Eric Sondermann’s piece in the Denver Gazette takes on Gov. Jared Polis’ commutation in the Tina Peters case, and more importantly, the political circus that followed it. Sondermann’s argument is not complicated: Polis may have made a bad call, especially in a case touching elections and public trust, but not every bad call is proof that the republic has been loaded into a wood chipper.
That is the useful tension here. A commutation is not a pardon. A pardon forgives the conviction. A commutation reduces or changes the punishment while leaving the conviction in place. Governors have that power for a reason, but when they use it in a politically radioactive election case, they owe the public more than a shrug and a press release.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Sondermann’s Denver Gazette column argues that Polis’ commutation decision can be wrong, trust-damaging, and still not justify every overwrought political sermon delivered by people who discovered constitutional order five minutes ago.
- A commutation does not erase a conviction. It adjusts the sentence. That distinction matters, because words mean things, even in politics, where they are often treated like rented furniture.
- The Tina Peters case is uniquely sensitive because it sits right on top of election confidence, criminal accountability, and partisan suspicion. That is not a normal file in the governor’s inbox. That is a live grenade with paperwork.
- If Polis handled this as part of a larger batch of clemency actions, the public deserves a clear explanation of the criteria used and why this case qualified. Burying controversial decisions in administrative fog is how politicians tell you they know it smells bad.
- The reaction matters too. Inflating every controversial executive decision into “the end of America” makes accountability harder, not easier. Eventually, normal people tune out because the outrage machine keeps setting off the tornado siren for a stiff breeze.
My Bottom Line
Polis owns the decision. Full stop. A governor’s clemency power is constitutional, legal, and serious. It is also dangerous when used carelessly, especially in a case tied to elections. Public confidence is not some decorative throw pillow for good-government panels. It is the load-bearing wall. You crack it enough times, the whole room starts leaning.
But Sondermann is right about the other side of this mess. Some of the reaction has been less “principled concern” and more “tribal rodeo with microphones.” That does not help. Tina Peters does not need to become a folk saint for people to question Polis’ judgment. Polis does not need to be cast as a comic-book villain for citizens to demand answers. Adults can hold both thoughts at once, assuming we can still find a few.
Here is what matters: What criteria did Polis use? Who reviewed the request? What public explanation was given? Were similarly situated people treated the same way? And how does this decision affect confidence in local election administration, where ordinary clerks and staff already have enough gasoline thrown at them by national politics?
That is the difference between accountability and performance art. Accountability asks hard questions and expects receipts. Performance art puts on a hat, yells into a camera, and calls it patriotism. Spare us. If executive power is going to alter criminal punishment in a case this sensitive, the public deserves daylight, not a fog machine with a state seal on it.
Source: Denver Gazette
Share your thoughts...