Jon Caldara’s Gazette column argues that Colorado’s political class has made far too much theater out of Tina Peters. His point is not that Peters is a hero. He says plainly that she was convicted of serious crimes, did not prove elections were stolen, and deserved punishment.
But Caldara also argues the reaction to Gov. Jared Polis’s commutation has turned into another round of partisan performance art. The “Free Tina” crowd overplayed the martyr routine. The outrage machine overplayed the collapse-of-democracy routine. And regular Coloradans are left wondering whether anyone involved still remembers the difference between justice and content.
That is the useful reality check here. Election integrity matters. So does proportionate punishment. So does executive clemency. So does equal treatment under the law. None of those questions get clearer when political insiders turn one person into a civic circus and then charge admission in clicks, fundraising emails, and strongly worded letters.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Caldara says Peters committed serious crimes and insulted the sanctity of elections. That is the part the “Free Tina” crowd never wants printed on the yard sign.
- He also argues the punishment did not fit the crime, noting no election outcome changed, no office changed hands, and no voter was disenfranchised. Proportionality is not weakness. It is supposed to be part of justice.
- The column takes aim at both sides: the martyr-makers on the right and the left’s sudden discovery of maximum sentencing energy when the defendant is politically useful.
- Caldara suggests Democrats may miss having Peters as a convenient MAGA mascot. Nothing says “serious democracy defense” like secretly hoping the circus keeps selling popcorn.
- The bigger lesson is simple: laws should be enforced, punishment should be judged by facts, and clemency should not become another team-sport melodrama with everybody wearing face paint.
My Bottom Line
Regular Coloradans are exhausted by performative outrage. They are tired of being told every controversy is either the end of the republic or a heroic civil rights moment. Most people want a fair standard: enforce the law, protect elections, punish wrongdoing, keep sentences proportionate, and do not hand out special treatment because someone is useful to your faction.
That means voters who care about the Peters case because they care about election trust are not wrong to care. Election systems need transparency, chain of custody, clear rules, and accountability strong enough that people do not have to rely on folk heroes, villains, podcasts, or courthouse rumors. Trust is built with sunlight and competence, not hashtags and tribal chanting.
It also means Peters should not be made into a saint, and Polis should not be made into either a dictator or a redeemer for using clemency power. Clemency is real. Prosecutorial judgment is real. Sentencing proportionality is real. Public trust is real. The problem starts when every one of those serious civic questions gets fed into the outrage blender and poured into a campaign cup.
The next time a politically charged case comes along, regular people should ask three questions. Who benefits from the spectacle? What standard would we apply if the jerseys were reversed? And does this make government more accountable, or just give the professional outrage class another shiny object to bang together on television?
Source: The Gazette
Share your thoughts...