermining democratic institutions. From the January 6 pardons to the ongoing efforts to rewrite the narrative of the 2020 election, we are witnessing a systematic assault on the guardrails that protect democratic governance. Each instance normalizes the idea that political loyalty should trump legal accountability.

This case also highlights the importance of state autonomy in our federal system. The founders intentionally created a system where states serve as laboratories of democracy and bulwarks against federal overreach. When a president attempts to override state judicial processes, he attacks not just individual cases but the constitutional balance that has preserved American liberty for centuries.

The Human Cost of Election Denial

Behind the legal arguments and constitutional questions lies a human tragedy. Tina Peters will spend years in prison because she chose to embrace conspiracy theories over her sworn duty to protect election integrity. Her attorney’s claim that she has no regrets because “she knows what she did was brave, but it wasn’t wrong” reveals the depth of the delusion that has consumed so many who have embraced election denialism.

The real victims in this saga are the American people whose faith in democratic processes is systematically undermined by such actions. Every illegal breach of election security, every false claim of fraud, and every attempted end-run around legal consequences damages the social contract that binds us together as a nation.

The Path Forward

As this case potentially moves toward the Supreme Court, Americans must recognize what is at stake. This isn’t merely about one county clerk or even one president’s authority. It’s about whether the United States will remain a constitutional republic where laws apply equally to all citizens.

The defense of democracy requires vigilance at every level—from local election officials like Jena Griswold who uphold their oaths, to judges like Matthew Barrett who deliver justice without fear or favor, to citizens who recognize that the rule of law is not a partisan issue but the foundation of our freedom.

In the final analysis, the attempt to pardon Tina Peters represents something far more dangerous than a legal dispute. It embodies a worldview where truth is relative, institutions are disposable, and power matters more than principle. The survival of American democracy depends on rejecting this worldview and reaffirming our commitment to constitutional governance, the separation of powers, and the rule of law that has made America an exemplar of freedom for the world.