Her exit from the La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo comes roughly 30 months earlier than originally scheduled, after Gov. Jared Polis commuted her sentence in mid-May and ordered her release at the start of June.

The one-time top election official in Mesa County, Peters will be released almost exactly five years after she helped an election conspiracist surreptitiously copy information from her county’s secure election systems. Some of that information was later published on right-wing media.

Peters, 70, did not have a parole hearing ahead of her release so it was unclear the conditions under which she will be released. In an interview earlier this month, one of her attorneys, Peter Ticktin, said the parole board would set her conditions at some point after her release. On Friday, the Department of Corrections said she is being released under a parole agreement, but the document was not immediately available.

According to a copy of Peters’ inmate file, two state law enforcement officers completed a “pre-parole investigation” of Peters’ home on Wednesday “and found nothing of concern.” The file also notes that Peters had a video call on May 15 at noon, nearly three hours before Polis’ office publicly announced her commutation. Ticktin said she had been called into the warden’s office, where she learned the news.

It’s unclear when or where exactly she will be released Monday. Corrections Department spokeswoman Alondra Gonzalez-Garcia said in a statement that the DOC doesn’t disclose release times or logistics for any individual cases for safety and security reasons.

Adrienne Mazzone, a spokeswoman for Peters’ legal team, said Thursday that “no details regarding (Peters’) release timing, location, visibility to the public, or any potential exclusive access are confirmed.”

As of Friday, Peters’ location was still listed as the La Vista prison in Pueblo, according to a Corrections Department database.

She was initially sentenced to a total of nine years in jail and prison after her August 2024 conviction on three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, a count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, and charges of first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state.

Several months after the 2020 election, she directed Mesa County elections staff to turn off security cameras overseeing a secure room. She then gave another person’s access badge to a former professional surfer, who was affiliated with MyPillow CEO and election conspiracist Mike Lindell, so he could pretend to be a county employee and gain access to the equipment.

Three days after her sentence was commuted this month, Peters was “always in a good mood,” one prison staff member wrote in her file, which The Denver Post obtained through a public records request. “She said she was excited, that she will be leaving very soon.”

As Peters prepared for that departure, Ticktin and the rest of her legal team launched another salvo to challenge the trial that saw her convicted of four felonies and three misdemeanors.

Though the Colorado Court of Appeals in April ordered her trial judge to resentence Peters, the appellate judges unanimously upheld her underlying convictions. On May 21, after Polis issued the commutation, her legal team renewed the challenge with the state Supreme Court. Ticktin told The Post that Peters had not expressed any contrition for her crimes because she believed she had been targeted by a “globalist judge.”

Peters had not been resentenced before Polis announced his decision to release her. Three legal experts have told The Post that they were not aware of any other case in which a governor had granted clemency to an inmate who was in the middle of similar judicial proceedings.

In the recent petition to the state Supreme Court, Peters’ lawyers argued that her convictions should be tossed for three reasons: her trial judge should’ve held a hearing to see if a juror may have been influenced by the fact that their telephone lines had been severed during the early days of the trial; Peters was immune from prosecution under the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause; and her trial judge should’ve allowed Peters to discuss what she believed to be her duties as an election official.

The appellate court , affirming the trial court’s findings and dismissing as “meritless” Peters’ contention that she should’ve been allowed to tell the jury that she was investigating election fraud.

It will likely be months before the state high court decides whether to take up Peters’ appeal. If the justices do so, many more months will follow before the appeal is heard and adjudicated. Should she fail at the state level, Peters could then petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a new trial.

If one of those high courts throws out her convictions, prosecutors in Mesa County will have to determine if she should be retried.

, Peters’ attorneys wrote that she’d pledged “that she will not, in the future, engage in illegal conduct or commit offenses of the type for which she was convicted.” In a statement attached to the application, Peters said that her “work to ensure honest elections will continue” but that she will “make sure that my actions always follow the law.”

The application also noted she’s unlikely to commit the same offenses again, as she’s no longer a county clerk tasked with overseeing elections.

A prominent ally of President Donald Trump, Peters may also soon qualify for a payout from the nearly . Vice President JD Vance floated Peters as someone who should get compensation under the “anti-weaponization fund,” which was established as part of a settlement with Trump to give money to people who claim they were unjustly targeted by previous administrations.

The ticketed exhibition opened Thursday, May 28, at History Colorado Center, and runs through June 14 with a bevy of historical wonders, including an original engraving of the Declaration of Independence and rare draft of the U.S. Constitution, all timed to celebrate America’s 250th birthday.

Tickets for the exhibition are free, and you can pay $20 extra for general admission to History Colorado Center (both are free for kids and members). Call 303-447-8679 or visit and for more details. It’s open 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily at 1200 Broadway in Denver.

“Freedom Plane offers a tangible opportunity to reflect on what it means to be American,” said Dawn DiPrince, president and CEO of History Colorado and the State Historic Preservation Officer, in a statement. “These documents embody the revolutionary idea that we are a nation bound together by shared ideals.”

The documents have never before traveled together outside of Washington, D.C., organizers said, but there’s precedent for the tour. It’s inspired by the Bicentennial Freedom Train in 1976, and backed by the National Archives and Records Administration and the National Archives Foundation.

Its treasures include:

• The 1823 original engraving of the Declaration of Independence, “one of only about 50 known engraved copies … printed from a copperplate of the original Commissioned by John Quincy Adams and made by engraver William J. Stone. “The engraving captured the size, text, lettering, and signatures of the original document (on loan from David M. Rubenstein).”
• Articles of Association, 1774: “The most important agreement at the time that was adopted by the First Continental Congress and signed by all 53 delegates, which urged colonists to boycott British goods.”
• George Washington’s, Alexander Hamilton’s, and Aaron Burr’s Oaths of Allegiance, 1778: “Oaths of Allegiance that all officers of the Continental Army signed during the Revolutionary War.”
• Treaty of Paris, 1783: “Signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, this Treaty with Great Britain formally recognized the United States as an independent nation.”
• Secret Printing of the Constitution in Draft Form, 1787: “A rare copy of the U.S. Constitution in draft form, with a delegate’s handwritten notes made during the Constitutional Convention in 1787.”
• Tally of Votes Approving the Constitution, 1787
• Markup in the U.S. Senate of what would become the Bill of Rights.

Re: “Colorado led the way against farm animal cruelty. Now Congress will take us backward,” May 17 commentary

Krista Kafer’s column misstates the issue before Congress. Colorado remains free to regulate farms physically operating in Colorado. The question is whether one state may impose requirements on farmers in other states as a condition of access to a national market.
That distinction matters.

The U.S. House language under debate does not and would not prohibit Colorado from banning gestation crates on Colorado farms. It addresses something different: whether California, or any single state, can use its market access to regulate production practices occurring thousands of miles beyond its borders.

Denver voters themselves recently showed that these debates are more complicated than activists often suggest. In 2024, voters overwhelmingly rejected the ballot measures seeking to ban slaughterhouses and prohibit the sale of fur products in the city.

Even in a city with strong support for animal welfare, voters understand that proposals can go too far. Veterinarians do as well, and the American Veterinary Medical Association has said California’s approach on Prop 12 is unscientific and has no demonstrable benefit to animals.

Reasonable people can disagree about housing systems and animal welfare. But the current debate is not whether states may govern themselves. It is whether states may govern one another through interstate commerce.

States’ rights remain important. So do functioning national markets that keep food affordable and available at scale. Congress exists, supported by the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution, precisely to manage these conflicts.

Andy Curliss, Des Moines, Iowa

Editor’s note: Curliss is chairman of the Carver Center for Agriculture & Nutrition.

‘Leave cruelty in the past’

Congress should not be nationalizing cruelty.

Colorado got this right: gestation crates, veal crates and battery cages are indefensible confinement systems designed to strip animals of movement, comfort and dignity while maximizing profit.

The current push in Washington is a blunt message to states and voters: your standards don’t count if they inconvenience Big Ag. That should offend anyone who believes in democracy, basic decency or the idea that sentient beings deserve more than a lifetime of confinement.

The real momentum is not toward a slightly roomier cage. It is toward food systems that don’t depend on misery at all. Vegan eating offers a practical, compassionate way forward that is better for animals, and better for the planet and public health.

Congress should leave cruelty in the past where it belongs.

Ben Williamson, Torrance, Calif.

‘Concrete solutions’ necessary to combat shootings

Re: “Delusional thinking on gun laws,” May 17 letter to the editor

The letter writer complains that Colorado gun laws do nothing to prevent shootings and he blames mental health and single parents. He does a disservice to people with diagnosable mental illness by casting suspicion on them. Most of them are no more dangerous than the rest of us.

He’s right that we should reach out to “isolated” kids. But you can’t force someone to get mental health counseling, and besides, being isolated or “radicalized” is not a diagnosable, treatable mental illness.

If these kids that the letter writer is concerned about are 18 and want to buy an assault rifle, they can’t: Colorado raised the for rifles from 18 to 21. And anyone with a specific violent misdemeanor on their record can’t purchase for five years. And Colorado has a popular “red flag” law that can address people identified as dangerous to themselves or others. And we have a safe storage law that requires gun owners to responsibly keep firearms away from kids.

Coloradans have those reasonable tools, among others, to help prevent shootings. And yet the gun lobby opposed them all. These laws can’t prevent all shootings, but they certainly offer more than simply blaming mental health, blaming single parents and offering no concrete solutions.

Tom Mauser, Littleton

Editor’s note: Mauser is the father of Columbine victim Daniel Mauser.

Hopefully Democrats won’t regain power for ‘a long, long time’

Re: “Which Democrat could repair the damage Trump did?” May 17 commentary

The Democrats are so out of touch with the American people and what they want, it’s incredible to me. And what the Democrats want says it all.

President Barack Obama said he wanted to fundamentally change our country. Could you love something you fundamentally wanted to change? Kamala Harris summed it up the other night when she said we must be open to all crazy ideas.

Columnist Jill Lawrence implies that Marco Rubio and JD Vance would be horrible candidates for president. She also mentions the need for “checks on presidential pardon power.” Where was she when Joe Biden misused his power and weaponized the government, the justice department, and the IRS, etc.? She mentions the need for independent commissions on redistricting, but does not mention how the Democrats have been leading efforts to gain one-party rule via their own redistricting efforts nationwide.

Lawrence mentions the need for expanding (packing) the Supreme Court. She mentions “stopping the Iran war” but offers no plan to do so. She mentions reopening the Strait of Hormuz with no plan to do so. And she mentions restoring the failed Obama-era agreement that has led to Iran being within two weeks of processing weapons-grade uranium. This is the very reason most experts say President Trump had no choice but to go to war against Iran. The Democrats have old, worn-out ideas to move toward one-party rule like in California. How has that worked out? How will it work out for the country? If this is all the democrats have to offer, hopefully they will not be in power for a long, long time.

Steve Gehrke, Aurora

‘Shocked and saddened’ by list of GOP contenders

Re: ” ‘Trump 2028’ Could it be a vote for Ivanka, Eric or Don Jr.?” May 17 commentary

I read Mark K. Lewis’ column, “Could it be a vote for Ivanka, Eric or Don Jr?” and was immediately shocked and saddened that this could even be a remote possibility.

The fact that Donald Trump still has an 85% approval rating among Republicans is astonishing. What alternate universe are they living in? This administration is the most corrupt in the history of our country, affordability is at an all-time low, and we are in a senseless war in Iran where no clear objectives have been put forth. Despite the relentless assault on our Constitution and deficits exploding, the Republican Party considering Trump’s children as potential candidates in 2028 just shows how uneducated and morally bankrupt they are.

The damage that has been done to our country will take years to undo and yet the Republican Party still doesn’t get it.

Trump has said he loves uneducated voters, and he has got his wish. What continues to amaze me is that they keep on voting against their own self-interests. These are the same people who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and all the other safety nets that allow people to escape poverty. I can’t imagine what they are thinking as all these programs are under attack.

Wake up, America, and put an end to unnecessary $500 billion dollar ballrooms paid for now by taxpayers’ money, and come to your senses. Trump and his family don’t care about you but only how they can enrich themselves.

Pray that Democrats are once again running this country starting in the 2026 midterms and then in 2028.

Then maybe we can restore sanity to our country and repair relationships with our allies that, through NATO, have kept dictators at bay.

David Shaw, Highlands Ranch

Let’s move on from COVID-driven restaurant fees

Re: “Service charges remain controversial, confusing,” May 17 news story

Prior to March 2020 and the COVID effect on restaurants, enjoying a meal out was a simple, non-political thing. If the food and service were really good, diners added 15% to the bill. As a result of COVID, an altruistic and noble program was initiated to protect restaurant staff who were suffering. While a great idea at the time, diners, since then, have been bombarded with new expectations — changing of tip standards, never-before-seen service charges, etc. As a result, dining experiences now require a reading of the fine print on the menu and social/political considerations when tipping.

Now, it����ap time to go back to the sacred 15% tipping rule and let the restaurateur deal internally with the staff without involving the poor diner. Remembering that “all boats rise with the tide,” a 15% tip in today’s inflated dining costs is quite a pay boost compared to that 15% tip on the same meal charge six years ago.

Let����ap declare victory over COVID dining ideas and move on.

Curt Anderson, Broomfield

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: “Assault weapons: DOJ threatens city, state on bans,” May 5 news story

Regarding President Donald Trump’s move to sue Colorado over its existing gun regulations and his obviously vindictive indictment of James Comey, I have an observation.

These are yet additional moves by the administration to deflect our attention from other, more important U.S. and world events (has anyone heard of the war in Iran and its horrible human and economic costs?). I feel bad for even writing about these subjects because it shows that I am falling for this deflection too. However, I write this letter to offer a suggestion.

Denver, the state of Colorado, and James Comey are most likely incurring a great deal of expense in defending these frivolous actions. When the cases are either thrown out or defeated, Denver, Colorado and Comey should be compensated for these legal expenses. This compensation should not be paid from the Justice Department coffer, which is taxpayer money, but from Donald Trump himself. The man understands only money, and he needs to pay for this show of manipulation and impunity.

Mark Edward Geyer, Denver

It’s about the Constitution

I have read a great deal about Colorado’s liberal Democrat politicians passing unenforceable, “feel-good” laws that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. Didn’t these politicians swear to support the U.S. Constitution when they took their oaths of office?

There is such a thing as the that places federal law and the U.S. Constitution “over” any state’s infringement of the people’s Second Amendment rights.

RD VanOrsdale, Broomfield

Crime-solving doesn’t require invasive technologies and erosion of privacy

Re: “Police opposition kills Flock camera data limits,” April 30 news story

Dear Gov. Polis,

I strongly oppose any policy or rhetoric that treats mass surveillance as a necessary tool for public safety. Suggesting that law enforcement needs to monitor the movements of the entire population to solve crimes is both misleading and historically false. Crimes were investigated and solved long before governments had the ability to collect pervasive location and behavioral data on ordinary people — and they are still solved today without it.

The absence of mass surveillance does not “hamper” law enforcement����ap ability to investigate crimes. Effective policing relies on targeted, evidence-based investigations, warrants, due process, and professional skill — not on tracking everyone, regardless of suspicion. Equating blanket surveillance with public safety conflates convenience with necessity.

Collecting data on the entire citizenry treats everyone as a suspect by default and undermines fundamental privacy rights without proven benefits. Public safety and civil liberties are not in conflict here. We can support lawful, effective law enforcement while firmly rejecting indiscriminate surveillance of the public.

I urge you to clearly state that mass surveillance is not required for effective policing and to prioritize policies that respect privacy, constitutional limits, and the presumption of innocence.

Jeffrey Marquez, Thornton

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.

The new lawsuit alleges that Colorado’s ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds violates the Second Amendment’s right for citizens to keep and bear arms. It argues that such magazines are standard for many weapons.

“Law-abiding Americans own and use for lawful purposes literally hundreds of millions of magazines such as those banned by the State,” the complaint reads. “A detachable magazine is an integral part of most semi-automatic firearms, including the AR-15 rifle. As such, they are covered by the Second Amendment����ap right to keep and bear arms.”

Attorney General Phil Weiser vowed to defend the ban in a statement Wednesday, reiterating a stance he and other state and local officials took when the DOJ first threatened the lawsuits against Denver and the state earlier this week.

“Using federal civil rights law to put Coloradans at greater risk of gun violence is a dangerous overreach by the Justice Department, and this lawsuit turns the mission of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division on its head,” Weiser said in the statement. “Large-capacity magazine laws are responsible policies that satisfy Second Amendment protections, decrease the deadly impacts of mass shootings, and save lives.”

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines in 2020, finding that the prohibition did not violate residents’ right to bear arms as guaranteed by the state Constitution. The decision did not consider whether the ban violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

State lawmakers passed the ban in 2013 in the wake of the Aurora movie theater shooting the prior year, in which the gunman used a large-capacity magazine to fire more than 60 rounds in less than a minute, killing 12 and wounding dozens.

A Colorado prosecutor said Wednesday that the officer has been charged with third-degree assault and criminal mischief following an investigation into the treatment of a protester in October.

U.S. border protection officer charged with assault after southern Colorado ICE protest

Multiple videos show a masked federal agent seizing a 57-year-old woman, who says she was put in a chokehold, during the protest in Durango.

Colorado is among several states to prohibit or severely limit the use of chokeholds and neck restraints by police officers. But immunity provisions under the U.S. Constitution and federal law limit the reach of local authorities in prosecuting federal agents.

Here’s what to know:

Investigations underway in Minnesota and Chicago

The Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics have spurred an array of investigations by state and local authorities.

Earlier this month, a federal with two counts of second-degree assault by a county prosecutor in Minnesota amid investigations into the actions of several officers during the immigration crackdown .

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Gregory Donnell Morgan Jr. is accused of pointing his gun at occupants of a car after pulling alongside them on a Minneapolis-area highway. Investigators say Morgan said he feared for his safety after the vehicle swerved in front of him.

Minnesota officials also have for investigations into three shootings during the crackdown, including those that resulted in the deaths of and .

Outside Chicago, an off-duty ICE agent has been charged with misdemeanor battery for throwing to the ground a 68-year-old protester who was filming him at a gas station in December. The Homeland Security Department that oversees ICE says the agent acted in self-defense.

In California, the shooting death of 43-year-old Keith Porter by an off-duty ICE agent on New Year’s Eve has prompted protests and calls for an independent investigation.

Federal officers and the supremacy clause

Federal law enforcement officers have broad legal protections when acting in the course of their official duties, and the Justice Department has taken a hard line against state efforts to arrest or prosecute federal agents.

Late last year, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said arrests of federal officers performing their duties would be “illegal and futile,” citing the Constitution’s supremacy clause and federal law.

Legal experts say those protections are significant but not absolute and that the supremacy clause does not provide blanket immunity.

In a statement on the Colorado charges, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said states do not have the authority to investigate such cases.

“Federal officers acting in the course of their duties can only be investigated by other Federal agencies,” the statement said.

Conduct by ICE officers is under additional scrutiny amid a rapid hiring spree and .

Flashpoint in Colorado mountain town

The altercation in Colorado arose from demonstrations over the detention on Oct. 27 of three Colombian asylum-seekers -- a man and two children — while they were on their way to school in the morning. In late October, protesters gathered outside an ICE facility in Durango, a college town and destination for outdoor recreation in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado.

Multiple videos show a masked federal agent placing Franci Stagi in what she described as a chokehold. Chokeholds have been at the center of public discourse and state legislative initiatives about what constitutes an unreasonable use of force since died in New York in 2014 after he was put in a chokehold by a police officer.

Stagi, a retired hypnotherapist, said she reached for the agent����ap shoulder to get his attention and that he then grabbed her by the hair, put her neck in the crook of his arm and carried her across the street by her head before throwing her down an embankment next to the street.

Court documents allege that Customs and Border Protection officer Nicholas Rice committed third-degree assault by causing bodily injury to Stagi, but the documents don’t describe how she was injured or make mention of a chokehold. Court documents didn’t list any attorney as representing the officer.

A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which launched its own investigation, didn’t immediately respond to questions about the charges.

Stagi says she’s disappointed Rice was charged with less serious crimes but hopes the prosecution sends a message that immigration officers can’t tackle people indiscriminately and use excessive force.

Re: “Attack on Pope Leo, posting of Jesus image criticized,” April 14 news story

When in the course of human events, could someone have ever foreseen the time when the president of the United States would have to explain why he posted and unposted a picture of himself as Jesus? Will there be additional low points of this presidency before Congress realizes it is time to face the reality of the president����ap mind and protect what����ap left of the reputation of the office?

Cindy Robertson, Denver

Just when you think President Trump can’t get any crazier, he does (e.g., attacking Iran, insulting the pope, etc.). What will be the crisis du jour tomorrow? I think it����ap time for Congress to begin 25th Amendment proceedings. Please. Before it����ap too late.

Flint Whitlock, Denver

Let’s understand the impeachment clause

Re: “,” April 9 commentary

Kirsten Matoy Carlson is mistaken about the consequences of a guilty verdict by the U.S. Senate after an impeachment trial. She states, “If the person is convicted and removed from office, only then can senators vote on whether to permanently disqualify that person from ever again holding federal office.”

That is not what the Constitution says! states: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…” There is only one vote.

Nowhere in the Constitution with regard to impeachment is there any reference or mandate that after conviction, senators “may” or “can” vote to bar the convicted person from holding federal office in the future. Legal scholars hinge that false opinion on their false understanding of grammar. The word “and” is a conjunction. It joins independent clauses, indicating a connection between the two, especially between items of the same type or class. Removal from office and barring from holding any other office are of the same class and type! In essence, the Senate is saying, “You violated your oath of office and the public trust, therefore you are removed from office and cannot be trusted in any federal office in the future.”

Tom Hubbard, Denver

Tax return takes nonsensical route to Ogden, Utah via USPS

I sent my tax return to the IRS in Ogden, Utah, via certified mail on March 13. It took a vacation and flew to Sarasota, Fla., then to Tampa, then back to Sarasota before making a leisurely trip to its original destination. It arrived there on March 27.

Using flying distance, an approximate 400-mile trip became a 3,550-mile journey.

Conspiracy theorists want to know whether the USPS has been tasked with delaying our refunds as long as possible. Or are they just practicing for what they plan to do with our ballots for the midterms?

Dee Nelson, Centennial

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.

Democrats in the state House passed in a 41-22 vote, sending the measure to the Senate over Republican opposition.

Lawmakers typically undertake election reforms just about every year, largely to adopt technical changes sought by county clerks and the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office. This year’s version includes similar tweaks.

But HB-1113 would also extend several key voting deadlines. The bill would require that drop boxes accept ballots for 22 days before an election, rather than the current law’s 15-day window. Ballots could be mailed to voters up to 29 days ahead of Election Day, up from 22 days now.

At a minimum, clerks would have to mail ballots out at least 25 days ahead of time, up from 18 days in the current law.

“Colorado’s elections are the gold standard in part because we continuously update our laws to guard against new threats to our democracy,” Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat, said in a statement. She’s sponsoring the bill with Rep. Jenny Willford. “Coloradans deserve to cast their ballot without barriers, and this bill safeguards against federal interference in our elections and makes it easier to vote.”

The changes come ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and follow Trump’s escalating calls for the federal government and Republicans to elections. Trump allies — including Peter Ticktin, the lawyer for incarcerated former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters — have circulated a draft executive order that would attempt to give Trump unprecedented control over elections, .

The U.S. Constitution over elections to state legislatures, with oversight authority granted to Congress.

Colorado officials have criticized Trump’s rhetoric in the past and defended Colorado as a model for election administration nationwide. In a statement about the Washington Post’s report last week, Secretary of State Jena Griswold criticized the president as “one of the greatest threats to American elections.”

In addition to expanding various voting timelines, HB-1113 would also allow people who live in transitional housing — like halfway houses — to vote.

As Colorado’s ballots grow longer and longer, the legislation would also allow voters to take written materials into polling places for their own reference. Voting centers that run out of supplies would be required to stay open past the 7 p.m. poll closing time. Colleges would be required to provide more information about voting to their students in the days before Election Day.

HB-1113 would repeal a provision of state law that allows a registered voter to challenge the eligibility of other voters. During a committee hearing last month, Sirota told fellow lawmakers that people who’d bought into misinformation about ineligible voters were sending lengthy lists of challenges to county clerks.

She said she was open to reforms, rather than a full repeal of that provision, but added that lawmakers were moving forward with stripping it for the time being.

House Republicans unanimously opposed the bill, citing various reasons. Rep. Stephanie Luck attempted to amend the bill to make it easier for political parties to close their primaries to unaffiliated voters, long a goal of some in the Colorado GOP. Rep. Ken DeGraaf, who that sent him and the rest of the House to the Capitol, defended Peters and sought to add more election security controls to the bill.

Other Republicans said some of the bill’s provisions would add burdensome new costs for small counties.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it needs a committee vote and two floor votes before moving to Gov. Jared Polis for passage into law.

Re: “Palantir’s exit is the warning smoke,” Feb. 21 commentary

Plantir’s exit is the warning smoke. There is more than just smoke. The canary in the coal mine has croaked. Colorado ranks fifth in the country for outbound moves.

The progressive left that controls the State of Colorado has made it difficult, if not impossible, to live here. Our property taxes are 10% higher than last year. The Democrats are drafting a backdoor tax increase by modifying the state’s tax laws. The fees assessed are a death by a thousand little taxes. According to the , Colorado is the sixth-most regulated state in the country.

Want proof? Wait until you must replace your furnace. Last year, the average cost was $4,500 to $6,500. With the new regulations, it is or higher.

Traffic regulations are another example. Traffic is being reduced to one lane for bike lanes that no one uses.

And then there is the higher minimum wage. No one wants to pay $20 for a hamburger. When your next favorite restaurant closes, thank the governor.

And let����ap not forget that the Democratic left can’t stand law enforcement. In 2020, Senate Bill created a $25,000 personal liability for cops doing their job. And now the Democrats want to ban someone from serving their community if they previously . But if you break the law, you’re not going to jail anytime soon.

Unless the Democrats change course, the time to leave Colorado is now.

Jeff Jasper, Westminster

Palantir, will we even miss you?

Re: “Palantir changed address twice in February,” Feb 19 news story

It’s certainly ironic that Palantir should cite climate change in its SEC filing as one of the reasons it’s leaving Denver for Florida, especially given its support for this climate-denying administration.

Martin Berliner, Greenwood Village

Re: “Politicians caught between ICE’s violence, Palantir’s money, and the voters they represent,” Feb. 22 commentary

“More members of Congress are likely to follow suit and return their donations as the company and its political contributions come under more public scrutiny. These donations, while welcome, raise a deeper and more troubling question: Why is a company that powers mass surveillance and immigrant enforcement so deeply embedded in our political system in the first place?”

Blame the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC. The Court found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This opened the door for businesses to donate to political campaigns.

Remember when Antonin Scalia died, and Mitch McConnell refused a hearing to replace him, so that the next President could select Scalia’s replacement? It was close to the 2016 election and McConnell wanted to protect the Citizens United ruling.

There needs to be a constitutional amendment to overturn this travesty. The only way to do it is to vote straight line for Democrats in future elections. It takes forever to get a constitutional amendment passed. Amendments by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or by a national convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Ratification requires approval by three-fourths of state legislatures or state conventions.

The solution is very difficult to achieve, but it has to happen. Palantir is the model for why Citizens United is such a horrible ruling. Republicans need to get a spine and join Democrats to end it, once and for all.

As for Palantir leaving Denver, good riddance.

Mike Filion, Lakewood

What’s in a name?

Re: “Secretary on ‘freedom’ tour,” Feb. 24 photo

I’d just like to remind The Denver Post that the United States has a secretary of defense, not a secretary of war.

And if you don’t believe that, you can just go jump in the Gulf of America.

Robert Priddy, Westminster

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.

But , mounted to poles at intersections throughout this city of nearly 150,000, brought out dozens of people to the Thornton Community Center for a discussion on how the controversial license plate-reading cameras are being used — and whether they should be used at all.

Law enforcement agencies cite the automatic license-plate readers, or ALPRs, as a powerful tool that bolsters their ability to locate and stop suspects who may be on their way to committing their next assault or robbery.

But Meg Moore, a six-year resident of the city who is helping spearhead opposition to Flock cameras, said she worries about how the rapidly spreading surveillance system is impacting residents’ privacy and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thornton’s Flock camera data can be seen by more than 1,600 other law enforcement agencies across the country.

“We want to make sure this is truly safe and effective,” she said in an interview.

The debate over Atlanta-based Flock Safety’s cameras, which not only can record license plate numbers but can search for the specific characteristics of a vehicle linked to an alleged crime, has been picking up steam in recent years. The discussions in recent months, but this year they reached the state Capitol, where lawmakers are pitching a couple of bills to tighten up rules around surveillance.

The number of police agencies , according to the company. The critical “DeFlock” website uses crowdsourcing to tally the number of Flock cameras out there. At the latest count, the website lists nearly .

Metro Denver alone is home to hundreds of the cameras, .

In Denver, Mayor Mike Johnston has been butting heads with the City Council over the issue. Johnston is so convinced of Flock’s value in combating crime that in October, he extended the contract with the company against the wishes of much of the council. Denver has 111 Flock cameras.

In Longmont, elected leaders . Its City Council voted in December to pause all sharing of Flock Safety data with other municipalities, declined an expansion of its contract with the company and began searching for an alternative.

Louisville beat its Boulder County neighbor to the punch by several months, disabling its Flock cameras at the end of June and removing them by the start of October. City spokesman Derek Cosson said privacy concerns from residents largely drove the city’s decision.

Steve Mathias, a Thornton resident for nearly a decade, would like to see Flock’s cameras gone from his city. Short of that, he said, reliable controls on how the streetside data is collected, stored and shared are paramount.

“In our rush to make our community safe, we’re not getting the full picture of the risks we’re facing,” he said. “We’re making ourselves safe in some ways by making ourselves less safe in others.”

The hot-button debate in Thornton played out at last month’s community meeting and continued at a City Council meeting last week, where the city’s Police Department gave a presentation on the Flock system.

Cmdr. Chad Parker laid out several examples of Flock’s cameras being instrumental in apprehending bad actors — in cases ranging from homicide to sex assault to child exploitation to a $5,700 theft at a Nike store.

As recently as Monday, Thornton police that investigators had tracked down a man suspected of hitting and killing a 14-year-old boy who was riding a small motorized bike over the weekend. The agency said a Flock camera in Thornton gave officers a “strong lead” in identifying the hit-and-run suspect within 24 hours.

At the Feb. 3 council study session, police Chief Jim Baird described Flock’s camera system as “one of the best tools I’ve seen in 32 years of law enforcement.”

But that doesn’t sway those in Thornton who are wary of the camera network.

“I’m not a fan of building toward a surveillance state,” Mathias said.

The hazards of a system like Flock, he said, lie not just in the pervasive data-collection methods the company uses but also in who eventually might get to see and use that data — be it a rogue law enforcement officer or .

“A person who wants us to do us harm with this system will have as much capability as the police have to do good,” he said.

Crime-fighting tool or prone to misuse?

In November, a Columbine Valley police officer was disciplined after he accused a Denver woman of theft based in large part on evidence from Flock cameras, according to . The officer mistakenly claimed the woman had stolen a $25 package in a nearby town and said he’d used Flock cameras to track her car.

“It’s putting too much trust in the hands of people who don’t know what they’re doing,” DeFlock’s Will Freeman said of so many police agencies’ adoption of the technology.

Last summer, that the Loveland Police Department had shared access to its Flock camera system with U.S. Border Patrol. That came two months after the station reported that the department access to its account, which ATF agents then used to conduct searches for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Parker, the Thornton police commander, said any searches connected to immigration cases or to women from out of state who are seeking an abortion in Colorado — another scenario that’s been raised — “won’t ever touch our system.” State laws restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities and with other states’ abortion-related investigations.

“Any situation I feel uncomfortable about or that might be in conflict with our policies or with Colorado law, I will revoke their access — no problem,” he said.

Thornton deputy city attorney Adam Stephens said motorists’ Fourth Amendment rights are not being violated by the city’s Flock camera network. During last week’s meeting, he cited several recent court cases that, in essence, determined that there is no right to privacy while driving down a public roadway.

In an interview, Stephens said Thornton was “in compliance with the law.”

Flock spokesman Paris Lewbel wrote in an email that the company was “proud to partner with the Thornton Police Department to provide technology used to investigate and solve crimes and to help locate missing persons.”

Lewbel provided links to two news stories about minor children who were abducted and then found with the help of Flock’s cameras in Thornton and elsewhere.

At the council’s study session last week, Parker provided more examples of Flock’s role in fighting crime and finding missing people in Thornton. They included police nabbing a suspect who had hit and killed a pedestrian, locating a burglar who was suspected of robbing several dispensaries, and tracking down an 89-year-old man with dementia who had gotten into his car and gotten lost.

“It allows us to find vehicles in a manner we weren’t able to previously,” Parker said of the camera network.

Thornton installed its first 10 Flock cameras in 2022 and then added five more — plus a mobile unit — two years later. The initial deployment was in response to a spike in auto thefts in the city, which peaked at 1,205 in 2022 (amid an overall surge in Colorado). Thornton recorded 536 auto thefts last year.

The city says Flock cameras have been involved in 200 cases that resulted in an arrest or a warrant application in Thornton over the last three years.

Thornton police have access to nearly 2,200 other agencies’ Flock systems across the United States, while nearly 1,650 law enforcement agencies can access Thornton’s Flock data, according to data provided by the city.

For Anaya Robinson, the public policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, the networked nature of Flock cameras across wide geographies is a big part of the problem. By linking one police agency’s Flock technology with that of thousands of other police departments, it “creates a surveillance environment that could violate the Fourth Amendment.”

The sweeping nature of Flock’s surveillance is also worrisome, Robinson said.

“You’re not just collecting the data of vehicles that ping (a police department’s) hot list (of suspicious vehicles), you’re collecting the data of every vehicle that is caught on a Flock camera,” he said.

And because the technology is relatively inexpensive — Thornton pays $48,500 to Flock annually for its system — it’s an affordable crime-fighting tool for most communities. But that doesn’t mean it should be deployed, DeFlock’s Freeman said.

Fight remains a largely local one

State lawmakers are crafting bills this session to limit the reach of surveillance technologies like Flock’s.

would put limits on access to databases and the sharing of information. It would prohibit a government from accessing a database that reveals an individual’s or a vehicle’s historical location information, and it would prohibit sharing that information with third parties or with government agencies outside the controlling entity’s jurisdiction. Certain exceptions would apply.

would direct a “law enforcement agency to use surveillance technology only for lawful purposes directly related to public safety or for an active investigation.” It also would forbid the use of facial-recognition technology without a warrant and would place limits on the amount of time data can be retained.

Both bills await their first committee hearings.

Thornton says it doesn’t use facial recognition technology. Its Flock data is retained for 30 days.

Regardless of what passes at the state Capitol, the real fight over license plate readers of any type will likely continue to happen at the local level. Thornton’s council plans further discussions on Flock next month.

For Moore, the resident who is leading the charge against the cameras, potential surveillance of the immigrant community is what troubles her the most.

“We want to make sure we’re operating this so that it’s safe for all of our residents,” she said. “Getting rid of the cameras altogether is a tough sell. But there needs to be a conversation about guardrails.”

Mayor Pro Tem Roberta Ayala, a Thornton native, said she has heard a wide array of opinions from her constituents about the advantages and potential downsides of the technology.

“Could it be misused? Yes. Do we want to stop that? Yes,” she said.

But as a victim of crime herself, Ayala also knows the immense damage and disruption that crime causes victims and their families, be it a stolen vehicle or something much worse. And as a teacher, Ayala is concerned about achieving justice for the families of children who are harmed or abused.

“If it can save even five kids,” she said, “I want the cameras.”