A federal judge rejected the petition of former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters on Monday to be released from incarceration pending the resolution of her criminal appeal.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak wrote in a Dec. 8 order that Peters satisfied none of the criteria that permit federal courts to intervene in ongoing state criminal proceedings. Further, Peters was unable to point to a case in which a federal court found the defined limits on intervention did not apply in a scenario like hers.

“Without question, Ms. Peters raises important constitutional questions concerning whether the trial court improperly punished her more severely because of her protected First Amendment speech,” wrote Varholak. “But because this question remains pending before Colorado courts, this Court must abstain from answering that question until after the Colorado
courts have decided the issue.”

Mesa County jurors convicted Peters last year for her role in a security breach of her office’s voting equipment when she was the elected GOP clerk. She is currently serving a nine-year sentence of incarceration. While she pursued a routine appeal through the state’s Court of Appeals, Peters also filed a federal petition for “habeas corpus,” a legal tool used to challenge one’s confinement. Specifically, Peters sought to be released on bond while her appeal moved forward in state court.

She previously asked the Court of Appeals to grant bond, but it denied her request.

Since then, the federal proceedings have taken on outsize visibility due to Peters’ status as a prominent supporter of President Donald Trump. In March, the U.S. Department of Justice unexpectedly inserted itself into the case, filing a statement of interest to claim it was reviewing whether Peters’ prosecution was “oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.”

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office, which litigated opposite Peters, asked Varholak to discard the statement entirely, or at least strike the portion alleging political motivations. The office argued to Varholak in April that it was unprecedented for the Justice Department to claim an interest in a state criminal defendant’s habeas case, and characterized the filing as an act of intimidation on behalf of an ally to the president.

Trump subsequently posted on social media that Peters was a “hostage.” Colorado’s Democratic attorney general and secretary of state rejected that characterization.

Recently, Trump called Gov. Jared Polis a “sleazebag” for declining to arrange for her release.

Although the Federal Bureau of Prisons sought to assume custody of Peters last month, the state indicated it would not transfer her. The Republican district attorney of Mesa County, Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, and a bipartisan group of county clerks all supported keeping Peters in state custody.

Ultimately, the issue for Varholak was a narrow one: Was he authorized to grant an appeal bond to Peters in a state case actively moving through the appellate process?

No, he concluded. Among other things, the issue Peters raised on appeal — that her sentence and confinement were unconstitutionally premised on her exercise of First Amendment-protected speech — is something she is asking the Court of Appeals to address in its review of her convictions.

“Thus, any ruling by this Court on that issue will necessarily impact the ongoing criminal proceedings,” Varholak wrote.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel will hear oral arguments in Peters’ appeal next month.

The case is Peters v. Feyen et al.