Former Mesa County, Colorado, Clerk Tina Peters is preparing to take her criminal convictions to the U.S. Supreme Court, continuing a legal battle over her actions during a 2021 breach of county election equipment. Her attorney, Peter Ticktin, is working toward a December filing deadline after the Colorado Supreme Court declined to review her appeal.

Peters was convicted in August 2024 on seven criminal counts stemming from allegations that she helped an unauthorized person gain access to Mesa County’s voting equipment during a software update. Although Democratic Gov. Jared Polis later commuted her prison sentence, the convictions remain in place.

Ticktin maintains that Peters was attempting to protect election records she believed could be lost during the software update and to comply with federal requirements for retaining election records. He argues that the case raises questions about whether federal law should take precedence over state restrictions when an election official believes records are at risk.

“She’s an innocent woman who was doing her duty to America, and she was punished severely for that,” Ticktin told KDVR.

The attorney contends that Peters’ actions were justified by federal election-record retention requirements and argues that she should have been permitted to present that defense fully at trial. He also maintains that she did not receive a fair trial.

“If you have to do something to make sure that you abide by a federal statute, even if it violates a state statute, you’re allowed to do that,” Ticktin said.

That legal argument has not been accepted as a defense to Peters’ convictions. Ticktin said his team is now preparing its next appeal in hopes of overturning the convictions and clearing her criminal record.

“We have until December to file our briefs, and we’re working on them now,” he said in a follow-up statement.

Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, disputed Peters’ rationale for accessing the election equipment, saying election officials had already backed up the records required under state and federal law. He argued that the procedures in place made the actions attributed to Peters unnecessary.

“What the jury got right is that she broke the law. She didn’t need to do what she did,” Crane told KDVR.

Crane also defended established procedures for preserving election records and protecting voting equipment, arguing that election officials must follow those safeguards even when they have concerns about election administration.

“Election integrity does not require you to break the law,” he said.

Peters’ case has already gone through the Colorado appellate system. The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld her convictions but ordered resentencing after finding that her sentence had been improperly influenced, in part, by her protected speech. Polis subsequently commuted her prison sentence, though his action did not erase her convictions.

Crane criticized the governor’s intervention, arguing that the judicial process should have continued without the commutation.

The Supreme Court must first decide whether to hear Peters’ case. If the justices decline to take it, her convictions will remain in place. If they agree to review it, the court could uphold the convictions, reverse them, or send the case back to a lower court for further proceedings.

The case has become part of a broader dispute over election security, the authority of local election officials and the preservation of voting records. Ticktin argues that Peters was trying to safeguard election information and that her prosecution raises important questions about the obligations of officials who believe election records may be at risk. Opponents maintain that established safeguards must be followed and that concerns about election integrity do not excuse unauthorized access to voting equipment.