are scheduled around the state on June 14, which is also President Donald Trump’s 80th birthday. The parties will livestream the “” concert in New York City, which organizers said is a celebration of the First Amendment and will be co-hosted by the . The concert will feature celebrities like Jane Fonda and Bette Midler, and it will be headlined by musician Rufus Wainwright.

As of Monday morning, watch parties in Colorado are planned for Loveland, Granby, Golden, Alamosa, Longmont, Superior and Crestone.

More than 200 watch parties are scheduled nationwide, The event sets out to “celebrate the freedoms guaranteed by our First Amendment — of speech, religion, press, assembly, and protest.”

The event will run at roughly the same time as the Ultimate Fighting Championship event at the White House on Sunday.

The “No Kings” group is a national protest movement that has broadly criticized Trump and his administration. Previous protests in Denver and elsewhere in Colorado have attracted tens of thousands of marchers and attendees.

The legislation — , titled Civil Actions for Conversion Therapy Survivors — was sponsored by Rep. Alex Valdez, D-Denver; Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont; Sen. Lisa Cutter, D-Jefferson County; and Sen. Kyle Mullica, D-Thornton.

“People shouldn’t be ripped off by those falsely claiming that they can change who you are attracted to or who you are,” Polis said in a statement. “In our Colorado for all, everyone can live authentically, and should not be subject to hateful and simply ineffective conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is harmful, can traumatize kids, and is a scam to waste people’s hard-earned money.”

Starting in July, the bill will allow people subjected to “conversion therapy” to bring a civil cause of action against certain professionals whose efforts to change a patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity caused them harm.

The law removes an existing time restriction requiring claims to be filed within two years and allows representatives of a victim who has died to bring an action within five years of the person’s death.

“Conversation therapy is ineffective and has dangerous repercussions, and we’re creating a clear pathway for someone who is harmed by these practices to seek justice,” Valdez said in a news release. “This law is for all of the LGBTQ+ Coloradans who were told that something about them was wrong because of who they were or who they loved.”

Polis’ , which, like the bill, was signed on the first day of Pride month, directs Colorado state agencies to “take appropriate steps to ensure no state funds are allocated or spent by their respective agencies for sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts.”

In 2009, the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation found that and increases the risk of depression, suicidality and anxiety.

Many mental health and medical organizations, including the , the and the , have concluded “conversion therapy” is harmful and ineffective.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a 2019 Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ kids.

The 8-1 majority sided with a Christian counselor in Colorado Springs who argued the state law’s ban on talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns, but didn’t strike it down. They sent the case back to a lower court to decide whether it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.

“While the U.S. Supreme Court����ap ruling on Colorado’s conversion therapy ban law is deeply harmful, we’re not giving up the fight to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ Coloradans,” McCormick said in a news release. “The LGBTQ+ community faces higher rates of depression and suicide, and conversion therapy only increases those rates. With this new law, we’re ensuring that LGBTQ+ Coloradans can seek justice for the harm caused by conversion therapy.”

He also vetoed a fourth measure that would have cut the final year of a grant for nonprofit organizations that provide enrichment activities outside of school hours. That proposed $1.75 million cut was part of a swath of budget-slashing made by state lawmakers to fill a billion-dollar budget deficit.

Polis wrote in his of that preliminary budget forecasts show the state can keep the grant program going for its final year.

Of the other vetoed measures from the recently concluded legislative session, would have imposed 5% fee when video gamers buy in-game add-ons, such as character cosmetics or new levels. The proceeds would have funded certain mental health and education programs. In , Polis emphasized his support for those programs, but he worried the fee structure would have been “vulnerable to legal jeopardy” because of requirements in the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

A , Polis also wrote that the fee would have limited gamers’ ability to fully enjoy their hobby.

“The fee imposed on these add-on transactions means that consumers would not only be charged extra for things like character costumes and upgrades, but also for storyline content for online games,” Polis wrote. “This type of content represents digital storytelling and artistic expression, and I do not support such a fee.”

What Colorado bills are becoming laws?

Another vetoed measure, , would have created a 24-hour reporting requirement for social media companies when presented with a search warrant by law enforcement. The measure would have also required the platforms to report users to law enforcement if the companies suspected they were posting specific threats.

The bill's sponsors introduced it in response to the Evergreen High School shooting in September. The FBI had investigated threats made by the shooter prior to the incident, but social media companies didn't respond to all the warrants before it happened, according to the Jefferson County sheriff.

Earlier this year, Polis signed another social media regulation bill that has a 72-hour compliance requirement, but it did not include the self-policing aspects. In his , Polis wrote that he was "troubled by the bill's ambiguity" and that he felt the proposal would run afoul of First Amendment protections.

"Because the law does not, and could not, capture the gamut of unprotected speech as a matter of law, the likely outcome is that protected speech will be subject to criminal investigation once reported by a company, and that companies would even take down protected speech as a precautionary matter to avoid potential litigation," Polis wrote. "This would have a chilling effect on online discussions."

This veto aligns with Polis' veto of a similar bill last year that featured a 48-hour warrant compliance requirement and stricter self-policing by the platforms.

Lastly, on Thursday Polis vetoed , which would have required that human drivers ride in autonomous commercial vehicles. He vetoed a similar measure last year. He wrote in his veto letter this year that his office had suggested changes to limit the requirements to things like oversized vehicles, school buses and vehicles carrying hazardous materials, but they were rejected.

Allowing the bill to become law "risks preventing Coloradans from being on the cutting edge of innovation that would improve safety in the future," Polis wrote in .

Polis has until June 12 to act on bills from this past legislative session. He is widely expected to surpass his personal record of 11 vetoes last year after lawmakers in the Democratic majority tested the term-limited governor in his final regular session as the state's chief executive.

Tell us what you think about this story

Jerod Zaczkowski threatened to sue, alleging that the agency had violated his First Amendment rights by deleting several of his comments, including one in which he called the the patrol’s members “tyrant Nazi(s),” and for blocking his ability to post additional comments in early 2025. To stop the potential litigation, the patrol will pay him a settlement and its public affairs staff will undergo annual training on Department of Public Safety’s social media policy, according to a settlement agreement provided by Zaczkowski’s attorney.

“What happened to Jerod Zaczkowski is intolerable in a democratic society,” the attorney, Andy McNulty, said in a statement. “The State Patrol censored a critic online because it didn’t like what he was saying.”

Zaczkowski had been unbanned, and the agency had earlier conceded that his First Amendment rights had been violated, McNulty wrote, but Zaczkowski’s comments were not restored.

In a separate statement Friday morning, patrol spokeswoman Sherri Mendez said the agency had “made mistakes in the handling of our social media page and have taken steps to ensure these mistakes don’t happen again.”

But first, he ate a carrot.

Polis, speaking at the signing event for to support healthy eating and food access, chewed on the carrot for nearly 15 seconds before answering a question about whether he’d wear the censure from his party like a badge of honor. Wednesday night’s unusual action against a governor of the same party included a ban on the Colorado Democratic Party hosting Polis as a featured speaker, as an officially recognized participant or as an honored guest at party functions.

“Marlon and the kids were thrilled because they thought it meant I’d be home earlier because, instead of going to three events a night, they thought I’d be going to two a night,” Polis joked, referring to his husband, first gentleman Marlon Reis.

Polis, who is term-limited from running again this year, granted commutation to Peters on Friday, halving the former Mesa County clerk’s original sentence of nine years and ordering her release on parole June 1.

He faced immediate, intense backlash from a raft of fellow Democrats, who accused him of buckling to President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign, making light of an existential threat to American democracy and sidestepping two coequal branches of government.

Polis countered that he felt Peters, 70, was being unduly punished for protected free speech — even if he vehemently disagreed with her conspiracy theories about Colorado’s elections. He has maintained that he didn’t consider outside political pressure in granting Peters clemency.

On Thursday, Polis said he hadn’t spoken to Trump or anyone in the president����ap administration since commuting Peters’ sentence late last week.

He also invoked the 50-year-old landmark legal ruling in , in which a Jewish lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union successfully defended the First Amendment rights of a Nazi group to demonstrate in the northern Chicago suburb.

“We’d very much be sacrificing who we are if we suppress the free speech of any individuals,” Polis said. “… I think it����ap very important that we protect people in this moment of time, and in every moment of time, as we fight against the overreach of the Trump administration.”

Clemency application released

On Thursday, Peters posted a copy of the clemency application she’d filed with the governor’s office on her website. Separately, the governor’s office on Thursday denied The Denver Post’s request to release the document.

In the application, former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler argued on her behalf that Peters faced “an extremely harsh and unusual sentence” based on her “sincere belief that she was helping, not harming, the election process in Colorado.”

Peters was of several felonies related to using another person’s security badge to give a third party access to state election systems following the 2020 election. That person, who was affiliated with noted election denier Mike Lindell, then made images of the election system’s hard drive.

Besides three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, Peters was convicted of a count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state.

Peters did not harm anyone, damage any property, deny any votes or otherwise affect the election, wrote Gessler, a Republican. He called it “highly unlikely” that Peters would ever again be in a position to commit those types of crimes since she was no longer the elected clerk and recorder.

Gessler instead emphasized public comments made by people who pressed for “maximum incarceration,” and which he characterized as motivated by Peters’ “views on election integrity.”

“Although covered by a thin veneer of public safety concerns, these arguments seek to keep Mrs. Peters incarcerated so that her views will be muffled and so that she will be prevented from advocating for her preferred policies,” Gessler wrote. “Bluntly stated, they want to keep her in prison, to stifle her ideas and stifle her speech.”

Many in Polis’ party and those involved in the criminal prosecution of Peters — including the Republican Mesa County district attorney — have rejected the governor’s free speech-related characterizations of her sentence. They argue that Peters’ lack of remorse for her crimes and the threat she posed to election integrity demanded a harsh sentence.

But Polis has cited part of a recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision that ordered her resentencing, in part out of concern that her comments were held against her by the judge. That resentencing was still pending when Polis acted.

Party: Coloradans ‘expect us to defend’ values

Nearly 90% of the state Democratic Party Central Committee voted Wednesday night to condemn Polis “for conduct inconsistent with the Colorado Democratic Party’s commitment to democratic institutions, election integrity and public accountability.” The central committee has hundreds of members, though it����ap not clear how many voted.

“Colorado Democrats will continue standing up for the rule of law, secure elections and the democratic values Coloradans expect us to defend,” party Chair Shad Murib said in a statement after the vote. “That����ap the difference between us and the cult of Donald Trump that is the Republican Party, and we look forward to doing our part to take our country back this November.”

More than 700 people signed on to the complaint before the committee voted on the issue, including several state senators and representatives. U.S. Rep. Jason Crow issued a statement supporting the censure shortly before the vote, making him the highest-ranking elected Democrat to support the action.

“The Democratic Party must fight for democracy and the rule of law,” Crow said. “We must be consistent, courageous, resolute, and willing to call out our own when they fall short.”

Phil Chen, an associate professor of political science at the University of Denver, said he didn’t expect much in terms of long-term political consequences for Polis.

The governor is term-limited and, short of a special session, the legislature isn’t expected to meet again during his tenure. But Chen noted that there could be nonpolitical consequences for the decision, particularly if Peters’ commutation emboldens other election conspiracists to meddle with voting systems.

The decision does highlight the ongoing “anxiety and anger” in the Democratic Party about false claims of election security, Chen said. The censure further shows that rank-and-file members see the clemency as “a betrayal of a core issue” among Democrats.

But he said Polis’ conviction that clemency was the right decision and the party’s anger about it aren’t necessarily in opposition, either.

“It can be both things. He thought it was the right thing to do, and the censure from the Colorado Democratic Party was what it thought was the right thing to do,” Chen said.

Polis didn’t fight the party’s decision in his comments Thursday, but he used the occasion to draw a contrast with the state Republican Party. The GOP to close its primary election to unaffiliated voters, even as that voting bloc has grown to include more than half of Colorado’s voters.

“I’m really proud to be a Democrat because, when I see the Republican central committee trying to abolish (open) primaries, I’d much rather be in a party that����ap talking about who can speak at different events and how they’re treated,” Polis said.

Tell us what you think about this story

Both the governor and the Editorial Board cited concerns around Peters’ protected speech being considered in sentencing. The Court of Appeals recently affirmed her convictions of four felonies and three misdemeanors, and indeed noted concern that her free speech rights were improperly considered in the initial sentencing. On that basis, the panel of judges directed that Peters be re-sentenced in District Court.

The judicial system is specifically designed to address the constitutional rights of defendants, including their First Amendment rights. And the system was working as designed here: Peters appealed and was in the process of obtaining relief. Rather than let that process unfold, Polis took matters into his own hands, even going against the recommendation of his own clemency advisory board, . He should have respected the judicial process already underway.

Peters was incarcerated because of her numerous crimes, which caused incalculable harm to our democracy. Peters deliberately compromised her own voting equipment in 2021 to try to validate Trump’s big lie about the 2020 election. From her seat of authority, she breached the systems voters entrusted to her and undermined the fundamental pillars of our democracy.

Polis’ decision comes at a precarious moment. Across the country, election officials have faced escalating threats, harassment, and intimidation, much of it driven by persistent falsehoods about elections.

Clemency for Peters emboldens the election denialism movement and will intensify the threat environment that election officials face in conducting our work. And it confirms Trump’s sinister instincts that if he pushes hard enough, even blue states may bend to his will. Further, it sends the message to those who would attack our elections that they may escape accountability, be it on the federal or state level.

Accountability matters. It is how we ensure that no one is above the law. This grant of clemency erodes faith in that very premise.

Still, despite Peters, Colorado remains a national leader in secure and accessible voting. Election officials across Colorado continue to do their jobs with professionalism and integrity, ensuring that every eligible voter can participate and every valid ballot is counted. They will keep doing so in 2026 and beyond.

This grant of clemency sends a dangerous message. And it risks leaving a lasting mark, not just on Colorado but on the broader effort to defend free and fair elections. It is more important now than ever that we strongly and ardently protect the nation’s democratic institutions.

Jena Griswold serves as Colorado’s 39th secretary of state. Molly Fitzpatrick serves as Boulder County clerk and recorder and is the former president of the Colorado County Clerks Association.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “Here’s why Polis is right to reduce Peters’ sentence,” May 16 editorial

The rank cowardice from Gov. Jared Polis bending the knee to President Trump is the exact type of failure that imperils our civic democracy. Actions have consequences; breaking laws deserves punishment, and undermining elections is a fundamental threat to a democratic society.

This is why the jury found Tina Peters guilty, and the judge sentenced her the way he did. Gov. Polis’ weak defense of his decision rings hollow when you consider he didn’t even allow the resentencing judge to make a ruling. Gov. Polis failed his civic duties; he is a coward, and I expect he will join the Trump Media industrial complex after he retires from the governorship. If he has any self-respect left, Gov. Polis would resign.

The Denver Post editorial is a master class in timidness and in saying nothing of import. Tina Peters’ free speech was never violated, nor was she prosecuted for it. The fact that you hide behind the First Amendment as a reason to support her clemency is pathetic and misses the larger crimes for which she was convicted and sentenced.

And let’s be honest, the only reason Tina Peters is even mentioned in The Denver Post these days is because of Trump and his insistence that the governor do his bidding, not because she had a “harsh” sentence imposed by a judge. If Kamala Harris had won the presidency, Tina Peters would have been a forgotten footnote in history, languishing in prison the entire time. So please, do better, DP editorial board. Your readers deserve better.

Zachary Eichmeyer, Yakima, Wash.

Tina Peters seems to think her crime was that “I misled the Secretary of State when allowing a person to gain access to county voting equipment.” So she’s sorry she misled the Secretary of State? She was sentenced — correctly — for interfering in an election in her county and for allowing unauthorized access to the voting equipment, not for expressing her personal opinion.

I think your editorial misses the point and underestimates the seriousness of what she tried to accomplish.

Ed Danielson, Denver

Lawsuit on heels of tragedy at Denver airport is an embarrassment

Re: “Law firms: Passengers on Frontier plane that killed man plan to sue,” May 14 news story

The Ramos law firm and any other should be embarrassed to file suit against DIA, the city of Denver, or anybody else for a crazed decision by an individual on a mission to end his own life! The perimeter is fenced with no trespassing signs and warnings! Is the expectation to electrify the fence?

It����ap a horrible tragedy, but it should not lead to another by a frivolous lawsuit that could not have been foreseen or predicted, given the massive area of an International Airport!

Hopefully, any judge and/or court will dismiss it immediately! No wonder lawyers have such a bad rap and deservedly so!

Steve Phillips, Grand Junction

Comey et al should look into making a claim on ‘lawfare’ fund

Re: “DOJ establishes $1.8B ‘lawfare’ fund as Trump drops IRS suit,” May 19 news story

Here’s some good news for James Comey, Jerome Powell, John Brennan, Lisa Cook and others who have faced the threat of prosecution because they got crosswise with the administration. Now they can receive compensation from the “anti-weaponization fund.”

The state of Colorado should also benefit, as its status as a blue state has cost it NCAR, Space Command, and a needed water project.

There’s $1.776 billion available — an amount scientifically based on “,” and not just coincidental with the year of our founding. Act now — the fund expires before another president takes office — and get your just compensation for the acts of a vindictive government.

Dan Danbom, Denver

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “Colorado Democrats cannot force employers to use someone’s pronouns,” May 10 commentary

I don’t agree with all that Krista Kafer writes, but I consider her commentaries insightful and thought-provoking. There is almost nothing in this column that I disagree with. But I am concerned about the lack of empathy, recognizing the need for tolerance in a broadly disparate society.

So, yes, “everyone has the right to express their opinion … No one can use the power of government to silence or force fellow Americans to profess what they do not consider to be true.”  But everyone needs to recognize that others can hold opinions different from their own. We can’t tell other people what they have to believe and need to be accepting of these differences.

Free speech is important, and Americans should be allowed to say whatever stupid things they want. But tolerance remains a critical American value, and this column fails to acknowledge that. Its absence is a major element in the fracturing of American politics.

Ed Corcoran, Lakewood

I grew up in the ’70s, part of the last generation that believed, for better or worse, that sexuality and gender were something that couldn’t change. When I did become aware, first about gays, then much later about transgender people, I didn’t understand it, but I didn’t feel a huge upwelling of hatred towards them either. “That’s their choice,” I thought.

It took me much longer to realize that it probably isn’t a choice for the vast majority of gay and transgender people out there. It’s a hard life to lead, being judged and hated for everything you do, even how you want to be addressed. Krista Kafer needs to take the journey I did, quickly. Forget the Constitution and the law and the First Amendment for a second — what’s the decent thing to do here? These people have a really, really hard life, without having to contend with someone so selfish that they aren’t willing to murmur a particular salutation.

No transgender person wants to change you or your family one bit — they just want to be able to go to work and not be insulted every time they’re spoken to. Have grace, Kafer, and give them this basic respect as human beings.

Dennis P. Laughren. Golden

Another idea to ease traffic to Denver’s airport — drop-off/pick-up lots

Re: “Widening of Peña gets green light for study phase,” April 2, 2025 news story, and “For $15 million, look at all Peña Blvd alternatives,” April 6, 2025 editorial

After reading two articles in the Denver Post stating Denver City Council had approved a $15 million contract to a consulting firm to find a way to reduce traffic on Peña Boulevard and gave them five years in which to do it, I have presented another option to the Denver City Council, the mayor, RTD Board of Directors, Denver International Airport and the Denver Regional Council of Governments.

My proposal would not only reduce traffic on Peña but would also serve to reduce congestion at the terminal and could be implemented almost immediately at very low cost. Very simply, the existing cell phone lot could be renamed a Drop-Off/Pick-Up lot, where departing passengers could be dropped off and shuttled to the terminal by bus, and arriving passengers could be taken back to the lot for pickup. Also, a strategic location could be found for an additional dedicated Drop-Off/Pick-Up lot that could further reduce traffic on Peña. I could also envision a light rail link to and from the terminal and Drop-Off/Pick-up lots, similar to the one that transports passengers from the terminal to the concourses. So far, I have had no response.

Steve Nash, Centennial

Delusional thinking on gun laws

Re: “DOJ should help us prevent mass shootings instead,” May 10 editorial

I continue to be amazed at how deluded people can be about gun laws. The problem with today’s mass shootings has very little to do with guns and a lot to do with mental illness, and I submit there is no gun law anywhere that prevents a mentally disturbed person intent on doing evil from obtaining a gun in America.

Gun laws (and these editorials) are simply knee-jerk reactions by politicians intent on appearing to be doing something for their constituents, when in reality all they are doing is trying to ensure their own re-election. Gun laws do not prevent crime and do not prevent shootings. Our attention should be placed on the young, radicalized, social-media-addicted, and isolated children of single parents who need our help, not law-abiding citizens with reasonable desires for firearms.

Paul Michael DiMarchi, Whitewater

Political posturing by DOJ

Re: “Assault weapons ban: Administration sues Denver,” May 6 news story, and “DOJ lawsuit targets state ban on large-capacity magazines,” May 7 news story

It takes little imagination to understand the current Department of Justice’s motivation for undoing current restrictions on assault-style rifles and large capacity magazines. Often justified as necessary to defend home and family, it turns out that such instances are extremely rare, averaging only per year in the United States. Compare that to being the weapons of choice for mass casualty events, with Colorado being a notable example. This is just one of many instances of the DOJ wasting taxpayer dollars on political posturing.

James Todd, Denver

Now that we know the costs, let’s run wolf reintroduction past voters again

Re: “With new releases on pause, wolf reintroduction is at ‘inflection point’,” May 8 news story

The reporting on Colorado’s wolf reintroduction should raise eyebrows, especially given the well-documented budget shortfalls our state (and its residents) are struggling under.  The state auditor needs to gather and calculate the real investment being made (taxpayer money, of course) for the management of this population of 32 wolves.

More than $1 million has reportedly been paid to rancher claimants for wildlife depredation. Teams of scientists “monitor and study” movements and activities, using hundreds of devices.  Your May 8 article, certainly not all-inclusive, refers to “thousands of hours” of studies; three-year study windows; a full time “wolf monitoring data coordinator”; 45 miles of cloth “fladry” for wolf-resistant range or ranch fencing (how scenic!); and the hiring of 11 “range riders” to patrol that which needed no “patrolling” before just over 50% of voters passed this dive into a black hole of costs.

Western Colorado voted overwhelmingly against the reintroduction. Perhaps it would make sense to produce and publicize a comprehensive audit and run a new ballot issue on the program’s continuation or termination.

Peter Ehrlich, Denver

Bravo! Now more Colorado Symphony coverage

Re: “A ‘Rhapsody’ with my kids,” May 10 features story

Thank you so much for your recent column on the Colorado Symphony.

The orchestra is an incredible institution and group of individuals, and doesn’t often get the recognition it deserves.  Your article emphasized that it is not just for highbrow seniors, but can be enjoyed by listeners of all ages and interests.

We have been pleased to see The Post’s recent articles covering the Front Range fine art scene.  There is so much great art to be seen in our area. Now, we just need the same kind of coverage for the Symphony and other local music organizations.

If the paper ran more articles such as yours, more people could learn that music of all types is available and approachable for most Denverites.  Please keep writing and encourage your editorial staff to add more coverage of music.

Elyse Tipton and Paul Ruttum, Denver

Driving without traffic enforcement

As we all know, we are in extremely difficult times. However, my exasperation level reached a new high as I was traveling on a Denver street last weekend. A vehicle in front of me was displaying temporary license tags that expired on Nov. 24, 2023. That is correct, 2023. What are the chances that this vehicle has current insurance coverage or the driver has a valid driver’s license? The chances are slim and none and slim just left town.

I observe expired or no tags on a regular basis. In addition, I suspect that all speed limit signs should add the word recommended to them, as non-compliance seems to be normal, as well as cell phone usage.

Where is the enforcement? I have not observed any in many months. Why should law-abiding citizens have to pay for the irresponsible actions of others? I would guess that these issues are low on the priority list until fatalities (motorcycles) rise to a level that our elected officials take notice. Are you listening, Mayor Mike Johnston, or Councilmember Amanda Sawyer (who does not respond to emails)? I will certainly take notice at the ballot box.

Allen Vean, Denver

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Peters is wrong.

Trump is wrong.

But we cannot look at the 9-year sentence and not consider the importance of the First Amendment and our deeply held commitment to free speech. We fear, given the courtroom record, that it was in part her protected speech about stolen elections that elicited such an unusually harsh sentence, and a three-judge appeals court panel that reviewed her case agrees.

In that sense, while Tina Peters is dangerously wrong about Colorado’s election security, Gov. Jared Polis is right to offer her clemency.

Polis reduced Peters’ sentence to time served on Friday, resulting in her release at the end of this month.

The announcement was met immediately with political backlash. The accusation is that Polis is caving into an orchestrated pressure campaign from Trump to release Peters. This campaign involved revoking federal funds from Colorado and dismantling entire agencies to pull them out of the state. The fear is that the president will use Peters’ release only to bolster his attempts to undermine America’s democracy. He has called Peters a political prisoner and said she is innocent. Neither of those statements is true.

We are dismayed that Peters may now become a prop in Trump’s efforts to question the results of the upcoming midterm elections.

These political calculations, however, do not outweigh the importance of defending someone’s right to free speech.

Peters had every right to mount the legal defense of her choice. While competent legal counsel would advise against a defense that relied heavily on debunked election conspiracies, it was Peters’ right to make that choice.

We don’t want to be overly harsh, either, on Mesa County District Judge Matthew Barrett, who sentenced Peters. Barrett endured endless nonsense from Peters throughout the trial, including bad behavior that showed contempt. Long have defendants who displayed contempt for the court ended up with harsher sentences, and we are certain Peters’ lack of contrition and her outbursts in court weighed heavily on Barrett’s harsh sentence.

Frustratingly, that bad behavior continues even today. Peters’ attorney said that the Colorado Court of Appeals made the wrong decision because it was a “kangaroo trial.” Sir, the only kangaroo in that courtroom was your client.

Her 40-minute speech after being convicted is almost impossible to follow – she jumps from conspiracy theories about human trafficking and her son’s death to displaying text messages in her own defense. The entire speech was an act of contempt for the guilty sentence she had just received from a jury of her peers. She showed no remorse.

Barrett stressed that in his sentencing – “I am convinced you would do it all over again if you could.”

Peters has already served a long sentence, given the non-violent nature of her crimes, which compensates for her complete disregard for the judicial process and law enforcement.

The good news is that Peters did admit guilt and express remorse in her clemency application.

She thanked Polis for the clemency in a tweet on X Friday: “I made mistakes, and for those I am sorry. Five years ago, I misled the Secretary of State when allowing a person to gain access to county voting equipment. That was wrong.”

It was wrong, and Peters broke several laws in the process – three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state.

“I am grateful for a second chance and an earlier release, and I look forward to doing good in the world,” Peters said.

At this point, we would be grateful if Peters just does no more harm.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Updated May 16, 2026 at 1:05 p.m. Due to an editor’s error and earlier version of this editorial had the wrong time Tina Peters has served. She will have been in jail for 19 months when she is released.

Last year, public libraries across the state reported 43 challenges to their books, materials, events and exhibits and two challenges to Internet policies, according to data from the Colorado Department of Education’s Library Research Service.

In 2024, the state recorded 60 challenges, the data showed.

The decrease comes after years of skyrocketing attempts from conservative movements across Colorado and the country to ban or restrict access to public library books, programs or displays, typically targeting those with LGBTQ or race-related themes. 

In 2024, Gov. Jared Polis signed a bill into law designed to protect the state’s libraries and their employees from partisan book-banning battles.

required libraries to establish written policies for acquiring, retaining, displaying and using library resources — and governing how to handle requests to remove books or other resources.

It’s too early to know the impact of the law, but director Elektra Greer said, ideally, the legislation would be responsible for fewer censorship attempts.

“For anyone disillusioned in today’s world, and who feels their voice doesn’t matter, Colorado’s recent intellectual freedom legislation from 2024 and 2025 is proof that citizen advocacy works,” Greer said. “Early data from 2025 shows a significant decline in book challenges — something Coloradans should be proud of. So don’t just read about heroes and heroines who stand up for what they believe in — become one of them.”

Between 2021 and 2022, the state documented a 500% increase in the number of challenges to materials or services provided by Colorado public libraries, from 20 to 120.

Stacked up against national data, Colorado public libraries appear to be outliers in decreasing challenges. documented attempts to censor more than 4,200 unique titles nationwide in 2025, nearly 2,000 more titles than 2024 and only five fewer than 2023’s record number of attempts.

Most of those challenges came from large “politically-driven entities working across jurisdictions,” according to a from the American Library Association looking at the state of American libraries in 2025.

About 91.7% of challenged titles in 2025 were targeted by “pressure groups and government decision makers,” according to the ALA report, while 2.7% came from parents and 1.4% originated from individual library users.

Shana Wade, associate library director at Mesa County Libraries, said the Western Slope library district’s challenge data has been all over the map. In 2023 when the ALA documented record book-banning attempts, the district recorded 13 challenges. In 2024, there were two. Last year, Mesa County Libraries documented 21 challenges.

However, 14 of those 21 challenges were dedicated to one collage in a community art show featured at the Grand Junction library that portrayed President Donald Trump with Hitler-like features, Wade said.

In previous years, Wade noticed a more concentrated effort to challenge books with LGBTQ themes.

When a person challenges a library book, Wade said they’re asked to fill out a form that asks, among other questions, whether they’ve read or viewed the material in its entirety. The library will then review the material, read reviews about it, research its intended audience and circulation.

“They come in waves,” Wade said, referring to the challenges.

Mesa County Libraries were already largely aligned with the policies the new state law required, Wade said, but they did make one addition in light of the law: only Mesa County residents can submit challenges to their library district, and they are limited to five challenges per year.

The strain of dealing with challenges has made Wade question whether the libraries should put effort into contested exhibits like pride displays in June.

“But we also hear on the other side how meaningful it is that we show signs of being welcoming and accepting, so it just kind of adds another layer of questioning or needing to reassure each other or have time to respond to some of these complaints and listen to the comments,” Wade said. “It can be a bit draining.”