Colorado judge receives threats after sentencing election denier official to prison

A rural Colorado county courthouse beefed up security Friday after threats were made against staff and a judge who sentenced former county clerk Tina Peters to nearly nine years behind bars and admonished her for her role in a data breach scheme catalyzed by the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.

Courthouse staff in Grand Junction, Colorado, received multiple threats that were being vetted by law enforcement while extra security was provided, said spokesperson Wendy Likes with the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office.

She did not say how many threats were made or how they were received. She also declined to describe the extra security.

The court received compliments as well as threats for Judge Matthew Barrett’s sentencing of Ms. Peters, Will Sightler, the court executive of the 21st Judicial District, said in a statement Friday. He didn’t elaborate on what the compliments said.

Ms. Peters, a Republican, was sentenced Thursday for allowing access to the county’s election system to a man affiliated with My Pillow chief executive Mike Lindell – a prominent promoter of false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the election.

The one-time hero to election deniers, who was convicted in August, was unapologetic about what happened during the sentencing hearing Thursday – leading Judge Barrett to chastise her during a 15-minute speech that was shared widely online.

He told Ms. Peters she sought power and fame in pursuing false election fraud claims, causing immeasurable damage to election integrity in Mesa County. He said she had no respect for the checks and balances of government, for the court, law enforcement or her colleagues and that she betrayed her oath of office, making her a danger to the community.

“It’s the position she held that has provided her with the pulpit from which she can preach these lies,” Judge Barrett said. “Every effort to undermine the integrity of our elections and public’s trust in our institutions has been made by you.”

Ms. Peters isn’t the only person who has faced legal troubles for pursuing Mr. Trump’s claims of a stolen election.

Three people were charged after five vote tabulators were illegally taken from three Michigan counties and brought to a hotel room, according to court documents. Investigators found the tabulators were broken into and “tests” were performed on the equipment.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been disbarred in New York and Washington for pursuing Mr. Trump’s claims about the 2020 election. Other Trump lawyers have been disciplined, relinquished their licenses, indicted or have pleaded guilty in relation to efforts to overturn the election. Hundreds of people have been convicted for their roles in storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress was certifying the Electoral College vote.

Before Ms. Peters was sentenced, she told Judge Barrett she still believed there had been fraud, even though no evidence exists.

“Just because you don’t acknowledge and you’re blind to the truth, it doesn’t mean that the truth is not there,” she said. She also alleged Mesa County’s voting machines had been replaced to eliminate evidence of fraud.

Cases like Ms. Peters’ raised concerns that that rogue election workers, including those sympathetic to lies about the 2020 presidential election, might use their access to election equipment and the knowledge gained through the breaches to launch an attack from within. That could be intended to gain an advantage for their desired candidate or party, or to introduce system problems that would sow further distrust in the election results.

Gillian Feiner, senior counsel with States United Democracy Center – a nonpartisan organization that promotes free and fair elections – said Friday she hopes Ms. Peters’ sentence serves as a “meaningful deterrent to others who are still engaged in this type of misconduct.”

“And there are others. She was not in this alone,” Ms. Feiner said. “There was a network of bad actors supporting her. And not all of them have been brought to justice. And they were paying attention to this.”

Judge Barrett rejected Ms. Peters’ request for a probationary sentence, saying her crimes are serious enough to require prison time.

Judge Barrett did tell Ms. Peters that she likely won’t serve her entire term – which is just over 8 years in prison followed by six months in the county jail – because she could be granted time off based on her behavior in prison. Her sentence will be followed by three years on parole.