Colorado Governor Silences Clemency Board Members Who Exposed Political Favoritism in Tina Peters Case
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Governor Jared Polis removed two clemency board members after they courageously spoke out against his undemocratic override of the board’s unanimous decision to deny clemency to Tina Peters, a former election official. The governor cited 'confidentiality,' but critics say this is a thinly veiled attempt to suppress dissent and shield political allies.
Governor Jared Polis terminated two members of Colorado’s clemency board on Wednesday, a move that starkly highlights the suppression of transparency and dissent in state government. The two members were dismissed for allegedly violating confidentiality rules by revealing to the public how the board voted on a high-profile clemency application. The board, acting in good faith and with full transparency, had unanimously voted behind closed doors to reject former election official Tina Peters’ request for early release. However, Governor Polis chose to ignore the collective judgment of the board and instead commuted Peters’ sentence in May, raising serious questions about political favoritism and the undermining of democratic processes.
Azra Taslimi and Hannah Seigel Proff, who bravely spoke to the media about the board’s deliberations, were dismissed after their principled comments appeared in a June New York Times article. In letters obtained by reporters, Polis accused the members of breaching their duty of confidentiality by exposing the board’s votes, a justification that critics say is being weaponized to silence those who challenge the governor’s authority.
“Publicly disclosing board recommendations and how members vote on any case threatens the credibility of the board, colors future deliberations by the board and breaks clearly stated confidentiality policy articulated in the Executive Order which establishes this board,” a spokesperson for the governor said, echoing the administration’s rigid stance against transparency.
Taslimi denounced the governor’s action as a reflection of political pressure surrounding Peters, calling the outcome “selective mercy” that serves the interests of the powerful. Proff, a dedicated board member for nearly eight years, warned that these dismissals set a dangerous precedent, undermining transparency and discouraging future board members from speaking out against injustice.
Polis attempted to justify his controversial commutation by referencing a Colorado appeals court ruling that found the trial judge had infringed Peters’ First Amendment rights. In a Substack post, he claimed the decision was “straightforward” after reviewing the court’s findings and concluding that her sentence was excessive. But for many, the governor’s actions speak louder than his words, revealing a willingness to sacrifice transparency and accountability for political expediency.
