Months before Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado freed the felonious election denier Tina Peters from prison, his own clemency board voted unanimously — twice — to reject her bid for early release, according to two of the board’s members.
The first vote, taken under a cloak of secrecy, came in January, when the board reviewed Ms. Peters’s application during one of its meetings. At those gatherings, board members wrestle with some of the state’s toughest criminal cases, poring over handwritten pleas from convicted killers and others serving life sentences.
A month later, the board got an unusual request from the Democratic governor’s office, which was under enormous political pressure from President Trump to free Ms. Peters, two board members said — take a second look.
The clemency board obliged, but again, its vote was a unanimous no.
Colorado’s 11-person clemency advisory board, which is appointed by the governor, operates largely in secret. Its meetings are not open to the public, its members are told not to take notes, and they do not publicly discuss the clemency recommendations they make to the governor, who has the final say in issuing pardons and commutations.
But two Denver lawyers who serve on the board, Hannah Seigel Proff and Azra Taslimi, said they had decided to speak out now, pulling back the curtain on one of their most fateful cases, after Mr. Polis overruled the board’s recommendations in May and cut short Ms. Peters’s nine-year prison sentence.
“It really was a punch in the gut,” Ms. Proff said. “It flies in the face of justice.”
Ms. Peters, 70, a former county clerk in western Colorado, was convicted of tampering with voting machines under her control in a plot to show that the 2020 election had been rigged against Mr. Trump, a case that made her a martyr to the election-denial movement and a hero to the president, who spent months browbeating Mr. Polis to free her.
It is not unusual for Mr. Polis and his clemency board to disagree. Former members of the board said the governor regularly rejected commutations they had supported. In an interview last month, Mr. Polis said he had granted other reprieves that the board had voted against.
“I also consult with and hear from many, many other people,” Mr. Polis said. “And obviously, we’ve heard from thousands of people” about Ms. Peters, he added.
But the case of Ms. Peters, with its inextricable ties to Mr. Trump, has drawn far more scrutiny than other clemency pleas. It may end up shaping Mr. Polis’s legacy and political future after his two terms as Colorado’s idiosyncratic governor.
Mr. Polis has stood by his decision to grant Ms. Peters a commutation, and said the move was not influenced by Mr. Trump’s pressure. He has said her nine-year sentence was too long for a nonviolent, first-time offender, and that she had been unduly punished for her embrace of stolen-election conspiracies, violating her right to free speech, no matter how odious that speech might be.
Mr. Polis’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. In a previous email about the board, a spokesman said “the deliberations of the advisory committee are not public and not binding on the governor.”
But Ms. Peters’s critics — including many Republicans in her conservative hometown — called her an unrepentant conspiracy theorist who had not earned mercy.
Mr. Polis has already paid a political price for freeing Ms. Peters. He was censured by his own Colorado Democratic Party, and dozens of fellow Democrats have condemned the decision.
But the criticism from Ms. Proff and Ms. Taslimi is notable since it comes from two lawyers appointed by Mr. Polis to his own clemency advisory review board. Ms. Proff has served on the volunteer board for more than seven years, and Ms. Taslimi has been on it for about three years.
In an interview on Wednesday, they said that Mr. Polis’s decision had undercut Colorado’s clemency system by freeing an inmate with powerful political allies while dozens of other deserving applicants remained locked up.
“It’s very clear it’s motivated by politics and influence,” Ms. Taslimi said.
The board, which includes former public defenders, law enforcement officials and a victims’ rights representative, reviews more than 100 commutation applications a year, and is often a last resort for inmates who have exhausted their other appeals.
“Some of these applications bring us to tears,” Ms. Proff said. “Ms. Peters’s application just felt empty.”
Ms. Taslimi and Ms. Proff, who are former public defenders, said Ms. Peters had not taken responsibility or expressed true remorse in her application.
They said Ms. Peters had also cut the line by seeking clemency while her case was still being appealed. She had been waiting to be resentenced after her original sentence was thrown out by a Colorado appeals court in April.
“This is not how the process works,” Ms. Taslimi said. “It reaffirms there is a two-tiered justice system. We can’t continue to operate in this way.”
After the board’s first vote, the governor’s legal office reached out in February to say that Ms. Peters had updated her application, and asked the board to take another look.
Ms. Proff said little had changed in Ms. Peters’s application. The board, she said, remained unpersuaded.
“It was a strong ‘no’ the first time,” she said. “It was a strong ‘no’ the second time.”
Ms. Peters walked out of prison on June 1 and within hours, she was appearing on a right-wing podcast hosted by the former Trump aide Steve Bannon, condemning Democrats for cheating in elections and insisting that she had been imprisoned as “retribution” for exposing voting machines that changed people’s votes. There is no evidence to support her claims.
She is on parole and is appealing her 2024 conviction on four felony charges to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Peter Ticktin, a lawyer for Ms. Peters, said he had not been informed of the clemency board’s deliberations, but said he was “not surprised, as everything in Colorado’s government seems to be political, and we know which party is calling the shots.”
Ms. Proff and Ms. Taslimi said they had considered resigning from the board, but opted to stay, in part because it faces a backlog of hundreds of cases.
“I do love this work,” Ms. Proff said. “We just have to say something.”
Nick Corasaniti contributed reporting.
