A Manhattan federal jury deliberated for four days before reaching its decision Wednesday in the closely watched case, which gave fans the equivalent of a backstage pass to a business that dominates live entertainment in the U.S. and beyond.

“Live Nation is a monopolist and has abused its monopoly power to squeeze out competition, jack up ticket prices, stifle artists and make it harder for fans to see their favorite artists,” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement.

The judge overseeing the trial told lawyers on both sides to meet with one another “and the United States” to provide a joint letter proposing a schedule for motions and how the remedies phase of the case would occur. He told them to deliver it by late next week.

The trial brought Live Nation , where he was questioned about matters including the company’s  in 2022. Rapino blamed a cyberattack.

The proceedings also aired a Live Nation employee’s  to another employee declaring some prices “outrageous,” calling customers “so stupid” and boasting that the company was “robbing them blind, baby.” The employee, Benjamin Baker, who has since been promoted to a position as a ticketing executive,  that the messages were “very immature and unacceptable.”

Live Nation Entertainment owns, operates, controls booking for or has an equity interest in hundreds of venues. Its subsidiary Ticketmaster is widely considered to be the world’s largest ticket-seller for live events. Its lawyers did not immediately comment as they left the courthouse, but said a statement would be issued shortly.

The verdict could cost Live Nation and Ticketmaster hundreds of millions of dollars, just for the $1.72 per ticket that the jury found Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers in 22 states. The companies could also be assessed penalties. In addition, sanctions could result in court orders that they divest themselves of some entities, including venues such as amphitheaters that they own.

The civil case, , accused Live Nation of using its reach to smother competition — by blocking venues from using multiple ticket sellers, for example.

“It is time to hold them accountable,” Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, said in a closing argument, calling Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that drove up prices for ticket buyers.

Live Nation insisted it����ap not a monopoly, saying that artists, sports teams and venues decide prices and ticketing practices. A company lawyer insisted its size was simply a function of excellence and effort.

“Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” attorney David Marriott said in his summation.

Ticketmaster was established in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010. The company now controls of 86% of the market for concerts and 73% of the overall market when sports events are included, according to Kessler.

Ticketmaster has long drawn ire from fans and some artists. Grunge rock titans Pearl Jam battled the business in the 1990s, even filing an anti-monopoly complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, which declined to bring a case then.

Decades later, the Justice Department, joined by Colorado and dozens of states, brought the current lawsuit during Democratic former President Joe Biden’s administration. Days into the trial, Republican President Donald Trump’s administration announced it was settling its claims against Live Nation.

The a cap on service fees at some amphitheaters, plus some new ticket-selling options for promoters and venues — potentially allowing, but not requiring, them to open doors to Ticketmaster competitors such as SeatGeek or AXS. But the settlement doesn’t force Live Nation to split from Ticketmaster.

A handful of the states . But more than 30 pressed ahead with the trial, saying the federal government hadn’t gotten enough concessions from Live Nation.

“State attorneys general stood strong and continued this case without the federal government because we believed that concertgoers deserved a fair trial and a fair deal,” Weiser said. “Live Nation is being held to account for violating state and federal antitrust laws, and I’ll continue to fight to break up their monopoly, restore competition and get money back for concertgoers.”

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said in a release that the “landmark jury verdict in our case against Live Nation confirms what we have said since the start of our case: For far too long, Live Nation has illegally profited from its monopoly at the expense of hardworking New Jerseyans.”

“Live Nation’s illegal, anti-competitive practices have caused immense damage in our state, exploiting consumers by driving up the price of tickets and making it harder for fans to see their favorite artists,” she added.

New York Attorney General Letitia James called the verdict “a landmark victory in our ongoing work to protect our economy and New Yorkers’ wallets from harmful monopolies.”

After the victory, Kessler would not say specifically what the states will seek in the next phase of the litigation, which was expected to involve another lengthy proceeding with witnesses before penalties are decided on.

But he celebrated the moment.

“It����ap a great day for consumers. This case is a tribute to the 34 states and the District of Columbia who carried this case forward,” he said.

Kirkmeyer, of Brighton, will face off against state Rep. Scott Bottoms and political newcomer Victor Marx in the June 30 Republican primary. Bottoms and Marx, both pastors who live in Colorado Springs, qualified for the ballot through the GOP state assembly on Saturday.

Bottoms, who led a wide assembly field and won support from 45% of attendees, will get the top spot in the race.

Kirkmeyer took the petition route to the ballot. She submitted more than 15,000 valid signatures, including more than 1,500 from each of Colorado’s eight congressional districts, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office, which certified the signatures.

“This campaign has been built by thousands of real people, in real communities, all across Colorado,” Kirkmeyer said in a statement about her ballot qualification. “I’m incredibly grateful to everyone who took the time to sign our petition, share our message, and be part of something bigger. This is your campaign.”

The Democratic slate was mostly set at the end of March with that party’s state assembly. Attorney General Phil Weiser, who won support from more than 90% of that event����ap voting members, will face U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, who petitioned onto the primary ballot.

Also on Wednesday, the Secretary of State’s office certified University of Colorado Regent Wanda James’s spot in a primary challenge to incumbent U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Denver Democrat. Melat Kiros, a Denver lawyer who stunned DeGette by outpolling her during the county assembly in March, has also qualified for that primary race. Republicans have nominated Christy Peterson, who is unopposed.

Earlier in the week, the Secretary of State’s Office certified Hetal Doshi and Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty for the Democratic primary ballot for attorney general. They will face Secretary of State Jena Griswold and attorney David Seligman in that party’s nominating contest.

Democratic and Republican primary ballots

Here are the candidates who qualified for the major-party ballots in the June 30 primary in statewide races. Voters affiliated with a party will receive its ballot in the mail in June. Unaffiliated voters can participate in primaries and will receive both parties’ ballots in the mail, but they can return only one of them.

The four state offices are all open races this year, with the incumbents term-limited.

Governor

• Democratic primary: U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, Attorney General Phil Weiser
• Republican primary: state Rep. Scott Bottoms, state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, Victor Marx

Attorney general

• Republican primary: El Paso County District Attorney Michael Allen, David Willson
• Democratic primary: Hetal Doshi, Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty, Secretary of State Jena Griswold, David Seligman

Secretary of state

• Democratic primary: state Sen. Jessie Danielson, Jefferson County Clerk Amanda Gonzalez
• Republican primary: James Wiley (a former Colorado Libertarian Party official), unopposed

Treasurer

• Republican primary: Fremont County Commissioner Kevin Grantham, unopposed
• Democratic primary: state Sen. Jeff Bridges, unopposed

U.S. Senate

• Democratic primary: state Sen. Julie Gonzales, U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper (incumbent)
• Republican primary: state Sen. Mark Baisley, unopposed

Both men will appear on the June 30 primary ballot. Bottoms, who is one of the most conservative lawmakers in the state Capitol, won slightly more than 45% of the 2,145 ballots cast, comfortably beating Marx’s 39% and topping a field of more than a dozen candidates who vied for gubernatorial ballot access. When Marx’s total was announced and Bottoms’ victory assured, the lawmaker’s supporters shouted and jumped around him in the bleachers of Colorado State University-Pueblo’s arena.

“This is our year. This is the year we’re going to do this,” Bottoms, who is in his second term in the statehouse, said in brief remarks earlier Saturday. He promised to work with federal immigration authorities, to build nuclear reactors and to “reclaim safety and security.” He also pledged to “DOGE the mess out of everything in this state,” a reference to billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency,” which gutted a number of federal programs last year.

State Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, who also is running for governor, did not participate in the assembly process and has instead submitted signatures to appear on the primary ballot. Marx also submitted signatures while also seeking the assembly nomination.

The party also nominated state Sen. Mark Baisley for U.S. Senate, former Colorado Libertarian Party official James Wiley for secretary of state, and Fremont County Commissioner Kevin Grantham for state treasurer. All those candidates will be appear on the ballot alone in June, virtually assuring them places on the November general election ballot.

For attorney general, the assembly sent Michael Allen, the district attorney in El Paso County, and attorney David Willson to the primary election in June.

The day was marred by delays, mistakes, long lines and, as afternoon turned into evening, a voting discrepency: About 80 more ballots had been cast than delegates had been credentialed to cast them. The assembly then voted to accept the new ballots as legitimate (the official running the meeting said they likely were).

The winner of the June gubernatorial primary will face off against U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet or Attorney General Phil Weiser, each of whom are seeking the Democratic nomination to replace Gov. Jared Polis next year.

The Republican candidates who emerge from the primaries will face a Colorado Democratic Party that has held all four constitutional statewide offices since 2018. No Republican has won the governor’s office since 2002, and the last statewide win for a GOP candidate was Heidi Ganahl’s win for a University of Colorado governing board seat in 2016.

Repubican contenders repeatedly promised to reverse those trends Saturday. Eighteen gubernatorial candidates initially were slated to speak, although several didn’t turn up and their candidacies did not advance. One candidate — Kelvin “K-Man” Wimberly — appeared to have no supporters present to nominate him. That prompted someone from the crowd to run up to the microphone, gesture to Wimberly and offer to nominate “this guy.”

As party members slowly trickled into the building Saturday morning, campaign volunteers wandered, handing out bags with posters for Marx or walking in slow arcs with signs for fellow chief executive hopeful Robert Moore. Scott Pond, who hopes to take on U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper in November, signed a pair of baseball caps for one supporter. Many attendees — including the conspiratorial podcaster Joe Oltmann — wore “Free Tina Peters” stickers, a sentiment echoed by a banner hanging behind the assembly stage.

Several candidates, including Marx, pledged to free the former Mesa County clerk, who was convicted for orchestrating a plot to sneak a third party into a secure area to examine voting equipment after the 2020 election.

Oltmann briefly ran for governor before declaring his candidacy to become the state GOP’s chairman.

On Friday, former state lawmaker Ron Hanks was nominated to launch a right-wing primary challenge against U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd, the freshman Republican who represents the Western Slope’s 3rd Congressional District. Hurd’s previous primary opponent, Hope Scheppelman, dropped out of the contest last month, after President Donald Trump re-endorsed Hurd.

Instead, Bennet backed out of a candidate forum hosted by Muslim leaders. His campaign cited concerns that the event for Democratic candidates for governor would not be a productive place for dialogue on a complicated issue. Attorney General Phil Weiser, who is also pursuing the Democratic nomination for governor, attended the event Sunday,

The message was clear — Bennet was more afraid of the optics of fumbling tough questions about Israel’s war tactics or getting shouted down by angry constituents than he was the optics of agreeing to attend an event and then not showing up for the community.

Bennet’s job as an elected official is to talk publicly about his votes and policy decisions and indicate to voters how he will act as governor of Colorado. Candidate forums can sometimes be more show than substance, and we have all seen clips of uncomfortable town halls and even aggressive confrontations with elected officials. We always want debates to be productive and nuanced, but the reality is that not every outcome can be controlled by organizers of an event. We hope Bennet shows greater resolve in the future to attend these events despite the risk of outbursts or confrontations.

Because of the weight of the subject, passions run high on both sides of the issue. Several investigations by human rights groups indicate Israel waged a genocidal war with the intent to kill, displace, starve and injure Palestinian civilians. Israel, meanwhile, was responding to the horrendous terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023, and the worst of their bombing campaign ended when the last hostages — alive or dead — were finally released by Hamas.

It is especially myopic for Bennet to skip the event because the U.S. senator, who wants to lead Colorado soon, has a heartfelt message about his support of Palestinians and his opposition to the actions of Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu.

Bennet made good on his pledge to answer tough questions about Gaza and Israel in a brief phone interview Friday with The Denver Post. For that, we are grateful. During his long time serving Colorado in the Senate, Bennet has always proven himself willing to take difficult questions and be transparent about his actions.

“Over and over again, I pushed both the Biden administration and the Trump administration to reflect the deep, deep concerns that I think many Americans have over the number of casualties and deaths in Gaza, which now amount to 70,000,” Bennet said, but he refused to use the term genocide to describe the war.

“This is obviously not a word I take lightly, given my own mother being born in Warsaw in 1938. My mother, her parents and her aunt were the only people (from my family) to survive the Holocaust. It is not a word I would use to describe the situation in Gaza,” Bennet said. He later said that his mother sees herself in the children of Gaza, and he has also taken that to heart as he pushes for peace in the Middle East and a two-state solution in Israel.

We now know that the candidate forum hosted by Colorado Muslim Vote was well run and that there were no outbursts or dramatic interruptions. We know that because Weiser showed up and spent a long time on stage answering tough questions in front of a tough audience.

Weiser also refused to call Israel’s attacks genocide, but did say there had been human rights violations in the war campaign.

“I will say that the Netanyahu government has had actions and policies that I find abhorrent and that pain me,” Weiser told the audience, who did not at all seem placated by the careful equivocation about whether we are talking about a genocide, war crimes or human rights violations.

Neither candidate would take a position on a 2016 state law that requires the state to divest from companies or funds that refuse to do business with Israel. Bennet said he’d need more time to consider the legislation, and Weiser said he opposes using investment funds to make international policy statements.

The election is still several months away, and we think constituents on both sides of the issue deserve an honest answer now from the candidates about whether they would veto or sign a bill repealing the 2016 divestment law.

Earnest transparency goes a long way with voters, even if they disagree with the answer, as does showing up to events with voters who are likely to disagree with you. Colorado deserves the very strongest candidates for governor in 2026.

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: “Advocacy group: Bennet backed out of forum to avoid Gaza questions,” April 8 news story

To me it is absurd that a U.S. senator is unwilling to answer questions in public about his votes to spend billions of taxpayer dollars.

I attended the gubernatorial forum on Sunday. About 200 people attended. The large majority were members of Colorado’s Muslim community, who organized the event. It was a family affair with Muslims of all ages attending. They were all eager to have a dialogue with Sen. Michael Bennet and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.

Weiser came knowing that he would face difficult questions. People in the audience asked many questions, and every question was respectful. The attorney general held his ground on the issues that are dear to him. He also truly listened and learned from what people had to say.

Nothing in the entire evening was disruptive or threatening in any way. Why would Sen. Bennet request to meet in private, behind closed doors, where any statements or promises he made would not be public?

Steve Brown, Denver

Dark history of presidents’ spins on military operations

I’m old enough to remember multiple presidents and their administrations’ lack of transparency and outright deceit about wars and other military operations: LBJ and Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (Iran-Contra), George W. Bush (Iraq). So understand if we neither trust nor believe President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth about this unauthorized war in Iran, we have a solid historical basis for that.

We have a long chain of presidencies since the 1960s that have put our troops at risk in war and military operations for little to no logical reason, while running up the national debt, sometimes alienating our allies, and hiding the truth. This one is only the latest, but it seems to be the most egregious and dangerous.

John W. Thomas, Fort Collins

Trump can’t reinterpret NATO charter to his liking

Re: “Rift widens when Trump lashes out at NATO allies,” April 2 news story

The recent reports of President Donald Trump’s frustration with our NATO allies regarding the ongoing conflict with Iran raise a fundamental question about the nature of the alliance itself. Since the launch of “Operation Epic Fury,” the administration has criticized nations like Britain, France, and Germany for their refusal to join a war that was initiated by the United States without prior consultation with the North Atlantic Council.

As a resident of Colorado who has watched our global commitments evolve over decades, I find this criticism deeply misguided. NATO is, and always has been, a defensive pact. of the North Atlantic Treaty is very clear: it is a collective response to an armed attack against a member state. It is not a blank check for offensive maneuvers or preemptive strikes in the Middle East.

When the president suggests that the U.S. might withdraw from NATO because allies refuse to join an elective war, he ignores the very principles that have kept the West stable since 1949. Allies are not “paper tigers” for refusing to be dragged into a conflict they did not start and do not support. On the contrary, their restraint upholds the rule of law and the specific geographic and legal boundaries of the treaty.

If we want the support of our allies, we must respect the defensive framework that binds us. To demand they participate in an offensive campaign — especially one that risks regional stability and energy security — is to demand they violate the very charter we helped write. We cannot expect “all for one” when the “one” chooses to act alone.

Al White, Winter Park

Enduring the president’s national address

While enduring the “supreme leader’s” nationally televised comments (speech isn’t deserved) last week, with nothing of substance regarding the beginning, current or future plans for the maelstrom in Iran, the only thing garnered was the fact that those 19 minutes of life are never to be recaptured.

RC Lloyd, Longmont

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.

Eight state attorneys general — including Colorado’s Phil Weiser — and DirecTV sued to block the merger between the local television giants, arguing that it would raise consumer prices and harm local journalism.

They asked U.S. District Court Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley in Sacramento, California, to halt the merger until their antitrust lawsuit is resolved.

In Denver, Nexstar is the parent company of KDVR-Fox31 and KWGN-CW2, while Tegna owns NBC affiliate KUSA-9News and KTVD-My20. Nexstar agreed to sell KTVD within the next two years, according to FCC filings.

Nexstar’s attorneys say the deal will lead to expanded local journalism and programming, not a reduction.

Nunley extended the temporary restraining order until April 17, saying the extension would give him time to prepare a ruling on whether a longer preliminary injunction is needed. The judge also modified the order so both companies could take “reasonable steps” to handle regular business matters like meeting federal debt reporting deadlines.

The deal, and approved by the Federal Communications Commission, would create a company that owns 265 television stations in 44 states and the District of Columbia, most of them local affiliates of one of the “Big Four” national networks: ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC.

The merger needed the approval of the Republican Trump administration’s FCC because the government had to waive rules limiting how many local stations one company can own.

When the judge issued the original temporary restraining order in the case, he said the merger could give Nexstar the power to demand higher fees from multichannel video programming distributors like DirecTV, because if the distributors refuse to pay the increases they could risk subscribers losing access to things like Sunday NFL football games.

State officials accused Baron Properties of violating the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Rental Application Fairness Act, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office said in a news release Tuesday.

The company runs the Belmont Buckingham at 1050 N. Sherman St. in Denver and Belcaro, a senior living community at 3475 American Drive in Colorado Springs.

In a statement, Baron Properties President Matthew Riggs said the company “strongly objects to any notion that the company was either intentionally deceiving tenants, or somehow willfully ignorant of our duties as landlord.”

According to the attorney general’s office, Baron was charging some tenants for renters insurance even after they provided proof of insurance.

Attorney General Phil Weiser described the practice as “unacceptable” in a statement Tuesday.

“With many renters in Colorado struggling to make ends meet, we will continue to take action when landlords’ unfair or deceptive conduct hits renters’ pocketbooks,” he said.

State investigators also found that language on Baron’s rental applications treated people’s pending or unresolved criminal cases as convictions, and therefore grounds to deny them, the agency said.

Baron has worked closely with the attorney general’s office for several years and committed to reimbursing all overcharged insurance claims after first learning about the issue, Riggs said. Company officials do not believe the rental application language broke the law, he added.

“Nonetheless, the company agreed to modify the aforementioned language after in-depth discussions with the Colorado AG. Baron has never used an arrest record or a record of pending charge to deny a rental application in Colorado,” Riggs said.

Under the settlement, Baron Properties will pay $7,300 in restitution to 368 tenants and $67,635 to the state. Riggs added the company believes most of the insurance overcharges were actually “minor personnel and software errors” that have been corrected.

While a state senator backed up that account, Bennet’s campaign disputed the characterization on Tuesday.

For the Sunday event in Englewood hosted by , organizers initially wanted Bennet and his Democratic primary opponent, Attorney General Phil Weiser, to share the stage. But they changed the format to a forum with each candidate at Bennet����ap request — with the senator set to speak first, followed by Weiser.

Bennet����ap team also raised several concerns early last week, six days before the event. Azra Taslimi, an attorney and a co-founder of Colorado Muslim Vote, said that in addition to raising concerns about security and about how organizers planned to handle disruptions, Bennet����ap campaign manager also requested no questions related to Gaza or Israel’s war in the Palestinian territory.

Taslimi declined the campaign’s request and also declined to provide specific questions in advance, she told The Denver Post. But she said she told Bennet����ap team that she would work with them on framing the questions appropriately and that she shared the topics of the questions.

The campaign then said that Bennet would not participate, Taslimi said, because the forum wasn’t the appropriate place to talk about his record on Gaza. Instead, the campaign said Bennet would be willing to meet with Muslim leaders privately to discuss the issue, Taslimi recalled.

State Sen. Iman Jodeh, an Aurora Democrat, said in an interview that she also spoke with Bennet����ap campaign, which provided the same reasoning for backing out of the event.

“How can we not ask about a thing that affects so many people in our community?” Taslimi said Tuesday.

She said her group had sought security for the event and had taken steps to curb any disruptions. During the forum, when some audience members interjected as Weiser answered questions about Israel and Gaza, Taslimi — who moderated the event — intervened.

Bennet����ap campaign “absolutely, unequivocally said: ‘No questions on his record about Gaza,’ ” she said in an interview. “The takeaway was, if we agreed to not ask questions about his record, that he would still participate.”

In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Bennet spokeswoman Jordan Fuja said the campaign “did not demand to approve questions in advance nor refuse to answer questions about his record.”

“Michael is deeply committed to having meaningful conversations with the Muslim community,” Fuja wrote. “As we received details about the forum, it became clear that this event would not lend itself to a genuine dialogue where Michael can listen to the community and provide the clarity people deserve.”

“Michael has never refused to answer difficult questions,” she continued, “and will continue to have these conversations, as he has his entire career.”

Bennet — who, like Weiser, is the son of Holocaust survivors — has in Gaza but has limiting . He’s faced public questioning over Israel before: He was repeatedly interrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters during an event last May, and audience members to Israel during another town hall in Colorado Springs earlier last year.

“I do think the Gaza situation is a tragic, tragic situation,” he said at that event. As he started to talk about a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians, audience members interjected.

The latest disagreement comes as Democratic politicians nationwide try to navigate growing criticisms from their own voters about American support for Israel. The Middle Eastern country has been accused of human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza, where by the Israeli military since the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack by Hamas, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

As the death toll in the Palestinian territories has mounted, public polling has shown a stark decline in support for Israel among U.S. voters. In February 2022, 55% of voters had a favorable view of the country. Four years later, that figure had fallen to 37%, .

The decline is even sharper among national Democrats: According to Pew, 80% of Democrats and likely Democratic voters hold an unfavorable view of Israel, a 27-point increase from 2022.

The shift among Democrats has played out in Colorado, too. Nearly two years after the Colorado Democratic Party rejected a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, the party last month at its state assembly that accused Israel of committing genocide in the territory.

The state party also called for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the U.S.-based lobbying group that spends heavily to support pro-Israel candidates, to register as a foreign agent under federal law.

, Weiser was peppered with questions about Israel and Gaza, alongside questions about how he would address anti-Muslim bigotry, according to a video of the event. He pledged to “listen and work with you” and noted the rise in both antisemitic and Islamophobic rhetoric.

That earned him applause. He received a much more muted response when he said that, though he didn’t agree with all of AIPAC’s actions, he didn’t support requiring the group to register as a foreign agent.

Weiser did not directly answer when asked if he supported repealing a Colorado law that requires the state employees retirement fund to divest from any company that boycotts Israel. He argued that the fund should be focused on making the best investments it can, not “seeking to advance foreign policy goals.”

Another audience member then asked if Weiser agreed with the state party’s recently adopted policy platform, which labeled Israel’s government as “extremist” and said the country’s campaign in Gaza was genocidal.

“I will answer your question this way: I recognize the human rights violations that we’ve talked about. I will say that the Netanyahu government has had actions and policies that I find abhorrent and that pain me,” Weiser said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I will say that at my Passover Seders, I and others were praying for peace and were pained by the suffering of so many innocent Palestinians and kids who have suffered so greatly.

“I feel and I understand the pain that so many have been affected by. I recognize the need and the work ahead for repair.”

That drew murmurs that Weiser hadn’t directly answered the question. Taslimi then asked Weiser if he was disagreeing with the state party’s platform.

“I’m saying that this is a word” — genocide — “that I use very, very” carefully, he said, adding: “I will condemn the suffering, the pain, the human rights violations.”

Weiser’s plan, released Tuesday, calls for the state to shift investment toward preventive care, build on the Colorado Option and use the courts to challenge health care consolidation and enforce laws limiting surprise medical bills and aggressive debt collection.

Colorado Option health insurance plans have lower upfront costs for primary care and, in some cases, lower monthly premiums than other plan types on the individual marketplace.

“We need to address care upfront to keep Coloradans healthy whenever we can and avoid the high costs and quality-of-life impacts of caring for people once they are sick,” Weiser said in an emailed statement.

Bennet says he’ll seek public option for health insurance if elected Colorado governor

The plan didn't give details on what new versions of the Colorado Option plans might look like, though Weiser said he would work with stakeholders to come up with something more affordable for people earning too much to qualify for Medicaid.

Weiser said he thought a public option likely wouldn't be feasible, but called for "learning from and working to take action on" an upcoming study of the possibility of a single-payer health insurance system.

Weiser and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet are the two leading candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Bennet's plan, which was also light on details, included a public option for people earning slightly above the cut-off for Medicaid. Both candidates' plans call for expanding who can buy into the state employee health plan, with the idea that a larger patient pool can negotiate lower health care prices for everyone.

Weiser's plan summary only included one clear new initiative, related to youth mental health, but didn't provide enough information to assess what his ideas might cost. He pointed to savings if the state can keep patients healthier -- a perennial goal for candidates that often proves difficult to attain.

"Our plan is to focus on the underlying costs of care to reduce the costs to our system, not add to them," he said.

The panel of three judges found that Mesa County District Judge Matthew Barrett wrongly based part of his original sentence on Peters’ exercise of her right to free speech, according to a released Thursday.

The court upheld her convictions and rejected an effort by President Donald Trump to pardon his political ally, despite his fixation on freeing her and an ongoing pressure campaign against Colorado. Peters has backed Trump’s false claims that he won the 2020 election.

“Notwithstanding the fact that some of the trial court����ap considerations were tied to proper sentencing considerations, when the court����ap comments are viewed in their totality, it is apparent that the court imposed the lengthy sentence it did because Peters continued to espouse the views that led her to commit these crimes,” Court of Appeals Judge Ted C. Tow III wrote in the opinion.

“The tenor of the court����ap comments makes clear that it felt the sentence length was necessary, at least in part, to prevent her from continuing to espouse views the court deemed ‘damaging.’ … The sentence punished Peters for her persistence in espousing her beliefs regarding the integrity of the 2020 election.”

Barring additional appeals, Thursday’s ruling will send the case back to Barrett, who will have the ability to reduce or reinstate Peters’ original sentence. The appeals judges denied Peters’ request that her case be resentenced by a new district court judge, finding that she needed to raise that issue in the lower court.

In a statement Thursday evening, Peters’ attorney Peter Ticktin said that, other than tossing Peters’ sentence, the ruling “got it all wrong.”

“Unfortunately, the Colorado Court of Appeals just kicked the can down the road rather than to do the honest responsible thing, and give her a new trial, after her kangaroo trial. She remains in prison after 549 days,” Ticktin wrote. “Now, the Court of Appeals is sending Tina Peters back to the same district court for resentencing. This is terribly disappointing. I though (sic) that the Court of Appeals had a better understanding of the issues. Apparently, they did not.”

Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein said in a statement Thursday that the Court of Appeals’ decision shows that Peters’ trial was fair, her rights were protected and the guilty verdicts were supported by evidence.

“The ruling on sentencing is more limited,” he said. “The appellate court did not find that the sentence was excessive or inappropriate, but instead identified a narrow issue requiring reconsideration. …Both parties have already had a full and fair opportunity to present their positions on sentencing, and once jurisdiction returns, I anticipate the trial court will issue a new sentencing order, potentially affirming the prior sentence length, with findings consistent with the appellate court����ap guidance.”

He noted that the Court of Appeals considered and rejected nine claims of error that Peters raised about her trial and convictions.

The panel of judges found that there was sufficient evidence to convict Peters of her crimes, that Peters was not immune to state prosecution, that the purported presidential pardon carried no authority, and that a prosecutor’s characterization of the case during closing arguments did not impact the verdict.

The judges also upheld a felony conviction even though the charge was presented to the jury with language characterizing it as a misdemeanor, finding that the charge was correctly described in a charging document and mittimus.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement Thursday that Peters’ original sentence was “fair and appropriate.” Spokesman Lawrence Pacheco said the office has not yet decided whether to appeal.

“Whatever happens with her sentence, Tina Peters will always be a convicted felon who violated her duty as Mesa County clerk, put other lives at risk and threatened our democracy,” Weiser said. “Nothing will remove that stain.”

Presidential ‘revenge campaign’

Mesa County jurors convicted Peters, 70, of four felony and three misdemeanor crimes after she orchestrated a plot to sneak an unauthorized member of the public into a secure area to examine voting equipment amid unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. She appealed both her convictions and the length of her prison sentence in a wide-ranging case that went before the Colorado Court of Appeals in January.

Peters’ case has drawn significant attention from Trump, who has repeatedly called for the former clerk’s release and, in December, claimed to pardon her — a power he does not have over state-level criminal convictions. The Colorado Court of Appeals confirmed that the purported pardon was without merit in its ruling Thursday, noting that its ruling matched with “every other appellate court that has addressed the issue.”

Colorado officials have resisted the president’s demands, prompting Trump to mount what Weiser described as a “revenge campaign” against the state, including canceling more than $700 million in federal funds earmarked for Colorado.

Gov. Jared Polis signaled earlier this year that he was willing to reduce Peters’ sentence through clemency, a unique power of the governor’s office.

After his comments drew criticism from Democratic lawmakers and other elected officials, Polis said he would not take action until after the Court of Appeals issued its decision. He suggested Peters should show remorse for her crimes. Peters has remained largely defiant, though after Polis’ comments, her attorney, John Case, noted that “anyone has second thoughts about what they’ve done.”

Polis did not directly address the question of clemency for Peters in a statement Thursday, but called her sentence an “obvious outlier.”

“This case has been very challenging and a true test of our resolve as a state to have a fair judicial system, not just for people we agree with but a fair system for Coloradans that we vehemently disagree with,” he said. “…My job as governor is to focus on what is right, not what is popular, and today the court took action to ensure equal justice for all.”

‘Dangerous election lies’

Democratic lawmakers across the state urged Polis not to reduce Peters’ sentence, arguing that doing so would embolden election conspiracy theorists and undermine the justice system. House Speaker Julie McCluskie said Thursday morning that she needed to review the ruling.

“I think the members of the General Assembly have made their position clear about any action that the governor would take,” she said.

Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in a statement Thursday that she was glad to see the Court of Appeals reject Trump’s attempted pardon.

“Peters will continue to face accountability for coordinating a breach of her own election equipment,” Griswold said. “Her actions have been repeatedly used to spread conspiracy theories, amplify falsehoods and fuel dangerous election lies. Peters should not receive any special treatment as the district court considers re-sentencing.”

Peters was originally sentenced in October 2024 to serve three-and-a-half years on two counts of attempting to influence a public official and another three-and-a-half years on a third count of attempting to influence a public official.

She received an additional 15 months for conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation — the charge mistakenly presented as a misdemeanor — and another six months for violation of duty and failure to comply with the requirements of the secretary of state, according to a filing from the attorney general’s office.

Before Thursday’s decision, Peters was set to be eligible for parole in November 2028, according to the Colorado Department of Corrections.